CS 361 Meeting 28 11/14/18
|
|
- Maria Gilmore
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 CS 361 Meeting 28 11/14/18 Announcements 1. Homework 9 due Friday Computation Histories 1. Some very interesting proos o undecidability rely on the technique o constructing a language that describes the possible computations o a TM on one or more inputs. 2. Recall that a TM coniguration is a triple (q, u, v) with q Q representing the current state o the control, u Γ representing the contents o the tape to the let o the current head position, and v Γ representing the tape contents rom the head to the right end o the non-blank tape. 3. We can use a sequence o strings that describe conigurations to describe the complete computation o a TM. Deinition: Given a TM M = (Q, Σ, Γ, δ, q 0, q accept, q reject ) and a string w Σ, we deine the language o accepting computation histories o M on w as L Computation history (M, w) = {w 0 w 1...w n each w i is a coniguration or M w 0 is the initial coniguration or w w n is a inal/accept coniguration each w i yields w i+1 according to δ } 4. In general, L Computation history (M, w) is a pretty complicated language. It is decidable, but it is not regular or context-ree. 5. Interestingly, i M is deterministic, then L Computation history (M, w) is actually a very simple language. It is either equal to i w / L(M) or it contains a single string i w M. Click here to view the slides or this class This is interesting because the empty language and any language containing just 1 (or any inite number) o strings must be regular and thereore context-ree. I given the description o M and w we could build a DFA that accepted L Computation history (M, w) then since emptiness o a regular language is decidable, we could decide whether w L(M). This question is better known as A T M and we know that it is undecidable! This implies that even though L Computation history (M, w) must be regular i M is deterministic, there is no algorithm to ind a DFA or the language given a description o M. The DFA is uncomputable! 6. To get a bit closer to being able to ind a way to compute L Computation history (M, w), we can deine a slight variation o this language: Deinition: Given a TM M = (Q, Σ, Γ, δ, q 0, q accept, q reject ) and a string w Σ, we deine the language o reversed computation histories o M on w as L R Computation history (M, w) = {w 0 w1 R...w n each w i is a coniguration or M w 0 is the initial coniguration or w w n is a inal/accept coniguration each w i yields w i+1 according to δ every other w i is written backwards } 7. Again, i M is deterministic, this language is inite and thereore both regular and context-ree. 8. You should imagine that it would be possible to construct a CFG or a PDA that ensures that all even-odd pairs o strings or all odd-even pairs o conigurations in such strings satisied the yields requirement, the PDA or CFG can only ensure that every other coniguration yields its successor. 1
2 9. Somewhat amazingly the complement o L R Computation history (M, w) which is ar rom inite is context-ree and we can eectively construct a PDF or CFG that describes it given a description o M and w. The trick is that we can describe a PDA that uses its nondeterminism to guess where the eature that would make a string invalid as a computation history occurs and then use the stack o the PDA to validate the guesses. The PDA guesses one o the ollowing issues: The whole string is not ormatted properly (this is regular), For any pair o consecutive conigurations, the earlier coniguration does not yield the ollowing coniguration (a PDA could nondeterministically guess which pair didn t match, push the irst coniguration on its stack and then veriy the mismatch as it read the next coniguration), The irst coniguration is not a valid initial coniguration or w (again regular), The last coniguration is not an accepting coniguration (again regular). 10. Using this act, we can show that ALL CF G is not recognizable by reducing A T M to ALL CF G. To do this, we will assume the existence o a TM M ALLCF G that recognizes ALL CF G and build a TM M AT M that recognizes A T M. M AT M should accept its input i it is not a valid encoding o a TM description and input. Next, M AT M should create a CFG G M or L R Computation history (M, w). Finally, M AT M should run M ALLCF G on G M and accept i M ALLCF G accepts. This machine recognizes A T M because M has an accepting computation history on w i w L(M). As a result, L R Computation history (M, w) = L(G M ) = Σ exactly when w / L(M). Since it would be a contradiction i we could recognize A T M, it must be impossible to recognize ALL CF G. 11. Since we can recognize ALL CF G by simply checking all strings looking or one that cannot be derived rom the grammar, this implies that ALL CF G is recognizable but not decidable. Just about Everything about TMs is Undecidable 1. It turns out that just about every interesting question about Turing machines is undecidable. One consequence o this is that just about hal o all interesting questions are not recognizable (because i both a language and its complement are recognizable then both languages are decidable). 