Reducibility Sipser 5.1 (pages 187-198). CS 311 Fall 2008 2 Reducibility.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Measuring Time Complexity
Advertisements

David Evans cs302: Theory of Computation University of Virginia Computer Science Lecture 17: ProvingUndecidability.
CS 461 – Nov. 9 Chomsky hierarchy of language classes –Review –Let’s find a language outside the TM world! –Hints: languages and TM are countable, but.
Rice ’ s Theorem. Def: A property of the Turing-recognizable languages is simply a subset of all Turing- recognizable languages.
Turing -Recognizable vs. -Decidable
Nathan Brunelle Department of Computer Science University of Virginia Theory of Computation CS3102 – Spring 2014 A tale.
More Turing Machines Sipser 3.2 (pages ). CS 311 Fall Multitape Turing Machines Formally, we need only change the transition function to.
Reducibility Sipser 5.1 (pages ).
The Halting Problem Sipser 4.2 (pages ). CS 311 Mount Holyoke College 2 Taking stock All languages Turing-recognizable Turing-decidable Context-free.
The Halting Problem Sipser 4.2 (pages ).
Mapping Reducibility Sipser 5.3 (pages ).
More Turing Machines Sipser 3.2 (pages ).
CFG => PDA Sipser 2 (pages ). CS 311 Fall Formally… A pushdown automaton is a sextuple M = (Q, Σ, Γ, δ, q 0, F), where – Q is a finite set.
Mapping Reducibility Sipser 5.3 (pages ). CS 311 Fall Computable functions Definition 5.17: A function f:Σ*→Σ* is a computable function.
Decidable languages Sipser 4.1 (pages ). CS 311 Mount Holyoke College 2 Hierarchy of languages All languages Turing-recognizable Turing-decidable.
Fall 2004COMP 3351 Undecidable problems for Recursively enumerable languages continued…
Costas Busch - RPI1 Undecidable problems for Recursively enumerable languages continued…
FORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTABILITY
Fall 2003Costas Busch - RPI1 Decidability. Fall 2003Costas Busch - RPI2 Recall: A language is decidable (recursive), if there is a Turing machine (decider)
CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University CS310 Decidability Section 4.1/4.2 November 10, 2006.
Tutorial CSC3130 : Formal Languages and Automata Theory Tu Shikui ( ) SHB 905, Office hour: Thursday 2:30pm-3:30pm
Fall 2004COMP 3351 Reducibility. Fall 2004COMP 3352 Problem is reduced to problem If we can solve problem then we can solve problem.
1 Decidability continued. 2 Undecidable Problems Halting Problem: Does machine halt on input ? State-entry Problem: Does machine enter state halt on input.
Automata & Formal Languages, Feodor F. Dragan, Kent State University 1 CHAPTER 5 Reducibility Contents Undecidable Problems from Language Theory.
Courtesy Costas Busch - RPI1 Reducibility. Courtesy Costas Busch - RPI2 Problem is reduced to problem If we can solve problem then we can solve problem.
Theory of Computing Lecture 20 MAS 714 Hartmut Klauck.
Fall 2006Costas Busch - RPI1 Undecidable Problems (unsolvable problems)
Prof. Busch - LSU1 Reductions. Prof. Busch - LSU2 Problem is reduced to problem If we can solve problem then we can solve problem.
1 Reducibility. 2 Problem is reduced to problem If we can solve problem then we can solve problem.
The Halting Problem – Undecidable Languages Lecture 31 Section 4.2 Wed, Oct 31, 2007.
Decidable languages Section 4.1 CSC 4170 Theory of Computation.
 2005 SDU Lecture13 Reducibility — A methodology for proving un- decidability.
CS Master – Introduction to the Theory of Computation Jan Maluszynski - HT Lecture 7 Undecidability cont. Jan Maluszynski, IDA, 2007
Computability Universal Turing Machine. Countability. Halting Problem. Homework: Show that the integers have the same cardinality (size) as the natural.
CS 461 – Nov. 7 Decidability concepts –Countable = can number the elements  –Uncountable = numbering scheme impossible  –A TM undecidable –Language classes.
CSCI 3130: Formal languages and automata theory Andrej Bogdanov The Chinese University of Hong Kong Decidable.
THE HALTING PROBLEM - PROOF. Review  What makes a problem decidable?  3 properties of an efficient algorithm?  What is the meaning of “complete”, “mechanistic”,
CSC 3130: Automata theory and formal languages Andrej Bogdanov The Chinese University of Hong Kong Undecidable.
Recursively Enumerable and Recursive Languages. Definition: A language is recursively enumerable if some Turing machine accepts it.
Decidability.
Theory of Computability
Automata, Grammars and Languages
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
Busch Complexity Lectures: Reductions
Reductions.
Undecidable Problems Costas Busch - LSU.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
Reductions Costas Busch - LSU.
Reducibility The Chinese University of Hong Kong Fall 2010
CS154, Lecture 10: Rice’s Theorem, Oracle Machines
Busch Complexity Lectures: Undecidable Problems (unsolvable problems)
Undecidable Problems (unsolvable problems)
CS154, Lecture 8: Undecidability, Mapping Reductions
CS154, Lecture 10: Rice’s Theorem, Oracle Machines
CS154, Lecture 8: Undecidability, Mapping Reductions
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
Decidable Languages Costas Busch - LSU.
Decidability and Undecidability
CSC 4170 Theory of Computation Decidable languages Section 4.1.
Decidable and undecidable languages
Undecidable problems:
Computability and Complexity
Intro to Theory of Computation
More undecidable languages
Theory of Computability
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
Theory of Computability
More undecidable languages
Automata, Grammars and Languages
More Undecidable Problems
Presentation transcript:

