Mapping Reducibility. Human-aware Robotics. 2017/11/16 Chapter 5.3 in Sipser Ø Announcement:

Similar documents
Computability and Complexity

CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION

CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION

Reducability. Sipser, pages

Decidability. Human-aware Robotics. 2017/10/31 Chapter 4.1 in Sipser Ø Announcement:

What languages are Turing-decidable? What languages are not Turing-decidable? Is there a language that isn t even Turingrecognizable?

Non-emptiness Testing for TMs

CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION

Lecture 12: Mapping Reductions

Computation Histories

CSCE 551: Chin-Tser Huang. University of South Carolina

Lecture 23: Rice Theorem and Turing machine behavior properties 21 April 2009

FORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTATION

Computability Theory

Intro to Theory of Computation

Decidable Languages - relationship with other classes.

problem X reduces to Problem Y solving X would be easy, if we knew how to solve Y

CS5371 Theory of Computation. Lecture 14: Computability V (Prove by Reduction)

Chap. 4,5 Review. Algorithms created in proofs from prior chapters

Computability and Complexity

Intro to Theory of Computation

CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION

ACS2: Decidability Decidability

CS154, Lecture 10: Rice s Theorem, Oracle Machines

CS5371 Theory of Computation. Lecture 15: Computability VI (Post s Problem, Reducibility)

CS5371 Theory of Computation. Lecture 12: Computability III (Decidable Languages relating to DFA, NFA, and CFG)

Computational Models Lecture 9, Spring 2009

V Honors Theory of Computation

1 Reducability. CSCC63 Worksheet Reducability. For your reference, A T M is defined to be the language { M, w M accepts w}. Theorem 5.

CSCE 551: Chin-Tser Huang. University of South Carolina

CS 301. Lecture 18 Decidable languages. Stephen Checkoway. April 2, 2018

CSCE 551 Final Exam, Spring 2004 Answer Key

Decidable and undecidable languages

Computational Models Lecture 8 1

Decidability and Undecidability

} Some languages are Turing-decidable A Turing Machine will halt on all inputs (either accepting or rejecting). No infinite loops.

1 Showing Recognizability

Lecture Notes: The Halting Problem; Reductions

Homework Assignment 6 Answers

6.045: Automata, Computability, and Complexity Or, Great Ideas in Theoretical Computer Science Spring, Class 8 Nancy Lynch

2017/08/29 Chapter 1.2 in Sipser Ø Announcement:

Introduction to Languages and Computation

4.2 The Halting Problem

CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION

Computational Models Lecture 8 1

Decidability (intro.)

CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION

Turing Machines Part III

CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION. Spring 2018 review class

Computability Theory

CSE 105 Theory of Computation

COMP/MATH 300 Topics for Spring 2017 June 5, Review and Regular Languages

CSE355 SUMMER 2018 LECTURES TURING MACHINES AND (UN)DECIDABILITY

Midterm Exam 2 CS 341: Foundations of Computer Science II Fall 2018, face-to-face day section Prof. Marvin K. Nakayama

6.045J/18.400J: Automata, Computability and Complexity. Quiz 2. March 30, Please write your name in the upper corner of each page.

Decidability. Overview. Preliminaries to Halting Problem. Decidable Problems of Regular Languages. Decidable Problems of Context-Free Languages

Exam Computability and Complexity

CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION

CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION

Computational Models Lecture 8 1

acs-07: Decidability Decidability Andreas Karwath und Malte Helmert Informatik Theorie II (A) WS2009/10

CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION

Theory of Computation

CpSc 421 Homework 9 Solution

Theory of Computation (IX) Yijia Chen Fudan University

Undecidable Problems and Reducibility

Decidability (What, stuff is unsolvable?)

CSE 105 Theory of Computation

Theory of Computation

UNIT-VIII COMPUTABILITY THEORY

Decidability. Linz 6 th, Chapter 12: Limits of Algorithmic Computation, page 309ff

CS481F01 Solutions 8

Turing Machines Part Two

Midterm Exam 2 CS 341: Foundations of Computer Science II Fall 2016, face-to-face day section Prof. Marvin K. Nakayama

There are two main techniques for showing that problems are undecidable: diagonalization and reduction

2017/08/31 Chapter 1.2 & 1.3 in Sipser Ø Announcement:

THEORY OF COMPUTATION (AUBER) EXAM CRIB SHEET

CS20a: Turing Machines (Oct 29, 2002)

CS21 Decidability and Tractability

jflap demo Regular expressions Pumping lemma Turing Machines Sections 12.4 and 12.5 in the text

CSCC63 Worksheet Turing Machines

TURING MAHINES

6.045 Final Exam Solutions

Undecidability COMS Ashley Montanaro 4 April Department of Computer Science, University of Bristol Bristol, UK