2. With this in mind, it should be easy to ind some more languages to practice our reduction proo skills. 3. Here are just a ew possible examples: REV ERSIBLE T M = { M w L(M) i w R L(M)} REGULAR T M = { M L(M) is regular} DISJOINT T M = { M, N L(M) L(N) = } P RIME T M = { M w L(M) w is prime} 4. To give us one more bit o practice with this, let s show that REV ERSIBLE T M is not recognizable. First, observe that {ab} and {a n b n n 0, are nice examples o sets that are not reversible while and Σ are deinitely reversible.. We have seen several proos in which the machine M we built given an input M, w accepted all inputs i M accepted w and rejected all inputs (possible by looping) otherwise. It is easy to reine this machine by running another Turing machine as a sub-module ater M determines whether M accepts w. For example, we could only accept strings o the orm a n b n i M accepts w. 2
3 This results in M REV ERSIBLE T M exactly when w / L(M). This gives us what we need to give a proo that REV ERSIBLE T M is not recognizable: Proo: Assume that REV ERSIBLE T M is recognized by some Turing machine M RT M. Construct a machine M AT M that operates as ollows: (a) I the machine s input is not a valid encoding o a Turing machine and its input, accept. (b) Otherwise, construct a description o a new machine M which behaves as ollows: On input w, simulate M on w. I M accepts w, then accept w i it is a string o the orm a n b n. Otherwise, reject. Run M RT M on M and accept i it does. The machine M AT M will accept M, w exactly when w / L(M) since in this case, L(M ) = is reversible while otherwise L(M ) = a n b n which is not reversible. 5. It is just as easy to show that REV ERSIBLE T M is not recognizable. 6. We will stick with a n b n as our non-regular language. We will switch rom to Σ or our reversible language. Mapping Reductions 1. We have observed that many o the proos o undecidability and nonrecognizability we have explored have a very similar structure. 2. We can ormalize these similarities in the notion o mapping reducibility and then use this idea to simpliy the proos or many results involving decidability and recognizability. 3. First we must deine the idea o a computable unction. Deinition: A unction rom Σ Σ is computable i and only i some Turing machine M on every input w, halts with (w) on its tape. 4. This deinition is mainly an admission that Turing machines can do interesting things other than just accept and reject. This is not new. One o the irst TMs we considered implemented a computable unction. It took input strings and did its best to insert a # in the middle o them. In each o the non-recognizability proos we have given, we have embedded such a computable unction. Namely, the computation that generated M given some M, w. 5. Given the notion o computable unctions, we can capture the essence o what our M s are really about. Deinition: Language A is many-to-one reducible to language B (written A m B) i there exists a computable unction : Σ Σ such that or every w Σ w A (w) B. In this case we call a reduction. 6. Let me share two handy memory aids or dealing with the notation. (a) The point o the goes in the direction opposite the unction arrow. (b) It helps to read the as is easier than rather than is less than. 7. The ollowing diagram illustrates what this deinition requires and allows. It must map members o A to members o B. It must map strings that are not in A to strings that are not in B. 3
4 It can map multiple input strings to the same output. 8. As a simple example, the computable unction A (< M, w >) = < M > where M is a TM that ignores its input, runs M on w and accepts its input i M accepts w. shows that A T M m ALL T M since it maps any < M, w > that belongs in A T M to an < M > that belongs in ALL T M. 9. Note that there is nothing that inherently ties this computable unction to A T M and ALL T M. As long as we can identiy two languages A and B such that w A (w) B, A M B. As an easy example o this, note that this unction also shows that A T M m ALL T M. In general A M B A M B. 10. As a more diverse example, this unction also shows that A T M m E T M since it maps any < M, w > that belongs in A T M to an < M > that belongs in E T M. 11. With these deinitions, we can succinctly ormalize the technique we have been using in all our proos or the last ew classes: Theorem: I A m B and... (a) B is decidable, then A is decidable, B (b) A is undecidable, then B is undecidable, (c) B is recognizable, then A is recognizable, and (d) A is not recognizable, then B is not recognizable We won t give a detailed proo o these claims, but they are all just obvious applications o the proo techniques we have been employing. 