1.

Post Correspondence Problem

Post Correspondence Problem is a popular undecidable problem that was

introduced by Emil Leon Post in 1946. It is simpler than Halting Problem. In
this problem we have N number of Dominos (tiles). The aim is to arrange tiles
in such order that string made by Numerators is same as string made by
Denominators. In simple words, let’s assume we have two lists both containing
N words, aim is to find out concatenation of these words in some sequence such
that both lists yield same result. Let’s try understanding this by taking two lists
A and B.

A = [aa, bb, abb] and B = [aab, ba, b]

Now for sequence 1, 2, 1, 3 first list will yield aabbaaabb and second list will
yield same string aabbaaabb so, the solution to this PCP becomes 1, 2, 1, 3. Post
Correspondence Problems can be represented in two ways:

1. Domino’s Form:

2. Table Form:

Post Correspondence Theorem:

1. Undecidability: The PCP is undecidable, meaning there's no algorithm that

can solve it for all cases. This was proved by Emil Post using reduction from
the Halting Problem, another undecidable problem.

2. Proof of Undecidability: The proof involves constructing a Turing machine

that simulates the behavior of a machine attempting to solve the Halting
Problem using a sequence of tiles. If there exists a solution to the PCP using this
sequence, it would imply a solution to the Halting Problem, contradicting its
undecidability.
3. Reduction: The reduction from the Halting Problem to the PCP establishes a
way to transform instances of the Halting Problem into instances of the PCP.
This shows that if there were an algorithm to solve the PCP, it could also solve
the Halting Problem, which is known to be undecidable.

Let’s consider following examples.

Example-1:

A B

1 1 111

2 10111 10

3 10 0

Step-1: We will start with tile in which numerator and denominator are starting
with same number, so we can start with either 1 or 2. Let’s go with second tile,
string made by numerator- 10111, string made by denominator is 10.

Step-2: We need 1s in denominator to match 1s in numerator so we will go with

first tile, string made by numerator is 10111 1, string made by denominator is
10 111.

Step-3: There is extra 1 in numerator to match this 1 we will add first tile in
sequence, string made by numerator is now 10111 1 1, string made by
denominator is 10 111 111.

Step-4: Now there is extra 1 in denominator to match it we will add third tile,
string made by numerator is 10111 1 1 10, string made by denominator is 10
111 111 0.
Final Solution - 2 1 1 3

String made by numerators: 101111110

String made by denominators: 101111110

As you can see, strings are same.

Example - 2

Find whether the lists M = (abb, aa, aaa) and N = (bba, aaa, aa) have a Post
Correspondence Solution.

X1 X2 X3
M Abb Aa Aaa
N Bba Aaa aa

Here,

x2x1x3 = ‘aaabbaaa’

and y2y1y3 = ‘aaabbaaa’

We can see that

x2x1x3 = y2y1y3

Hence, the solution is i = 2, j = 1, and k = 3.

Example 3:

Obtain the solution for the following system of posts correspondence problem. A
= {100, 0, 1}, B = {1, 100, 00}
Solution: Consider the sequence 1, 3, 2. The string obtained from A = babababb.
The string obtained from B = bababbbb. These two strings are not equal. Thus if
we try various combination from both the sets to find the unique sequence, we
could not get such a sequence. Hence there is no solution for this system.

Example 4:

Obtain the solution for the following system of posts correspondence problem, X
= {100, 0, 1}, Y = {1, 100, 00}.

Solution: The solution is 1, 3, 1, 1, 3, 2, 2. The string is

X1X3X1X1X3X2X2 = 100 + 1 + 100 + 100 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 1001100100100

Y1Y3Y1Y1Y3Y2Y2 = 1 + 00 + 1 + 1 + 00 + 100 + 100 = 1001100100100
 2. Rice's Theorem

Rice's Theorem is a fundamental theorem in computability theory that provides

insight into the limits of what can be decided about the behavior of programs. It
essentially states that for non-trivial properties of a Turing machine's language
(i.e., properties that are not true for all Turing machines or false for all Turing
machines), it is undecidable whether a given Turing machine possesses that
property.

• If P is a non-trivial property, and the language holding the property, Lp , is

recognized by Turing machine M, then Lp = {<M> | L(M) ∈ P} is
undecidable.
• Statement of Rice's Theorem:

For any non-trivial property of a Turing machine's language, it is undecidable

whether a given Turing machine recognizes a language with that property.

Here are four examples demonstrating the application of Rice's Theorem:

Examples:

1. Halting on Empty Input

Property: Does a given Turing machine halt on empty input?