Decidability: Reduction Proofs

Turing Machines. Reading Assignment: Sipser Chapter 3.1, 4.2

Reading Assignment: Sipser Chapter 3.1, 4.2

Chapter 3: The Church-Turing Thesis

Midterm II : Formal Languages, Automata, and Computability

6.045: Automata, Computability, and Complexity Or, Great Ideas in Theoretical Computer Science Spring, Class 10 Nancy Lynch

TAKE-HOME: OUT 02/21 NOON, DUE 02/25 NOON

Mapping Reductions. Mapping Reductions. Introduction to Computability. Theory. Mapping Reductions. Lecture13: Mapping. Reductions

Approximation Algorithms

CSE 105 THEORY OF COMPUTATION

CpSc 421 Final Exam December 15, 2006

CS5371 Theory of Computation. Lecture 10: Computability Theory I (Turing Machine)

Problems, and How Computer Scientists Solve Them Manas Thakur

CSCE 551 Final Exam, April 28, 2016 Answer Key

CSC236 Week 11. Larry Zhang

FORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA AND COMPUTABILITY

Transcription:

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 q q Reducibility Using reducibility Ø Goals: o o Learn about the use of reducibility Learn to use reducibility to prove that a problem is unsolvable 2

Outline for today Reducibility q Selecting problem S q LBA Mapping reducibility q Formal definition of reducibility q Use mapping reducibility Ø Goals: o Learn a formal definition of reducibility o Learn to use mapping reducibility 3

The EQ TM problem Let us use S = A TM q Assume that M R solves R = EQ TM q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! S S s solver R s solver convert S to R Map the solution of R to a solution to S 4

The EQ TM problem Let us use S = A TM q Assume that M R solves R = EQ TM q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! <M, w> accept S s solver R s solver <M1, M2> reject? M accept w or not convert S to R 5

The EQ TM problem Let us use S = A TM q Assume that M R solves R = EQ TM q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! M accept w or not <M, w> S s solver <x> M1: accept R s solver <M1, M2> <x> M2: 1) if x!= w accept 2) otherwise M w convert S to R Map the solution of R to a solution to S 6

The EQ TM problem Let us use S = A TM q Assume that M R solves R = EQ TM q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! M accept w or not <M, w> S s solver <x> M1: accept R s solver <M1, M2> <x> M2: 1) if x!= w accept 2) otherwise M w convert S to R Map the solution of R to a solution to S 7

The EQ TM problem Let us use S = A TM q Assume that M R solves R = EQ TM q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! We can change S to be any unsolvable problem! S S s solver R s solver convert S to R Map the solution of R to a solution to S 8

The EQ TM problem Let us use S = E TM q Assume that M R solves R = EQ TM q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! M accept the empty language or not S s solver R s solver S convert S to R? Map the solution of R to a solution to S 9

The EQ TM problem Let us use S = E TM q Assume that M R solves R = EQ TM q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! M accept the empty language or not <M> S s solver <x> M1 <M, M1> R s solver M convert S to R Map the solution of R to a solution to S 10

The EQ TM problem Let us use S = E TM q Assume that M R solves R = EQ TM q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! M accept the empty language or not <M> S s solver <x> M1 <M, M1> reject R s solver M convert S to R Map the solution of R to a solution to S 11

The EQ TM problem Let us use S = E TM q Assume that M R solves R = EQ TM q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! A simpler solution! M accept the empty language or not <M> S s solver <x> M1 <M, M1> reject R s solver M convert S to R Map the solution of R to a solution to S 12

The EQ TM problem Let us use S = E TM q Assume that M R solves R = EQ TM q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! 13

Steps to use reducibility Using reducibility (S reduces to R) to prove unsolvability q q q q q q Select an unsolvable (undecidable problem) S (key) Assume R is solvable, solve S to derive a contradiction Check the input for R and S Think about how to use outputs for R to reason about outputs for S (key) Convert S input to R s input Convert R s output to S s output 14

Summary Decidable languages learned: A DFA, A NFA, G RE, E RE, EQ DFA, A CFG, E CFG Undecidable languages learned so far: A TM, HALT TM, E TM, REGULAR TM, EQ TM, ALL CFG (on the book) 15

Rice s theorem Consider A TM 16

Rice s theorem Consider A TM Proof in text book (5.28). You cannot use Rice s theorem in exams for proofs unless told to L 17

Outline for today Reducibility q Selecting problem S q LBA Mapping reducibility q Formal definition of reducibility q Use mapping reducibility Ø Goals: o Learn a formal definition of reducibility o Learn to use mapping reducibility 18