12. As an example o how we might use such a mapping reduction, consider the language DISJOINT T M = { M, M M & N are TMs and L(M) L(N) = }. We will show that DISJOINT T M is not recognizable by showing that E T M M DISJOINT T M. To do this, we need a mapping that will take any M to a pair o TM descriptions N, N in such a way that L(N) and L(N ) are disjoint i and only i L(M) is empty. Let ACCEP T be a TM that accepts all strings. Consider the unction ( M ) = M, ACCEP T. This is clearly computable. It is also clear that M, ACCEP T C i and only i E E T M. Given that we know that E T M is not recognizable, we can conclude that DISJOINT T M is not recognizable. Rice s Theorem 1. While we have categorized a large number o languages as decidable, recognizable, or not recognizable, there are still plenty o additional examples we could consider: REGULAR T M = { M L(M) is regular } CONT EXT -F REE T M = { M L(M) is context-ree } P ALINDROME T M = { M w L(M) w R L(M)} 4
5 EV EN T M = { M w L(M) w = 2} P RIME T M = { M w L(M) w is prime } 2. There is a single theorem that will quickly allow us to show that all o the languages listed above are undecidable. This result is known as Rice s Theorem. 3. Inormally, Rice s Theorem says that any nontrivial property o a Turing machine s language is undecidable. Nontrivial means that the languages o some but not all TMs have this property. The act that it is a property o the language rather than the TMs means that it must be based strictly on the set o strings a given TM accepts rather than on how the TM is designed or operates. 4. We can ormalize this notion as: Rice s Theorem. Suppose that L is a language with L { M M is a valid Turing machine} such that i L(M) = L(N) then M L N L then L is undecidable. 5
CSCE 551: Chin-Tser Huang. University of South Carolina
CSCE 551: Theory of Computation Chin-Tser Huang huangct@cse.sc.edu University of South Carolina Computation History A computation history of a TM M is a sequence of its configurations C 1, C 2,, C l such
More informationUndecidable Problems and Reducibility
University of Georgia Fall 2014 Reducibility We show a problem decidable/undecidable by reducing it to another problem. One type of reduction: mapping reduction. Definition Let A, B be languages over Σ.
More informationq FORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTABILITY. FLAC (15-453) Spring L. Blum. REVIEW for Midterm 2 TURING MACHINE
FLAC (15-45) Spring 214 - L. Blum THURSDAY APRIL 15-45 REVIEW or Midterm 2 FORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTABILITY TUESDAY April 8 Deinition: A Turing Machine is a 7-tuple T = (Q, Σ, Γ,, q, q accept,
More informationTheory of Computation
Theory of Computation Lecture #10 Sarmad Abbasi Virtual University Sarmad Abbasi (Virtual University) Theory of Computation 1 / 43 Lecture 10: Overview Linear Bounded Automata Acceptance Problem for LBAs
More informationCS 361 Meeting 26 11/10/17
CS 361 Meeting 26 11/10/17 1. Homework 8 due Announcements A Recognizable, but Undecidable Language 1. Last class, I presented a brief, somewhat inscrutable proof that the language A BT M = { M w M is
More informationCS5371 Theory of Computation. Lecture 12: Computability III (Decidable Languages relating to DFA, NFA, and CFG)
CS5371 Theory of Computation Lecture 12: Computability III (Decidable Languages relating to DFA, NFA, and CFG) Objectives Recall that decidable languages are languages that can be decided by TM (that means,
More informationComputability and Complexity
Computability and Complexity Lecture 5 Reductions Undecidable problems from language theory Linear bounded automata given by Jiri Srba Lecture 5 Computability and Complexity 1/14 Reduction Informal Definition
More informationCS 301. Lecture 18 Decidable languages. Stephen Checkoway. April 2, 2018
CS 301 Lecture 18 Decidable languages Stephen Checkoway April 2, 2018 1 / 26 Decidable language Recall, a language A is decidable if there is some TM M that 1 recognizes A (i.e., L(M) = A), and 2 halts
More informationV Honors Theory of Computation
V22.0453-001 Honors Theory of Computation Problem Set 3 Solutions Problem 1 Solution: The class of languages recognized by these machines is the exactly the class of regular languages, thus this TM variant
More informationIntroduction to Languages and Computation
Introduction to Languages and Computation George Voutsadakis 1 1 Mathematics and Computer Science Lake Superior State University LSSU Math 400 George Voutsadakis (LSSU) Languages and Computation July 2014
More informationMapping Reducibility. Human-aware Robotics. 2017/11/16 Chapter 5.3 in Sipser Ø Announcement:
Mapping Reducibility 2017/11/16 Chapter 5.3 in Sipser Ø Announcement: q Slides for this lecture are here: http://www.public.asu.edu/~yzhan442/teaching/cse355/lectures/mapping.pdf 1 Last time Reducibility
More informationWhat languages are Turing-decidable? What languages are not Turing-decidable? Is there a language that isn t even Turingrecognizable?