Rice's Theorem states that determining whether a Turing machine halts on empty
input is undecidable. That means there is no algorithm that can decide for all
Turing machines whether they halt on an empty input or not.
2. Recognizing Palindromes

Property: Does a given Turing machine recognize a language consisting only of

palindromes?

Rice's Theorem applies here as well. Deciding whether a given Turing machine
recognizes a language of palindromes is undecidable because it's a non-trivial
property that can't be determined universally for all Turing machines.

3. Accepting an Even Number of Strings

Property: Does a given Turing machine accept a language containing an even

number of strings?

Again, Rice's Theorem comes into play. Determining whether a Turing machine
accepts a language with an even number of strings is an undecidable problem.

4. Language Containing Prime Length Strings

Property: Does a given Turing machine recognize a language consisting only of

strings with a prime number of characters?

Once more, Rice's Theorem applies. The property of recognizing a language with
strings of prime length is non-trivial and thus undecidable for a given Turing
machine.

❖ Description and Properties

• Property of languages, P, is simply a set of languages. If any language
belongs to P (L ∈ P), it is said that L satisfies the property P.
• A property is called to be trivial if either it is not satisfied by any
recursively enumerable languages, or if it is satisfied by all recursively
enumerable languages.
 • A non-trivial property is satisfied by some recursively enumerable
languages and are not satisfied by others. Formally speaking, in a non-
trivial property, where L ∈ P, both the following properties hold:
o Property 1 − There exists Turing Machines, M1 and M2 that
recognize the same language, i.e. either ( <M1>, <M2> ∈ L ) or (
<M1>,<M2> ∉ L )
o Property 2 − There exists Turing Machines M1 and M2, where M1
recognizes the language while M2 does not, i.e. <M1> ∈ L and
<M2> ∉ L
• Proof

i. Suppose, a property P is non-trivial and φ ∈ P.

ii. Since, P is non-trivial, at least one language satisfies P, i.e., L(M0) ∈ P , ∋
Turing Machine M0.
iii. Let, w be an input in a particular instant and N is a Turing Machine which
follows

On input x

• Run M on w
• If M does not accept (or doesn't halt), then do not accept x (or do not halt)
• If M accepts w then run M0 on x. If M0 accepts x, then accept x.

A function that maps an instance ATM = {<M,w>| M accepts input w} to a N

such that

• If M accepts w and N accepts the same language as M0, Then L(M) = L(M0)
∈p
• If M does not accept w and N accepts φ, Then L(N) = φ ∉ p

Since ATM is undecidable and it can be reduced to Lp, Lp is also undecidable.

 3. Church Hypothesis

In 1936, A method named as lambda-calculus was created by Alonzo Church in

which the Church numerals are well defined, i.e. the encoding of natural numbers.
Also in 1936, Turing machines (earlier called theoretical model for machines)
was created by Alan Turing, that is used for manipulating the symbols of string
with the help of tape.

• Church Turing Thesis:

Turing machine is defined as an abstract representation of a computing device

such as hardware in computers. Alan Turing proposed Logical Computing
Machines (LCMs), i.e., Turing’s expressions for Turing Machines. This was done
to define algorithms properly. So, Church made a mechanical method named as
‘M’ for manipulation of strings by using logic and mathematics.

This method M must pass the following statements:

1. Number of instructions in M must be finite.

2. Output should be produced after performing finite number of steps.
3. It should not be imaginary, i.e. can be made in real life.
4. It should not require any complex understanding.

Using these statements Church proposed a hypothesis called.

• Church’s Turing thesis

that can be stated as: “The assumption that the intuitive notion of computable
functions can be identified with partial recursive functions.”

Or in simple words we can say that “Every computation that can be carried out in
the real world can be effectively performed by a Turing Machine.”
In 1930, this statement was first formulated by Alonzo Church and is usually
referred to as Church’s thesis, or the Church-Turing thesis. However, this
hypothesis cannot be proved. The recursive functions can be computable after
taking following assumptions:

1. Each and every function must be computable.

2. Let ‘F’ be the computable function and after performing some elementary
operations to ‘F’, it will transform a new function ‘G’ then this function ‘G’
automatically becomes the computable function.

3. If any functions that follow above two assumptions must be states as

computable function.

• The extended Church-Turing thesis for decision problems:

A decision problem Q is said to be partially solvable if and only if there is a

Turing machine which accepts precisely the elements of Q whose answer is yes.

• Proof

A proof by the Church-Turing thesis is a shortcut often taken in establishing the

existence of a decision algorithm.

For any decision problem, rather than constructing a Turing machine solution, let
us describe an effective procedure which solves the problem.

The Church-Turing thesis explains that a decision problem Q has a solution if and
only if there is a Turing machine that determines the answer for every q ϵ Q. If
no such Turing machine exists, the problem is said to be undecidable.