1 / 11

Lecture 7 Undecidability cont.

Lecture 7 Undecidability cont. Jan Maluszynski , IDA, 200 7 http://www.ida.liu.se/~janma. Outline. (Sipser 5.1,5.3, 6.2) Reducibility Examples of undecidable problems Mapping reducibility Decidability of Logical Theories. Reduction techniques. For proving B is undecidable

gracie
Download Presentation

Lecture 7 Undecidability cont.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Lecture 7Undecidability cont. Jan Maluszynski, IDA, 2007 http://www.ida.liu.se/~janma Jan Maluszynski - HT 2007

  2. Outline (Sipser 5.1,5.3, 6.2) • Reducibility • Examples of undecidable problems • Mapping reducibility • Decidability of Logical Theories Jan Maluszynski - HT 2007

  3. Reduction techniques For proving B is undecidable • Assume B is decidable • Find an undecidable problem A that can be decided using the decision procedure for B A reducible to B Example: HALTTM = {<M,w>| M is a TM and M halts on w} We show: ATM = {<M,w>| M is a TM and M accepts w} is reducible to HALTTM Jan Maluszynski - HT 2007

  4. Reduction techniques example Assume TM R decides HALTTM = On input <M,w> run R on it: • If R rejects – reject • If R accepts ie. M halts on w: simulate M on w • If M accepts w – accept • If M rejects w - reject Thus with R we could decide ATM = {<M,w>| M is a TM and M accepts w} But we know ATM is undecidable Hence R cannot exist and HALTTM is undecidable Jan Maluszynski - HT 2007

  5. ETM (emptiness) is undecidable ETM = {<M>| M is a TM and L(M) is empty} Assume R decides ETM. Reduce ATM to ETM . Given M and w construct M1 that on any input x : • If x = w simulates M on w • Otherwise rejects x. Run R on <M1>: M1 is rejected iff M accepts w. Thus with R we could decide ATM = {<M,w>| M is a TM and M accepts w} But we know ATM is undecidable Hence R cannot exist and ETM is undecidable Jan Maluszynski - HT 2007

  6. Rice’s theorem Let P be any nontrivial property of the language of a Turing machine M. Nontrivial: it contains some but not all TM descriptions. Theorem: {<M>| L(M) satisfies P} is undecidable e.g given M it is undecidable if L(M) is: • empty, • regular, • Context-free …. Jan Maluszynski - HT 2007

  7. Mapping reducibility A function f: *  * is computable if some TM M on every input w halts with f(w) on its tape Language A is mapping reducible to B written AmB if there is a computable function f s.that for every w wA  f(w)B f is called reduction of A to B. Jan Maluszynski - HT 2007

  8. Mapping reducibility cont. Theorem: If AmB and A is undecidable then B is undecidable Example: f(<M>) = <M,M1> where M1 rejects all inputs reduces emptiness problem to TM equivalence Jan Maluszynski - HT 2007

  9. Mapping reducibility cont. Theorem: If AmB and A is not Turing-recognizable then B is not Turing-recognizable Remark: AmB iff complement(A) m complement(B) To prove B not Turing-recognizable show: A mcomplement(B) for some undecidable A Jan Maluszynski - HT 2007

  10. TM equivalence is not T-recognizable Reduce ATM to (negation) EQTM For given <M,w> construct TMs: (M1 rejects all inputs) M3 accepts all inputs M2: On any input simulates M on w accepts if M accepts w • <M1,M2> equivalent iff M does not accept w • <M3,M2> equivalent iff M accepts w Hence: by (1) EQTM not Turing-recognizable by (2) complement of EQTM not Turing-recognizable Jan Maluszynski - HT 2007

  11. More examples of undecidable languages Hilbert’s tenth problem: Does a given polynomial with integer coefficients has an integral root? Stated early 1900 proved undecidable 1970 The language Th(N,+,) of true closed arithmetic formulae interpreted on natural numbers e.g. xyz[x=y+z] Jan Maluszynski - HT 2007

More Related