} We ll now take a look at Turing Machines at a high level and consider what types of problems can be solved algorithmically and what types can t: What languages are Turing-decidable? What languages are
More informationCSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION
CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION Spring 2018 http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/sp18/cse105-ab/ Today's learning goals Sipser Ch 5.1, 5.3 Define and explain core examples of computational problems, including
More information6.045: Automata, Computability, and Complexity Or, Great Ideas in Theoretical Computer Science Spring, Class 8 Nancy Lynch
6.045: Automata, Computability, and Complexity Or, Great Ideas in Theoretical Computer Science Spring, 2010 Class 8 Nancy Lynch Today More undecidable problems: About Turing machines: Emptiness, etc. About
More informationFORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTATION
FORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTATION DECIDABILITY ( LECTURE 15) SLIDES FOR 15-453 SPRING 2011 1 / 34 TURING MACHINES-SYNOPSIS The most general model of computation Computations of a TM are described
More informationFORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTABILITY. FLAC (15-453) Spring l. Blum TIME COMPLEXITY AND POLYNOMIAL TIME;
15-453 TIME COMPLEXITY AND POLYNOMIAL TIME; FORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTABILITY NON DETERMINISTIC TURING MACHINES AND NP THURSDAY Mar 20 COMPLEXITY THEORY Studies what can and can t be computed
More informationCS20a: Turing Machines (Oct 29, 2002)
CS20a: Turing Machines (Oct 29, 2002) So far: DFA = regular languages PDA = context-free languages Today: Computability 1 Church s thesis The computable functions are the same as the partial recursive
More information6.045: Automata, Computability, and Complexity Or, Great Ideas in Theoretical Computer Science Spring, Class 10 Nancy Lynch
6.045: Automata, Computability, and Complexity Or, Great Ideas in Theoretical Computer Science Spring, 2010 Class 10 Nancy Lynch Today Final topic in computability theory: Self-Reference and the Recursion
More informationCS5371 Theory of Computation. Lecture 14: Computability V (Prove by Reduction)
CS5371 Theory of Computation Lecture 14: Computability V (Prove by Reduction) Objectives This lecture shows more undecidable languages Our proof is not based on diagonalization Instead, we reduce the problem
More informationAutomata and Computability. Solutions to Exercises
Automata and Computability Solutions to Exercises Spring 27 Alexis Maciel Department of Computer Science Clarkson University Copyright c 27 Alexis Maciel ii Contents Preface vii Introduction 2 Finite Automata
More informationA Note on Turing Machine Design
CS103 Handout 17 Fall 2013 November 11, 2013 Problem Set 7 This problem explores Turing machines, nondeterministic computation, properties of the RE and R languages, and the limits of RE and R languages.
More informationAutomata and Computability. Solutions to Exercises
Automata and Computability Solutions to Exercises Fall 28 Alexis Maciel Department of Computer Science Clarkson University Copyright c 28 Alexis Maciel ii Contents Preface vii Introduction 2 Finite Automata
More informationComputability and Complexity
Computability and Complexity Decidability, Undecidability and Reducibility; Codes, Algorithms and Languages CAS 705 Ryszard Janicki Department of Computing and Software McMaster University Hamilton, Ontario,
More informationCSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION
CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION Spring 2016 http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/sp16/cse105-ab/ Today's learning goals Sipser Ch 4.1, 5.1 Define reductions from one problem to another. Use reductions to prove
More informationCircuit Complexity / Counting Problems
Lecture 5 Circuit Complexity / Counting Problems April 2, 24 Lecturer: Paul eame Notes: William Pentney 5. Circuit Complexity and Uniorm Complexity We will conclude our look at the basic relationship between
More information1 Showing Recognizability
CSCC63 Worksheet Recognizability and Decidability 1 1 Showing Recognizability 1.1 An Example - take 1 Let Σ be an alphabet. L = { M M is a T M and L(M) }, i.e., that M accepts some string from Σ. Prove
More informationTheory of Computation
Thomas Zeugmann Hokkaido University Laboratory for Algorithmics http://www-alg.ist.hokudai.ac.jp/ thomas/toc/ Lecture 14: Applications of PCP Goal of this Lecture Our goal is to present some typical undecidability
More informationCSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION
CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION Spring 2016 http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/sp16/cse105-ab/ Today's learning goals Sipser Ch 2 Design a PDA and a CFG for a given language Give informal description for a PDA,
More informationDecidability (What, stuff is unsolvable?)
