Turing -Recognizable vs. -Decidable

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Turing -Recognizable vs. -Decidable
Advertisements

CSCI 4325 / 6339 Theory of Computation Zhixiang Chen Department of Computer Science University of Texas-Pan American.
Mapping Reducibility Sipser 5.3 (pages ). CS 311 Fall Computable functions Definition 5.17: A function f:Σ*→Σ* is a computable function.
Fall 2004COMP 3351 Reducibility. Fall 2004COMP 3352 Problem is reduced to problem If we can solve problem then we can solve problem.
Automata & Formal Languages, Feodor F. Dragan, Kent State University 1 CHAPTER 5 Reducibility Contents Undecidable Problems from Language Theory.
Theory of Computing Lecture 20 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
Context-Free Grammars: Review Basic idea: set of production rules induces a language Finite set of variables: V = {V 1, V 2,..., V k } Finite set of terminals:
Decidability of Languages That Do Not Ask Questions about Turing Machines Chapter 22.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing November 4, 2004.
The Halting Problem – Undecidable Languages Lecture 31 Section 4.2 Wed, Oct 31, 2007.
MA/CSSE 474 Theory of Computation Enumerability Reduction.
 2005 SDU Lecture13 Reducibility — A methodology for proving un- decidability.
Turing -Recognizable vs. -Decidable
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.
1 Recursively Enumerable and Recursive Languages.
Recursively Enumerable and Recursive Languages. Definition: A language is recursively enumerable if some Turing machine accepts it.
Decidability.
Fall 2006Costas Busch - RPI1 RE languages and Enumerators.
Chapters 11 and 12 Decision Problems and Undecidability.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
Recursively Enumerable Languages
Theory of Computability
Regular Languages, Regular Operations, Closure
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
Theory of Computability
Busch Complexity Lectures: Reductions
Linear Bounded Automata LBAs
Undecidable Problems Costas Busch - LSU.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
Reductions Costas Busch - LSU.
Automata, Grammars and Languages
Computing with Turing Machines
Computing with Turing Machines
LIMITS OF ALGORITHMIC COMPUTATION
CSE 105 theory of computation
CS154, Lecture 10: Rice’s Theorem, Oracle Machines
Theory of Computation CS302 – Spring 2009
Busch Complexity Lectures: Undecidable Problems (unsolvable problems)
Undecidable Problems (unsolvable problems)
Turing acceptable languages and Enumerators
Context-Free Grammars: Review
CS154, Lecture 10: Rice’s Theorem, Oracle Machines
Recap lecture 29 Example of prefixes of a language, Theorem: pref(Q in R) is regular, proof, example, Decidablity, deciding whether two languages are equivalent.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
Decidable Languages Costas Busch - LSU.
Decidability and Undecidability
Turing acceptable languages and Enumerators
Undecidable problems:
MA/CSSE 474 Theory of Computation
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
Formal Languages: Review
Theory of Computability
CSE 105 theory of computation
Theory of Computability
Theory of Computability
Turing -Recognizable vs. -Decidable
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
Decidability continued….
Instructor: Aaron Roth
Theory of Computability
Instructor: Aaron Roth
Instructor: Aaron Roth
More Undecidable Problems
MA/CSSE 474 Theory of Computation
Formal Languages: Review
MA/CSSE 474 Theory of Computation
CSE 105 theory of computation
Presentation transcript:

Turing -Recognizable vs. -Decidable √ Accept & halt ´ Reject & halt Never runs forever w→ Input Def: A language is Turing-decidable iff it is exactly the set of strings accepted by some always-halting TM. wÎΣ* = a b aa ab ba bb aaa aab aba abb baa bab bba bbb aaaa … M(w)Þ √ ´ L(M) = { a, aa, aaa, …} Note: M must always halt on every input.

