Scribd
Upload
28 views

qreject ε Q is the reject state

Turing machines are more powerful computational models than finite automata or pushdown automata. Turing machines have an infinite tape and can move the tape head in either direction, allowing them to solve computational problems that finite models cannot. However, some decision problems are undecidable, meaning there is no algorithm or Turing machine that can determine the answer in a finite number of steps for all possible inputs. For example, the halting problem, which asks whether a given Turing machine will halt on a given input, is undecidable.

Uploaded by

Patrick Matts
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
28 views

qreject ε Q is the reject state

Turing machines are more powerful computational models than finite automata or pushdown automata. Turing machines have an infinite tape and can move the tape head in either direction, allowing them to solve computational problems that finite models cannot. However, some decision problems are undecidable, meaning there is no algorithm or Turing machine that can determine the answer in a finite number of steps for all possible inputs. For example, the halting problem, which asks whether a given Turing machine will halt on a given input, is undecidable.

Uploaded by

Patrick Matts
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as ODT, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Turing Machines more powerful than FA or PDA Godel's Incompleteness Theorem

Halts when reaches accept or reject state Any sufficiently formal system is incomplete
PDA/FA: tape head is read only and can only read next symbol,
i.e. liar's paradox: this sentence is false, cannot complete
tape is finite cause its only the input string, accept if accept state at formulation for math, but is it decidable
end of input
are there languages that are not turing recognizable? Yes
TM: tape head is read/write, tape head can move left or right, tape a set is countable if it is finite or the same size as N
is infinite, accept/reject immediately when entering state
HW7: L(M) = {
TM M, L(M) {w#w | w {0,1}*}
001#001 L(M), 010#10 not L(M) Is a TM decideable? No, Proof uses self-reference(godel)
-TM usually described using informal or high level description liar's paradox
cant write a program that can verify another program in
TM is a 7-tuple(Q, E, I, @, q0, qaccept, qreject)
Q is the set of states
every case
E is the input of alphabet no blanks recognizable means there is a TM that will accept all
I is the tape alphabet E <= I and blanks strings of that language, decidable means a string will be
@: Q x I Q x I x {L, R} is a transition function accepted if its in the language or rejected if its not(no
q0 Q is the accept state loops)
qaccept Q is the accept stater
qreject Q is the reject state
HALT is undecidable cannot determine if a TM halts
@ could be described with a table but it would be large and mostly with another TM(programs)
empty
normally given with a state diagram P=NP? Unknown whether a P solution to TSP exists
showing reject state is redundant and is usually implicit
A lang. Is Turing Recognizable if some TM recognizes it.

A decider is a TM that halts on all strings given to it and a language


is turing decidable if some TM decides it
many variations of a TM are equivalent
NTM = DTM

equivalent Tms: single tape, k-tape, non-deterministic TM, TM


with printer

ENTSCHETDUNGSPROBLEM(decision problem)
given a set of true statements(axioms) and a to prove statement P is
there a well defined procedure that can determine in a finite number
of steps whether P can be proved by S
well defined procedure == algorithm

two formal defn were given in 1936, Alfonzo church introduced


lambda calculus and turing introduced the turing machine

in mathematics all statements that can be evaluated must have no


free variables must be bound by real values
both Church and Turing showed that some decision problems are
undecidable

turing claimed that any effectively calculable function can be


computed with a TM. C-T thesis: Any problem for which we can
define an algorithm can be converted into a TM
equivalent: TM, lambda calc, algorithms, C progs, java progs
We will move forrward with this assumption

You might also like