Scribd
Upload
28 views

CS5371 Theory of Computation: Q "On Input HM, Wi, M

This document provides the solution to Homework 4 in a theory of computation class. It discusses several key concepts: 1) It proves the halting problem ATM is undecidable by constructing a reduction from ATM to a language and reaching a contradiction. 2) It explains that the Post Correspondence Problem is decidable because a TM can check if a string matches in a finite number of steps. 3) It proves that if a language A is reducible to ATM or recognizable, then it is also recognizable, and vice versa. 4) It proves that if a language A is reducible to the regular language 0*1* or decidable, then it is also

Uploaded by

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

CS5371 Theory of Computation: Q "On Input HM, Wi, M

This document provides the solution to Homework 4 in a theory of computation class. It discusses several key concepts: 1) It proves the halting problem ATM is undecidable by constructing a reduction from ATM to a language and reaching a contradiction. 2) It explains that the Post Correspondence Problem is decidable because a TM can check if a string matches in a finite number of steps. 3) It proves that if a language A is reducible to ATM or recognizable, then it is also recognizable, and vice versa. 4) It proves that if a language A is reducible to the regular language 0*1* or decidable, then it is also

Uploaded by

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

CS5371 Theory of Computation

Homework 4 (Suggested Solution)

1. Ans. Suppose on the contrary that T is decidable. Let R be its decider. Then, the
following TM Q is a decider for AT M :

Q = “On input hM, wi,


1. Construct a TM M 0 as follows:
M 0 = “On input x,
1. If x 6= 011, accept.
2. Run M on w.
3. If M accepts w, accept.”
2. Run R to decide if hM 0 i is in T .
3. If yes (i.e., R accepts), accept.
4. Else, reject.”

It is easy to check that Q runs in finite steps. Also, in Step 1, M 0 has the property that:
(i) If M accepts w, L(M 0 ) = Σ∗ , so that hM 0 i ∈ T .
(ii) Else, L(M 0 ) = Σ∗ − {011}, so that hM 0 i ∈
/ T.
So, if Q accepts hM, wi, it must mean that R accepts hM 0 i, which implies that hM 0 i ∈ T ,
which implies M accepts w. On the other hand, if Q rejects hM, wi, R rejects hM 0 i, which
in turn implies that M does not accept w.
Thus, Q is a decider for AT M , and a contradiction occurs. So, we conclude that T is
undecidable.
2. In the silly Post Correspondence Problem, we see that if a set of dominoes S is in SPCP if
and only if S contains a piece whose top string matches exactly the bottom string. Thus,
we can easily design a TM that uses finite steps to check such a piece exists. So, SPCP is
decidable.
3. (⇒) If A ≤m AT M , then A is Turing-recognizable because AT M is Turing recognizable.
(⇐) If A is Turing-recognizable, then there exists some TM R that recognizes A. That
is, R would receive an input w and accept if w is in A (otherwise R does not accept). To
show that A ≤m AT M , we design a TM that does the following: On input w, writes hR, wi
on the tape and halts. It is easy to check that hR, wi is in AT M if and only if w is in A.
Thus, we get a mapping reduction of A to AT M .
4. (⇒) If A ≤m 0∗ 1∗ , then A is decidable because 0∗ 1∗ is a decidable language.
(⇐) If A is decidable, then there exists some TM R that decides A. That is, R would
receive an input w and accept if w is in A, reject if w is not in A. To show A ≤m 0∗ 1∗ , we
design a TM Q that does the following: On input w, runs R on w. If R accepts, outputs
01; otherwise, outputs 10. It is easy to check that:
w ∈ A ⇔ output of Q ∈ 0∗ 1∗ .
Thus, we obtain a mapping reduction of A to 0∗ 1∗ .

1
5. Let J = {w | either w = 0x for some x ∈ AT M , or w = 1y for some y ∈
/ AT M }.

• We first show that AT M ≤m J. To do so, we design the following TM Q: On input


hM, wi, write 0 followed by hM, wi in the tape and halts. It is easy to check that:

hM, wi ∈ AT M ⇔ output of Q ∈ J.

Thus, we obtain a mapping reduction of AT M to J.


• We next show that AT M ≤m J. ¯ To do so, we design the following TM R: On input
hM, wi, write 1 followed by hM, wi in the tape and halts. It is easy to check that:

hM, wi ∈ AT M ⇔ output of R ∈ J.

Equivalently, we have:
¯
hM, wi ∈ AT M ⇔ output of R ∈ J.
¯
Thus, we obtain a mapping reduction of AT M to J.
• Since AT M ≤m J, we have AT M ≤m J.¯ This shows that J¯ is non-Turing-recognizable
because AT¯M is non-Turing-recognizable.
¯ we have AT M ≤m J. So, this shows that J is non-Turing-
Similarly, since AT M ≤m J,
recognizable.

You might also like