INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
David Evans cs302: Theory of Computation University of Virginia Computer Science Lecture 17: ProvingUndecidability.
Advertisements

INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.
Complexity Classes: P and NP
INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.
INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.
Turing -Recognizable vs. -Decidable
1 Space Complexity. 2 Def: Let M be a deterministic Turing Machine that halts on all inputs. Space Complexity of M is the function f:N  N, where f(n)
Department of Computer Science & Engineering
FORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTABILITY
INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.
CSCI 4325 / 6339 Theory of Computation Zhixiang Chen.
Umans Complexity Theory Lectures Lecture 2a: Reductions & Completeness.
INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.
1 CSC3130 Formal Languages and Automata Theory Tutorial 9 Undecidable Problem KN Hung SHB 1026.
INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.
Complexity 25-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov #P-Completeness.
Complexity 11-1 Complexity Andrei Bulatov Space Complexity.
FORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTABILITY
CS 302: Discrete Math II A Review. An alphabet Σ is a finite set (e.g., Σ = {0,1}) A string over Σ is a finite-length sequence of elements of Σ For x.
FORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTABILITY Read sections 7.1 – 7.3 of the book for next time.
1 Polynomial Time Reductions Polynomial Computable function : For any computes in polynomial time.
Fall 2004COMP 3351 Reducibility. Fall 2004COMP 3352 Problem is reduced to problem If we can solve problem then we can solve problem.
Linear Bounded Automata LBAs
Automata & Formal Languages, Feodor F. Dragan, Kent State University 1 CHAPTER 5 Reducibility Contents Undecidable Problems from Language Theory.
CS5371 Theory of Computation Lecture 12: Computability III (Decidable Languages relating to DFA, NFA, and CFG)
INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.
INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.
INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.
PSPACE-Completeness Section 8.3 Giorgi Japaridze Theory of Computability.
Definition: Let M be a deterministic Turing Machine that halts on all inputs. Space Complexity of M is the function f:N  N, where f(n) is the maximum.
Theory of Computation 1 Theory of Computation Peer Instruction Lecture Slides by Dr. Cynthia Lee, UCSD are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing November 4, 2004.
February 18, 2015CS21 Lecture 181 CS21 Decidability and Tractability Lecture 18 February 18, 2015.
1 1. Draw the machine schema for a TM which when started with input 001 halts with abbb on the tape in our standard input format. 2. Suppose you have an.
Theory of Computing Lecture 17 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.
Cs3102: Theory of Computation Class 24: NP-Completeness Spring 2010 University of Virginia David Evans.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing November 29, 2005.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing December 1, 2004.
CSE 105 Theory of Computation Alexander Tsiatas Spring 2012 Theory of Computation Lecture Slides by Alexander Tsiatas is licensed under a Creative Commons.
CSCI 3160 Design and Analysis of Algorithms Tutorial 10 Chengyu Lin.
Class 24: P=NP? David Evans cs302: Theory of Computation University of Virginia Computer Science PS6 (the last one) is.
Decidable languages Section 4.1 CSC 4170 Theory of Computation.
A Problem That Is Complete for PSPACE (Polynomial Space) BY TEJA SUDHA GARIGANTI.
 2005 SDU Lecture13 Reducibility — A methodology for proving un- decidability.
CSCI 3130: Formal languages and automata theory Andrej Bogdanov The Chinese University of Hong Kong The Cook-Levin.
1 How to establish NP-hardness Lemma: If L 1 is NP-hard and L 1 ≤ L 2 then L 2 is NP-hard.
Turing -Recognizable vs. -Decidable
NP-complete Languages
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing December 2, 2004.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing December 7, 2005.
Complexity ©D.Moshkovitz 1 Our First NP-Complete Problem The Cook-Levin theorem A B C.
1 1. Which of these sequences correspond to Hamilton cycles in the graph? (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Theory of Computational Complexity Yuji Ishikawa Avis lab. M1.
Computability Examples. Reducibility. NP completeness. Homework: Find other examples of NP complete problems.
Decidability.
NP-Completeness A problem is NP-complete if: It is in NP
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
Linear Bounded Automata LBAs
Theory of Computability
Intro to Theory of Computation
Intro to Theory of Computation
Busch Complexity Lectures: Undecidable Problems (unsolvable problems)
Decidability of logical theories
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
CS154, Lecture 13: P vs NP.
Decidability of logical theories
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
CSE 105 theory of computation
Intro to Theory of Computation
Presentation transcript:

INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011

GENERALIZED GEOGRAPHY b a e c d f g i h

We show that FG  P GG GG IS PSPACE-HARD We convert a formula  into 〈 G,b 〉 such that: Player E has winning strategy in  if and only if Player I has winning strategy in 〈 G,b 〉 For simplicity we assume  is of the form:  =  x 1  x 2  x 3 …  x k [  ] where  is in cnf

b c TRUEFALSE x1x1 x2x2 xkxk c1c1 c2c2 cncn x1x1 (x 1  x 1  x 2 )  (  x 1   x 2   x 2 )  … x2x2 x2x2 x1x1 x1x1 x2x2

b TRUEFALSE x1x1 c1c1 x1x1 x1x1 x1x1 c  x 1 [ (x 1  x 1  x 1 ) ]

n x n GO, chess and checkers can be shown to be PSPACE-hard Question: Is Chess PSPACE complete? No, because determining whether Player I has a winning strategy takes constant time and space

Office hours next week: Tuesday 2-4pm Wednesday 10am-noon Thursday 10am-noon Friday 3-5pm FINAL EXAM SATURDAY, MAY 18 8:00AM – 10:00AM. Reminder: one page (8.5×11”) “cheat sheet”

1*(0 ∪ 01) 0 q0q0 q2q2 1 q1q1 0 1 {0 k 1 k | k ≥ 0} R → LRL | b L → a | b S → R | ε { ww | w ∈ {0,1}* } MODELS

0 → 0, R readwritemove  → , R q accept 0 → 0, R  → , R 0 → 0, R  → , L TURING MACHINES UNBOUNDED TAPE 0 q0q0 q0q0 q1q1 q2q2 q1q1 q2q2 0

A TM = {  M,w  | M is a TM that accepts string w } A TM is undecidable:(proof by contradiction) Assume there is a program accepts to decide A TM. accepts(  M ,w) = true if M(w) accepts false if M(w) does not. Construct a new TM LLPF that on input  M , runs accepts(  M ,  M  ) and “does the opposite”: LLPF(PROG ) =if (accepts( PROG, PROG )) then reject; else accept. LLPF

REDUCTIONS A  m B if there is a computable ƒ so that w  A  ƒ(w)  B ƒ is called a reduction from A to B A  P B if there is a poly-time computable ƒ so that w  A  ƒ(w)  B

COMPLEXITY THEORY P = Problems where it is easy to find the answer. NP = Problems where it’s easy to check the answer. If P = NP then generation is as easy as recognition. Is there a fast program for this problem? PSPACE = Problems that can be solved in polynomial space. If P = PSPACE then TIME is as powerful as SPACE.

COMPLETE PROBLEMS NP:3SAT,SUBSET-SUM,HAMPATH, VERTEX COVER, 3-COLOR,CLIQUE,… PSPACE:TQBF,FG,GEOGRAPHY,… If C is a class of languages and B is a language, then B is C-Complete if: 1. B ∈ C. 2. ∀ A ∈ C, A ≤ P C (i.e. B is C-Hard)

SPACE COMPLEXITY P VS NP POTPOURRI FINAL JEOPARDY 400

A tight asymptotic bound on the function ƒ(n) = n 3/2 + n log(n 2 )

A proof that SET-PARTITION ∈ NP, where SET-PARTITION = { T = {x 1,x 2,…,x n } | ∃ S ⊆ T so that Σ x ∈ S x = Σ y  S y }.

A proof that 3-COLOR ≤ P 4-COLOR, where 4-COLOR = {  G  | G is a graph that is 4-colorable. }

A proof of SUBSET-SUM ≤ P SET-PARTITION, where SET-PARTITION = { T = {x 1,x 2,…,x n } | ∃ S ⊆ T so that Σ x ∈ S x = Σ y  S y }.

A winning strategy for Player I in this GG instance: a b c d

A proof that PATH ∈ PSPACE, where PATH = {  G,s,t  | G is a directed graph with a path from s to t}

A proof that MIN-FORMULA ∈ PSPACE, where MIN-FORMULA = {  |  is a formula and ∀ formulae . |  | < |  | ⇒ ∃ x.  (x)   (x) }

A proof that 3SAT ≤ P TQBF.

A CFG for the language {  |  is in cnf }, where variable x i is represented by the string x i.

A proof that TQBF is not regular.

A proof that A TM is PSPACE-Hard.

A proof that {  M  | L(M) ∈ P } is undecidable, using the assumption P  NP.

FINAL JEOPARDY TRUE