University of Georgia Fall 2014 Outline Decidability Decidable Problems for Regular Languages Decidable Problems for Context Free Languages The Halting Problem Countable and Uncountable Sets Diagonalization
More informationCSCE 551: Chin-Tser Huang. University of South Carolina
CSCE 551: Theory of Computation Chin-Tser Huang huangct@cse.sc.edu University of South Carolina Church-Turing Thesis The definition of the algorithm came in the 1936 papers of Alonzo Church h and Alan
More informationChap. 4,5 Review. Algorithms created in proofs from prior chapters
Chap. 4,5 Review Algorithms created in proofs from prior chapters (p. 55) Theorem 1.39: NFA to DFA (p. 67) Lemma 1.55: Regex to NFA (p. 69) Lemma 1.60: DFA to regex (through GNFA) (p. 112) Lemma 2.21:
More informationComputation Histories
208 Computation Histories The computation history for a Turing machine on an input is simply the sequence of configurations that the machine goes through as it processes the input. An accepting computation
More informationTHEORY OF COMPUTATION (AUBER) EXAM CRIB SHEET
THEORY OF COMPUTATION (AUBER) EXAM CRIB SHEET Regular Languages and FA A language is a set of strings over a finite alphabet Σ. All languages are finite or countably infinite. The set of all languages
More informationReducability. Sipser, pages
Reducability Sipser, pages 187-214 Reduction Reduction encodes (transforms) one problem as a second problem. A solution to the second, can be transformed into a solution to the first. We expect both transformations
More informationCS4026 Formal Models of Computation
CS4026 Formal Models of Computation Turing Machines Turing Machines Abstract but accurate model of computers Proposed by Alan Turing in 1936 There weren t computers back then! Turing s motivation: find
More informationCSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION. Spring 2018 review class
CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION Spring 2018 review class Today's learning goals Summarize key concepts, ideas, themes from CSE 105. Approach your final exam studying with confidence. Identify areas to focus
More informationCpSc 421 Homework 9 Solution
CpSc 421 Homework 9 Solution Attempt any three of the six problems below. The homework is graded on a scale of 100 points, even though you can attempt fewer or more points than that. Your recorded grade
More informationDecidable Languages - relationship with other classes.
CSE2001, Fall 2006 1 Last time we saw some examples of decidable languages (or, solvable problems). Today we will start by looking at the relationship between the decidable languages, and the regular and
More informationCSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION
CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION Spring 2016 http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/sp16/cse105-ab/ Today's learning goals Sipser Ch 3.3, 4.1 State and use the Church-Turing thesis. Give examples of decidable problems.
More informationA non-turing-recognizable language
CS 360: Introduction to the Theory of Computing John Watrous, University of Waterloo A non-turing-recognizable language 1 OVERVIEW Thus far in the course we have seen many examples of decidable languages
More information6.045J/18.400J: Automata, Computability and Complexity. Quiz 2. March 30, Please write your name in the upper corner of each page.
6.045J/18.400J: Automata, Computability and Complexity March 30, 2005 Quiz 2 Prof. Nancy Lynch Please write your name in the upper corner of each page. Problem Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Q2-1 Problem 1: True
More informationTuring Machines Part III
Turing Machines Part III Announcements Problem Set 6 due now. Problem Set 7 out, due Monday, March 4. Play around with Turing machines, their powers, and their limits. Some problems require Wednesday's
More informationMA/CSSE 474 Theory of Computation
MA/CSSE 474 Theory of Computation CFL Hierarchy CFL Decision Problems Your Questions? Previous class days' material Reading Assignments HW 12 or 13 problems Anything else I have included some slides online
More informationHomework Assignment 6 Answers
Homework Assignment 6 Answers CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing, Fall 2016 December 2, 2016 This homework assignment is about Turing machines, decidable languages, Turing recognizable languages,
More informationTuring Machines Part II
Turing Machines Part II Hello Hello Condensed Slide Slide Readers! Readers! This This lecture lecture is is almost almost entirely entirely animations that that show show how how each each Turing Turing
More informationFurther discussion of Turing machines
Further discussion of Turing machines In this lecture we will discuss various aspects of decidable and Turing-recognizable languages that were not mentioned in previous lectures. In particular, we will
More informationSCHEME FOR INTERNAL ASSESSMENT TEST 3
SCHEME FOR INTERNAL ASSESSMENT TEST 3 Max Marks: 40 Subject& Code: Automata Theory & Computability (15CS54) Sem: V ISE (A & B) Note: Answer any FIVE full questions, choosing one full question from each
More informationPart I: Definitions and Properties
Turing Machines Part I: Definitions and Properties Finite State Automata Deterministic Automata (DFSA) M = {Q, Σ, δ, q 0, F} -- Σ = Symbols -- Q = States -- q 0 = Initial State -- F = Accepting States
More informationFoundations of
91.304 Foundations of (Theoretical) Computer Science Chapter 3 Lecture Notes (Section 3.2: Variants of Turing Machines) David Martin dm@cs.uml.edu With some modifications by Prof. Karen Daniels, Fall 2012
More information1 Reducability. CSCC63 Worksheet Reducability. For your reference, A T M is defined to be the language { M, w M accepts w}. Theorem 5.