Turing -Recognizable vs. -Decidable √ Accept & halt ´ Reject & halt ≡ ∞ Run forever w→ Input Def: A language is Turing-recognizable iff it is exactly the set of strings accepted by some Turing machine. wÎΣ* = a b aa ab ba bb aaa aab aba abb baa bab bba bbb aaaa … M(w)Þ √ ´ ∞ L(M) = { a, aa, aaa, …} Note: M can run forever on an input, which is implicitly a reject (since it is not an accept).

Recognition vs. Enumeration Def: “Decidable” means “Turing-decidable” “Recognizable” means “Turing-recognizable” Theorem: Every decidable language is also recognizable. Theorem: Some recognizable languages are not decidable. Ex: The halting problem is recognizable but not decidable. Note: Decidability is a special case of recognizability. Note: It is easier to recognize than to decide.

Famous Deciders “A wrong decision is better than indecision.” “I'm the decider, and I decide what is best.”

Famous Deciders

Recognition and Enumeration Def: An “enumerator” Turing machine for a language L prints out precisely all strings of L on its output tape. b $ a Note: The order of enumeration may be arbitrary. Theorem: If a language is decidable, it can be enumerated in lexicographic order by some Turing machine. Theorem: If a language can be enumerated in lexicographic order by some TM, it is decidable.

Recognition and Enumeration Def: An “enumerator” Turing machine for a language L prints out precisely all strings of L on its output tape. b $ a Note: The order of enumeration may be arbitrary. Theorem: If a language is recognizable, then it can be enumerated by some Turing machine. Theorem: If a language can be enumerated by some TM, then it is recognizable.

√ ´ Decidability Accept & halt Reject & halt Never runs forever w→ Input Def: A language is Turing-decidable iff it is exactly the set of strings accepted by some always-halting TM. Theorem: The finite languages are decidable. Theorem: The regular languages are decidable. Theorem: The context-free languages are decidable.

A “Simple” Example Let S = {x3 + y3 + z3 | x, y, z Î ℤ } Q: Is S infinite? A: Yes, since S contains all cubes. Q: Is S Turing-recognizable? A: Yes, since dovetailing TM can enumerate S. Q: Is S Turing-decidable? A: Unknown! Q: Is 29ÎS? A: Yes, since 33+13+13=29 Q: Is 30ÎS? A: Yes, since (2220422932)3+(-2218888517)3+(-283059965)3=30 Q: Is 33ÎS? Theorem [Matiyasevich, 1970]: Hilbert’s 10th problem (1900), namely of determining whether a given Diophantine (i.e., multi-variable polynomial) equation has any integer solutions, is not decidable.

Reducibilities computable function/map ƒ:å*®å* where "w wÎA Û ƒ(w)ÎB Def: A language A is reducible to a language B if computable function/map ƒ:å*®å* where "w wÎA Û ƒ(w)ÎB Note: ƒ is called a “reduction” of A to B Denotation: A £ B Intuitively, A is “no harder” than B

Reducibilities computable function/map ƒ:å*®å* where "w wÎA Û ƒ(w)ÎB Def: A language A is reducible to a language B if computable function/map ƒ:å*®å* where "w wÎA Û ƒ(w)ÎB Theorem: If A £ B and B is decidable then A is decidable. Theorem: If A £ B and A is undecidable then B is undecidable. Note: be very careful about the direction!

Reduction Example 1 x Note: M’ is not run! Def: Let He be the halting problem for TMs running on w=e. “Does TM M halt on e?” He = { <M>Îå*| M(e) halts } Theorem: He is not decidable. Proof: Reduction from the Halting Problem H: Given an arbitrary TM M and input w, construct new TM M’ that if it ran on input x, it would: Overwrite x with the fixed w on tape; Simulate M on the fixed input w; Accept Û M accepts w. Note: M’ halts on e (and on any xÎå*) Û M halts on w. A decider (oracle) for He can thus be used to decide H! Since H is undecidable, He must be undecidable also. x M’ Ignore x Simulate M on w If M(w) halts then halt Note: M’ is not run!