LBA Equivalent to a FA? 19

LBA Equivalent to a FA? NO! The tape size is dependent on the input 20

A LBA A LBA is decidable! 21

A LBA A LBA is decidable! Finite distinct configurations so we know when it loops! 22

A LBA A LBA is decidable! Finite distinct configurations so we know when it loops! q states, n is the tape size, g is tape alphabet size 23

The E LBA problem Let us use S = A TM q Assume that M R solves R = E LBA q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! S S s solver R s solver convert S to R Map the solution of R to a solution to S 24

The E LBA problem Let us use S = A TM q Assume that M R solves R = E LBA q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! <M, w> S s solver <B> R s solver convert S to R Map the solution of R to a solution to S 25

The E LBA problem Let us use S = A TM q Assume that M R solves R = E LBA q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! Why can t we do this? <M, w> S s solver <x> M1 1) x!= w reject 2) x == w M convert S to R <B> R s solver Map the solution of R to a solution to S 26

The E LBA problem Let us use S = A TM q Assume that M R solves R = E LBA q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! <x> <M, w> S s solver <x> B (LBA) accept only if x is a computation history of M accepting w convert S to R <B> R s solver Map the solution of R to a solution to S 27

The E LBA problem Let us use S = A TM q Assume that M R solves R = E LBA q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! That is the maximum tape size we need! <x> <M, w> S s solver <x> B (LBA) accept only if x is a computation history of M accepting w convert S to R <B> R s solver Map the solution of R to a solution to S The construction of this LBA is on the book 28

The E LBA problem Let us use S = A TM q Assume that M R solves R = E LBA q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! A similar proof shows that ALL CFG is undecidable (Theorem 5.13) 29

Outline for today Reducibility q Selecting problem S q LBA Mapping reducibility q Formal definition of reducibility q Use mapping reducibility Ø Goals: o Learn a formal definition of reducibility o Learn to use mapping reducibility 30

Mapping Reducibility M w f(w) 31

Mapping Reducibility The challenge of design f(s) lies in the bi-direction mapping 32

Mapping Reducibility Reduction we talked about: The challenge of design f(s) lies in the bi-direction mapping S S s solver R s solver convert S to R Map the solution of R to a solution to S f(s): everything inside the red block (both steps) except for the switching between accept and reject in the end 33

Mapping Reducibility S is reduced to R (R is more difficult than S) q q If R is decidable, S is also decidable! If S is undecidable, R is also undecidable! 34

Outline for today Reducibility q Example for selecting your unsolvabe problem S q LBA Mapping reducibility q Formal definition of reducibility q Use mapping reducibility Ø Goals: o Learn about a formal definition of reducibility o Learn to use mapping reducibility 35

The halting problem is undecidable! Let us use S = A TM q Assume that M R solves R = HALT TM q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! How do we combine the two parts? M accept w or not <M, w> S s solver <M, w> R s solver accept w M accept reject convert S to R reject Map the solution of R to a solution to S What is f(s)? 36

The halting problem Let us use S = A TM q Assume that M R solves R = HALT TM q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! M accept w or not <M, w> S s solver <x> M <x> M <M, w> R s solver f(<m, w>) convert S to R Map the solution of R to a solution to S What is M in the input <M, w> is not a proper TM? 37

The halting problem Let us use S = A TM q Assume that M R solves R = HALT TM q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! M accept w or not <M, w> S s solver <x> M <x> M <M, w> R s solver f(<m, w>) convert S to R Map the solution of R to a solution to S What is M in the input <M, w> is not a proper TM? Ø In general, when we describe a Turing machine that computes a reduction from A to B, improperly formed inputs are assumed to map to strings outside of B. 38

E TM Let us use S = A TM q Assume that M R solves R = E TM q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! reduction from! M accept w or not <M, w> S s solver <x> M1 <M1> R s solver 1) x!= w reject 2) x == w M convert S to R Map the solution of R to a solution to S 39

E TM Let us use S = A TM q Assume that M R solves R = E TM q Solve S using M R by constructing M S using M R q A contradiction since S is not solvable! reduction from! M accept w or not <M, w> S s solver <x> M1 <M1> R s solver 1) x!= w reject 2) x == w M convert S to R Map the solution of R to a solution to S reduction from A TM to E TM, in fact, does not exist (exercise 5.5)! 40

Mapping reducibility Interpreting the notation based on the problems difficulty levels ; easy to remember! To prove some problem B is not TM recognizable, we only need to show that 41

Mapping reducibility A TM apple m EG TM A TM apple m EG TM 42

Outline for today Reducibility q Example for selecting your unsolvabe problem S q LBA Mapping reducibility q Formal definition of reducibility q Use mapping reducibility Ø Goals: o Learn about a formal definition of reducibility o Learn to use mapping reducibility 43