CSCC63 Worksheet Reducability For your reference, A T M is defined to be the language { M, w M accepts w}. 1 Reducability Theorem 5.1 HALT TM = { M, w M is a T M that halts on input w} is undecidable.
More informationTuring Machines A Turing Machine is a 7-tuple, (Q, Σ, Γ, δ, q0, qaccept, qreject), where Q, Σ, Γ are all finite
The Church-Turing Thesis CS60001: Foundations of Computing Science Professor, Dept. of Computer Sc. & Engg., Turing Machines A Turing Machine is a 7-tuple, (Q, Σ, Γ, δ, q 0, q accept, q reject ), where
More informationCS5371 Theory of Computation. Lecture 10: Computability Theory I (Turing Machine)
CS537 Theory of Computation Lecture : Computability Theory I (Turing Machine) Objectives Introduce the Turing Machine (TM) Proposed by Alan Turing in 936 finite-state control + infinitely long tape A stronger
More informationComputability Crib Sheet
Computer Science and Engineering, UCSD Winter 10 CSE 200: Computability and Complexity Instructor: Mihir Bellare Computability Crib Sheet January 3, 2010 Computability Crib Sheet This is a quick reference
More informationTheory of Computation (IX) Yijia Chen Fudan University
Theory of Computation (IX) Yijia Chen Fudan University Review The Definition of Algorithm Polynomials and their roots A polynomial is a sum of terms, where each term is a product of certain variables and
More informationMidterm Exam 2 CS 341: Foundations of Computer Science II Fall 2018, face-to-face day section Prof. Marvin K. Nakayama
Midterm Exam 2 CS 341: Foundations of Computer Science II Fall 2018, face-to-face day section Prof. Marvin K. Nakayama Print family (or last) name: Print given (or first) name: I have read and understand
More informationCSE 105 Theory of Computation
CSE 105 Theory of Computation http://www.jflap.org/jflaptmp/ Professor Jeanne Ferrante 1 Undecidability Today s Agenda Review and More Problems A Non-TR Language Reminders and announcements: HW 7 (Last!!)
More informationCPSC 421: Tutorial #1
CPSC 421: Tutorial #1 October 14, 2016 Set Theory. 1. Let A be an arbitrary set, and let B = {x A : x / x}. That is, B contains all sets in A that do not contain themselves: For all y, ( ) y B if and only
More informationCSCE 551 Final Exam, Spring 2004 Answer Key
CSCE 551 Final Exam, Spring 2004 Answer Key 1. (10 points) Using any method you like (including intuition), give the unique minimal DFA equivalent to the following NFA: 0 1 2 0 5 1 3 4 If your answer is
More informationIntroduction to Turing Machines. Reading: Chapters 8 & 9
Introduction to Turing Machines Reading: Chapters 8 & 9 1 Turing Machines (TM) Generalize the class of CFLs: Recursively Enumerable Languages Recursive Languages Context-Free Languages Regular Languages
More informationNon-emptiness Testing for TMs
180 5. Reducibility The proof of unsolvability of the halting problem is an example of a reduction: a way of converting problem A to problem B in such a way that a solution to problem B can be used to
More informationExam Computability and Complexity
Total number of points:... Number of extra sheets of paper:... Exam Computability and Complexity by Jiri Srba, January 2009 Student s full name CPR number Study number Before you start, fill in the three
More informationACS2: Decidability Decidability
Decidability Bernhard Nebel and Christian Becker-Asano 1 Overview An investigation into the solvable/decidable Decidable languages The halting problem (undecidable) 2 Decidable problems? Acceptance problem
More informationCSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION
CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION Spring 2017 http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/sp17/cse105-ab/ Today's learning goals Summarize key concepts, ideas, themes from CSE 105. Approach your final exam studying with
More informationMidterm Exam 2 CS 341: Foundations of Computer Science II Fall 2016, face-to-face day section Prof. Marvin K. Nakayama
Midterm Exam 2 CS 341: Foundations of Computer Science II Fall 2016, face-to-face day section Prof. Marvin K. Nakayama Print family (or last) name: Print given (or first) name: I have read and understand
More informationRoberto s Notes on Differential Calculus Chapter 8: Graphical analysis Section 1. Extreme points
Roberto s Notes on Dierential Calculus Chapter 8: Graphical analysis Section 1 Extreme points What you need to know already: How to solve basic algebraic and trigonometric equations. All basic techniques
