D E C I D A B I L I T Y 1. 2 Objectives To investigate the power of algorithms to solve problems. To explore the limits of algorithmic solvability. To.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
By John E. Hopcroft, Rajeev Motwani and Jeffrey D. Ullman
Advertisements

Applied Computer Science II Chapter 4: Decidability Prof. Dr. Luc De Raedt Institut für Informatik Albert-Ludwigs Universität Freiburg Germany.
THE CHURCH-TURING T H E S I S “ TURING MACHINES” Pages COMPUTABILITY THEORY.
CSCI 4325 / 6339 Theory of Computation Zhixiang Chen Department of Computer Science University of Texas-Pan American.
1 COMP 382: Reasoning about algorithms Unit 9: Undecidability [Slides adapted from Amos Israeli’s]
1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture14: Recap Prof. Amos Israeli.
1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture12: Decidable Languages Prof. Amos Israeli.
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 ). 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.
CS5371 Theory of Computation
Courtesy Costas Busch - RPI1 Non Deterministic Automata.
Fall 2003Costas Busch - RPI1 Decidability. Fall 2003Costas Busch - RPI2 Recall: A language is decidable (recursive), if there is a Turing machine (decider)
Decidability. Why study un-solvability? When a problem is algorithmically unsolvable, we realize that the problem must be simplified or altered before.
Decidable and undecidable problems deciding regular languages and CFL’s Undecidable problems.
CHAPTER 4 Decidability Contents Decidable Languages
CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University CS310 Decidability Section 4.1/4.2 November 10, 2006.
Foundations of (Theoretical) Computer Science Chapter 4 Lecture Notes (Section 4.1: Decidable Languages) David Martin With modifications.
Fall 2006Costas Busch - RPI1 Non-Deterministic Finite Automata.
CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University CS310 The Halting Problem Section 4.2 November 15, 2006.
January 28, 2015CS21 Lecture 101 CS21 Decidability and Tractability Lecture 10 January 28, 2015.
Fall 2006Costas Busch - RPI1 Undecidable Problems (unsolvable problems)
Prof. Busch - LSU1 Undecidable Problems (unsolvable problems)
CS5371 Theory of Computation Lecture 12: Computability III (Decidable Languages relating to DFA, NFA, and CFG)
Remaining Topics Decidability Concept 4.1 The Halting Problem 4.2
REGULAR LANGUAGES.
The Halting Problem – Undecidable Languages Lecture 31 Section 4.2 Wed, Oct 31, 2007.
4b 4b Lexical analysis Finite Automata. Finite Automata (FA) FA also called Finite State Machine (FSM) –Abstract model of a computing entity. –Decides.
Computer Language Theory
Decidable languages Section 4.1 CSC 4170 Theory of Computation.
1Computer Sciences Department. Book: INTRODUCTION TO THE THEORY OF COMPUTATION, SECOND EDITION, by: MICHAEL SIPSER Reference 3Computer Sciences Department.
CS 208: Computing Theory Assoc. Prof. Dr. Brahim Hnich Faculty of Computer Sciences Izmir University of Economics.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing October 12, 2005.
 2005 SDU Lecture13 Reducibility — A methodology for proving un- decidability.
1Computer Sciences Department. Book: INTRODUCTION TO THE THEORY OF COMPUTATION, SECOND EDITION, by: MICHAEL SIPSER Reference 3Computer Sciences Department.
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 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing October 13, 2005.
Donghyun (David) Kim Department of Mathematics and Computer Science North Carolina Central University 1 Chapter 4 Decidability Some slides are in courtesy.
Donghyun (David) Kim Department of Mathematics and Computer Science North Carolina Central University 1 Chapter 5 Reducibility Some slides are in courtesy.
 2005 SDU Lecture11 Decidability.  2005 SDU 2 Topics Discuss the power of algorithms to solve problems. Demonstrate that some problems can be solved.
CSCI 3130: Formal languages and automata theory Andrej Bogdanov The Chinese University of Hong Kong Decidable.
1 Turing Machines. 2 The Language Hierarchy Regular Languages Context-Free Languages ? ?
Decidability.
 2005 SDU Lecture14 Mapping Reducibility, Complexity.
The Acceptance Problem for TMs
Non Deterministic Automata
This statement is false.
Busch Complexity Lectures: Reductions
Reductions.
Undecidable Problems Costas Busch - LSU.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
Reductions Costas Busch - LSU.
Automata, Grammars and Languages
BCS 2143 Theory of Computer Science
Chapter 2 FINITE AUTOMATA.
Busch Complexity Lectures: Undecidable Problems (unsolvable problems)
Undecidable Problems (unsolvable problems)
Jaya Krishna, M.Tech, Assistant Professor
Non-Deterministic Finite Automata
Non-Deterministic Finite Automata
Decidable Languages Costas Busch - LSU.
Non Deterministic Automata
Finite Automata.
CS21 Decidability and Tractability
CS21 Decidability and Tractability
Chapter 1 Regular Language
Automata, Grammars and Languages
Turing Machines Everything is an Integer
Presentation transcript:

D E C I D A B I L I T Y 1

2

Objectives To investigate the power of algorithms to solve problems. To explore the limits of algorithmic solvability. To study this phenomenon “unsolvability”: – the problem must be simplified or altered before you can find an algorithmic solution. – cultural. 3

DECIDABLE LANGUAGES Languages that are decidable by algorithms. – For example: present an algorithm that tests whether a string is a member of a context-free language (CFL). 4

DECIDABLE PROBLEMS CONCERNING REGULAR LANGUAGES algorithms for testing: – whether a finite automaton accepts a string, – whether the language of a finite automaton is empty, and – whether two finite automata are equivalent. 5

DECIDABLE PROBLEMS CONCERNING REGULAR LANGUAGES (cont.) For example: – the acceptance problem for DFAs of testing whether a particular deterministic finite automaton accepts a given string can be expressed as a language, A DFA. 6

7

PROOF 4.1 B is simply a list of its five components, Q, A,, qo, and F. When M receives its input, M first determines whether it properly represents a DFA B and a string w. If not, Al rejects. 8 ƍ

PROOF 4.1 (cont) It keeps track of B's current state and B's current position in the input w by writing this information down on its tape. Initially, B's current state is qo and B's current input position is the leftmost symbol of w. The states and position are updated according to the specified transition function. When M finishes processing the last symbol of w, M accepts the input if B is in an accepting state; M rejects the input if B is in a nonaccepting state. 9 ƍ

DECIDABLE PROBLEMS CONCERNING REGULAR LANGUAGES (cont.) 10

NFA PROOF 11 THEOREM 1.39 Every nondeterministic finite automaton has an equivalent deterministic finite automaton. THEOREM 1.39 Every nondeterministic finite automaton has an equivalent deterministic finite automaton.

Regular expressions “REX” 12 PROOF

Emptiness 13 PROOF

THEOREM 4.5 EQ DFA is a decidable language. 14

DECIDABLE PROBLEMS CONCERNING CONTEXT-FREE LANGUAGES Theorem 4.8 read only Theorem 4.9 read only 15

THE HALTING PROBLEM There is a specific problem that is algorithmically unsolvable. All problem can be solved via computer??? Some ordinary problems that people want to solve turn out to be computationally unsolvable. Computer program and a precise specification of what that program is supposed to do (e.g., sort a list of numbers) “ program + specification = mathematically precise objects ”. 16

TM recognizer - decider This theorem shows that recognizers are more powerful than deciders. 17

TM “recognizer – decider” (cont.) this machine loops on input if M loops on w, which is why this machine does not decide A TM = halting problem. 18

THE DIAGONALIZATION METHOD The proof of the undecidability of the halting problem uses a technique called diagonalization, discovered by mathematician Georg Cantor in If we have two infinite sets, how can we tell whether one is larger than the other or whether they are of the same size? DEFINITION one-to-one. 19

EXAMPLE 1 (countable) Let N be the set of natural numbers {1, 2, 3,... } and let Ɛ be the set of even natural numbers {2,4,6,... }. The correspondence f mapping N to Ɛ is simply f(n) = 2n. pairing each member of N with its own member of Ɛ is possible, so we declare these two sets to be the same size. 20

some languages are not decidable or even Turing recognizable, for the reason that there are uncountably many languages yet only countably many Turing machines. 21 EXAMPLE 2 (uncountable)

A TURING-UNRECOGNIZABLE LANGUAGE (Homework) 22