Reducibility Sipser 5.1 (pages )

CS 311 Fall Reducibility

CS 311 Fall Driving directions Western Mass Cambridge Boston

CS 311 Fall If you can’t drive to London…

CS 311 Fall If something’s impossible… Theorem 4.11: A TM = { | M is a TM and M accepts w } is undecidable. Define: HALT TM = { | M is a TM and M halts on input w } Is HALT TM decidable?

CS 311 Fall The Halting Problem (again!) Theorem 5.1: HALT TM is undecidable. Proof Idea: –We know A TM is undecidable. –We need to reduce one of HALT TM or A TM to the other. Which way to go?

CS 311 Fall HALT TM is undecidable. Proof: Suppose R decides HALT TM. Define S = "On input, where M is a TM and w a string: 1.Run TM R on input. 2.If R rejects, then reject. 3.If R accepts, simulate M on input w until it halts. 4.If M enters its accept state, accept; if M enters its reject state, reject."

CS 311 Fall What about emptiness? E TM = { | M is a TM and L(M) = Ø} Theorem 5.2: E TM is undecidable.

CS 311 Fall A step along the way Given an input, define a machine M w as follows. M w = "On input x : 1.If x ≠ w, reject. 2.If x = w, run M on input w and accept if M does.”

CS 311 Fall E TM = { | M is a TM and L(M) = Ø} Proof: Suppose TM R decides E TM. Define a TM to decide A TM S = "On input : 1.Use the description of M and w to construct M w. 2.Run R on input. 3.If R accepts, reject; if R rejects, accept."

CS 311 Fall With power comes uncertainty M accepts w L(M) = ØL(M 1 ) = L(M 2 ) Turing machines ✗✗✗ PDA ✔✔✗ Finite automata ✔✔✔

CS 311 Fall Is there anything that can be done? Rice’s Theorem: Testing any nontrivial property of the languages recognized by Turing machines is undecidable!

CS 311 Fall We can’t even tell when something’s regular! REGULAR TM = { | M is a TM and L(M) is regular} Theorem 5.3: REGULAR TM is undecidable.

CS 311 Fall REGULAR TM is undecidable Proof: Assume R is a TM that decides REGULAR TM. Define S = "On input : 1.Construct TM M 2 = "On input x : 1.If x has the form 0 n 1 n, accept. 2.Otherwise, run M on input w and accept if M accepts w." 2.Run R on input. 3.If R accepts, accept; if R rejects, reject."