More informationCS21 Decidability and Tractability
CS21 Decidability and Tractability Lecture 8 January 24, 2018 Outline Turing Machines and variants multitape TMs nondeterministic TMs Church-Turing Thesis So far several models of computation finite automata
More informationCS154, Lecture 10: Rice s Theorem, Oracle Machines
CS154, Lecture 10: Rice s Theorem, Oracle Machines Moral: Analyzing Programs is Really, Really Hard But can we more easily tell when some program analysis problem is undecidable? Problem 1 Undecidable
More informationLecture 23: Rice Theorem and Turing machine behavior properties 21 April 2009
CS 373: Theory of Computation Sariel Har-Peled and Madhusudan Parthasarathy Lecture 23: Rice Theorem and Turing machine behavior properties 21 April 2009 This lecture covers Rice s theorem, as well as
More informationCSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION
CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION "Winter" 2018 http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/wi18/cse105-ab/ Today's learning goals Sipser Section 4.1 Explain what it means for a problem to be decidable. Justify the use
More informationCSE355 SUMMER 2018 LECTURES TURING MACHINES AND (UN)DECIDABILITY
CSE355 SUMMER 2018 LECTURES TURING MACHINES AND (UN)DECIDABILITY RYAN DOUGHERTY If we want to talk about a program running on a real computer, consider the following: when a program reads an instruction,
More informationCS 154, Lecture 2: Finite Automata, Closure Properties Nondeterminism,
CS 54, Lecture 2: Finite Automata, Closure Properties Nondeterminism, Why so Many Models? Streaming Algorithms 0 42 Deterministic Finite Automata Anatomy of Deterministic Finite Automata transition: for
More informationTURING MAHINES
15-453 TURING MAHINES TURING MACHINE FINITE STATE q 10 CONTROL AI N P U T INFINITE TAPE read write move 0 0, R, R q accept, R q reject 0 0, R 0 0, R, L read write move 0 0, R, R q accept, R 0 0, R 0 0,
More informationTuring Machine Variants
CS311 Computational Structures Turing Machine Variants Lecture 12 Andrew Black Andrew Tolmach 1 The Church-Turing Thesis The problems that can be decided by an algorithm are exactly those that can be decided
More informationUndecidability. We are not so much concerned if you are slow as when you come to a halt. (Chinese Proverb)
We are not so much concerned if you are slow as when you come to a halt. (Chinese Proverb) CS /55 Theory of Computation The is A TM = { M,w M is a TM and w L(M)} A TM is Turing-recognizable. Proof Sketch:
More informationCS5371 Theory of Computation. Lecture 15: Computability VI (Post s Problem, Reducibility)
CS5371 Theory of Computation Lecture 15: Computability VI (Post s Problem, Reducibility) Objectives In this lecture, we introduce Post s correspondence problem (playing with a special type of domino) We
More informationLecture 12: Mapping Reductions
Lecture 12: Mapping Reductions October 18, 2016 CS 1010 Theory of Computation Topics Covered 1. The Language EQ T M 2. Mapping Reducibility 3. The Post Correspondence Problem 1 The Language EQ T M The
More informationNP, polynomial-time mapping reductions, and NP-completeness
NP, polynomial-time mapping reductions, and NP-completeness In the previous lecture we discussed deterministic time complexity, along with the time-hierarchy theorem, and introduced two complexity classes:
More informationDecidable and undecidable languages
The Chinese University of Hong Kong Fall 2011 CSCI 3130: Formal languages and automata theory Decidable and undecidable languages Andrej Bogdanov http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~andrejb/csc3130 Problems about
More informationDecidability and Undecidability
Decidability and Undecidability Major Ideas from Last Time Every TM can be converted into a string representation of itself. The encoding of M is denoted M. The universal Turing machine U TM accepts an
More informationCS481F01 Solutions 8
CS481F01 Solutions 8 A. Demers 7 Dec 2001 1. Prob. 111 from p. 344 of the text. One of the following sets is r.e. and the other is not. Which is which? (a) { i L(M i ) contains at least 481 elements }
More information} Some languages are Turing-decidable A Turing Machine will halt on all inputs (either accepting or rejecting). No infinite loops.
