Theory of Computability

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture14: Recap Prof. Amos Israeli.
Advertisements

1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture15: Reductions Prof. Amos Israeli.
1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture12: Reductions Prof. Amos Israeli.
Mapping Reducibility Sipser 5.3 (pages ).
1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture13: Mapping Reductions Prof. Amos Israeli.
Mapping Reducibility Sipser 5.3 (pages ). CS 311 Fall Computable functions Definition 5.17: A function f:Σ*→Σ* is a computable function.
FORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTABILITY
CHAPTER 4 Decidability Contents Decidable Languages
Automata & Formal Languages, Feodor F. Dragan, Kent State University 1 CHAPTER 5 Reducibility Contents Undecidable Problems from Language Theory.
CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University CS310 The Halting Problem Section 4.2 November 15, 2006.
Theory of Computing Lecture 20 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
Prof. Busch - LSU1 Reductions. Prof. Busch - LSU2 Problem is reduced to problem If we can solve problem then we can solve problem.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing November 4, 2004.
 2005 SDU Lecture13 Reducibility — A methodology for proving un- decidability.
Turing -Recognizable vs. -Decidable
Overview of the theory of computation Episode 3 0 Turing machines The traditional concepts of computability, decidability and recursive enumerability.
Donghyun (David) Kim Department of Mathematics and Computer Science North Carolina Central University 1 Chapter 4 Decidability Some slides are in courtesy.
Turing Machines Sections 17.6 – The Universal Turing Machine Problem: All our machines so far are hardwired. ENIAC
Costas Busch - RPI1 Decidability. Costas Busch - RPI2 Another famous undecidable problem: The halting problem.
CSC 3130: Automata theory and formal languages Andrej Bogdanov The Chinese University of Hong Kong Undecidable.
Decidability.
 2005 SDU Lecture14 Mapping Reducibility, Complexity.
The Acceptance Problem for TMs
Recursively Enumerable Languages
Theory of Computability
Recursively Enumerable and Recursive Languages
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
This statement is false.
Theory of Computability
Busch Complexity Lectures: Reductions
Undecidable Problems Costas Busch - LSU.
Lecture12 The Halting Problem
Reductions Costas Busch - LSU.
Automata, Grammars and Languages
Theory of Computability
CSC 4170 Theory of Computation Turing reducibility Section 6.3.
Reducibility The Chinese University of Hong Kong Fall 2010
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
Intro to Theory of Computation
Busch Complexity Lectures: Undecidable Problems (unsolvable problems)
CS154, Lecture 8: Undecidability, Mapping Reductions
CS154, Lecture 8: Undecidability, Mapping Reductions
Decidability of logical theories
CSE 105 theory of computation
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
Decidable Languages Costas Busch - LSU.
Decidability and Undecidability
Undecidable problems:
Reducability Sipser, pages
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
CSC 4170 Theory of Computation Mapping Reducibility Section 5.3.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
More undecidable languages
Theory of Computability
Decidability of logical theories
CS21 Decidability and Tractability
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
Theory of Computability
CSE 105 theory of computation
Theory of Computability
Instructor: Aaron Roth
CSC 4170 Theory of Computation Mapping Reducibility Section 5.3.
Theory of Computability
More undecidable languages
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
Intro to Theory of Computation
Instructor: Aaron Roth
Intro to Theory of Computation
Intro to Theory of Computation
CSE 105 theory of computation
Presentation transcript:

Theory of Computability Giorgi Japaridze Theory of Computability Reducibility Chapter 5

The undecidability of the halting problem Giorgi Japaridze Theory of Computability Let HALTTM = {<M,w> | M is a TM and M halts on input w} HALTTM is called the halting problem. Theorem 5.1: HALTTM is undecidable. Proof idea: Assume, for a contradiction, that HALTTM is decidable. I.e. there is a TM R that decides HALTTM. Construct the following TM S: S = “On input <M,w>, an encoding of a TM M and a string w: 1. Run R on input <M,w>. 2. If R rejects, reject. 3. If R accepts, simulate M on w until it halts. 4. If M has accepted, accept; if M has rejected, reject.” If M works forever on w, what will S do on <M,w>? If M accepts w, what will S do on input <M,w>? If M explicitly rejects w, what will S do on <M,w>? Thus, S decides the language But this is impossible (Theorem 4.11)

Definition of mapping reducibility Giorgi Japaridze Theory of Computability We say that A is mapping reducible to B, written AmB, if there is a computable function f: ** such that, for every w*, wA iff f(w)B. The function f is called a mapping reduction of A to B. Let A and B be languages over an alphabet . * * A B f f

Using mapping reducibility for proving decidability/undecidability Giorgi Japaridze Theory of Computability Theorem 5.22: If AmB and B is decidable, then A is decidable. Proof: Let DB be a decider for B and f be a mapping reduction from A to B. We describe a decider DA for A as follows. DA= “On input w: 1. Compute f(w). 2. Run DB on input f(w) and do whatever DB does.” Corollary 5.23: If AmB and A is undecidable, then B is undecidable. Theorem 5.22 remains valid with “Turing recognizable” instead of “decidable”. So does Corollary 5.23.

A mapping reduction of ATM to HALTTM Giorgi Japaridze Theory of Computability For a TM M, let M* be the TM obtained from M by adding a dead-end (infinite loop) state and re-directing into it all transitions that go to the reject state. Thus, If M accepts input x, then M* If M explicitly rejects x, then M* If M never halts on x, then M* To summarize, M accepts x iff M* Let then f be the function defined by f(<M,w>)=<M*,w>. Is f computable? Obviously <M,w>ATM iff f(<M,w>) i.e. f is a So, since ATM is undecidable, HALTTM is undecidable as well.