and their languages } Some languages are Turing-decidable A Turing Machine will halt on all inputs (either accepting or rejecting). No infinite loops. } Some languages are Turing-recognizable, but not
More informationCliff s notes for equivalence of CFLs and L(PDAs) LisaCFL L = L(M) for some PDA M L=L(M)forsomePDAM L = L(G) for some CFG G
What s on our plate today? Cliff s notes for equivalence of CFLs and L(PDAs) LisaCFL L = L(M) for some PDA M L=L(M)forsomePDAM L = L(G) for some CFG G Pumping Lemma (one last time) Statement of Pumping
More informationContext-free grammars and languages
Context-free grammars and languages The next class of languages we will study in the course is the class of context-free languages. They are defined by the notion of a context-free grammar, or a CFG for
More informationCS5371 Theory of Computation. Lecture 10: Computability Theory I (Turing Machine)
CS537 Theory of Computation Lecture : Computability Theory I (Turing Machine) Objectives Introduce the Turing Machine (TM)? Proposed by Alan Turing in 936 finite-state control + infinitely long tape A
More informationLecture Notes: The Halting Problem; Reductions
Lecture Notes: The Halting Problem; Reductions COMS W3261 Columbia University 20 Mar 2012 1 Review Key point. Turing machines can be encoded as strings, and other Turing machines can read those strings
More informationAutomata Theory CS S-FR2 Final Review
Automata Theory CS411-2015S-FR2 Final Review David Galles Department of Computer Science University of San Francisco FR2-0: Halting Problem e(m) e(w) Halting Machine takes as input an encoding of a Turing
More informationCSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION
CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION "Winter" 2018 http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/classes/wi18/cse105-ab/ Today's learning goals Sipser Ch 4.2 Trace high-level descriptions of algorithms for computational problems. Use
More informationAdvanced Undecidability Proofs
17 Advanced Undecidability Proofs In this chapter, we will discuss Rice s Theorem in Section 17.1, and the computational history method in Section 17.3. As discussed in Chapter 16, these are two additional
More informationTAKE-HOME: OUT 02/21 NOON, DUE 02/25 NOON
CSE 555 MIDTERM EXAMINATION SOLUTIONS TAKE-HOME: OUT 02/21 NOON, DUE 02/25 NOON The completed test is to be submitted electronically to colbourn@asu.edu before the deadline, or time-stamped by the main
More informationFORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTABILITY
15-453 FORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTABILITY REVIEW for MIDTERM 1 THURSDAY Feb 6 Midterm 1 will cover everything we have seen so far The PROBLEMS will be from Sipser, Chapters 1, 2, 3 It will be
More informationCSE 555 Homework Three Sample Solutions
CSE 555 Homework Three Sample Solutions Question 1 Let Σ be a fixed alphabet. A PDA M with n states and stack alphabet of size σ may recognize the empty language; if its language is non-empty then denote
More informationDecidability (intro.)
CHAPTER 4 Decidability Contents Decidable Languages decidable problems concerning regular languages decidable problems concerning context-free languages The Halting Problem The diagonalization method The
More informationAnnouncements. Problem Set 7 graded; will be returned at end of lecture. Unclaimed problem sets and midterms moved!
N P NP Announcements Problem Set 7 graded; will be returned at end of lecture. Unclaimed problem sets and midterms moved! Now in cabinets in the Gates open area near the drop-off box. The Complexity Class
More informationTuring Machines. Reading Assignment: Sipser Chapter 3.1, 4.2
Reading Assignment: Sipser Chapter 31, 42 Turing Machines 41 covers algorithms for decidable problems about DFA, NFA, RegExp, CFG, and PDAs, eg slides 17 & 18 below I ve talked about most of this in class
More informationReading Assignment: Sipser Chapter 3.1, 4.2
Turing Machines 1 Reading Assignment: Sipser Chapter 3.1, 4.2 4.1 covers algorithms for decidable problems about DFA, NFA, RegExp, CFG, and PDAs, e.g. slides 17 & 18 below. I ve talked about most of this
More informationPumping Lemma for CFLs
Pumping Lemma for CFLs v y s Here we go again! Intuition: If L is CF, then some CFG G produces strings in L If some string in L is very long, it will have a very tall parse tree If a parse tree is taller
More informationTheory of Computation p.1/?? Theory of Computation p.2/?? We develop examples of languages that are decidable
Decidable Languages We use languages to represent various computational problems because we have a terminology for dealing with languages Definition: A language is decidable if there is an algorithm (i.e.
More informationThe Turing machine model of computation
The Turing machine model of computation For most of the remainder of the course we will study the Turing machine model of computation, named after Alan Turing (1912 1954) who proposed the model in 1936.
More informationFinal exam study sheet for CS3719 Turing machines and decidability.
Final exam study sheet for CS3719 Turing machines and decidability. A Turing machine is a finite automaton with an infinite memory (tape). Formally, a Turing machine is a 6-tuple M = (Q, Σ, Γ, δ, q 0,
More informationSolutions to Old Final Exams (For Fall 2007)
Solutions to Old Final Exams (For Fall 2007) CS 381 (Fall 2002, Fall 2004, Fall 2005, Fall 2006) Yogi Sharma Disclaimer: I, Yogi Sharma, do not claim these solution to be complete, or even to be absolutely
More information