Scribd
Upload
7 views8 pages

Automata

The document discusses decidability and undecidability in computational theory, detailing specific languages and methods for determining their decidability, such as ADFA, ANFA, and EDFA. It explains the use of diagonalization for undecidability proofs and reduction techniques, particularly in relation to Atm and EQtm. Additionally, it touches on time complexity and the concept of inherently ambiguous languages in context of context-free grammars (CFGs).

Uploaded by

omarashraf13456
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
7 views8 pages

Automata

The document discusses decidability and undecidability in computational theory, detailing specific languages and methods for determining their decidability, such as ADFA, ANFA, and EDFA. It explains the use of diagonalization for undecidability proofs and reduction techniques, particularly in relation to Atm and EQtm. Additionally, it touches on time complexity and the concept of inherently ambiguous languages in context of context-free grammars (CFGs).

Uploaded by

omarashraf13456
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8

Theorems, corollaries and definitions

Decidability

ADFA, ANFA, AREX are decidable


EDFA is decidable by using marking proof method
EQDFA is decidable by symmetric difference method L(C) and checking if L(C) is
empty or not

By converting to CNF we have 2n-1 steps where n is length of string ^

Follow the marking method for EDFA , mark terminals and go back until the start
state is marked or not^
EQCFG is not decidable as shown in chapter 5
Every cfg is decidable as proved by Acfg
Un-Decidability

By using diagonalization: make a decider, H, for Atm. Make D which runs H on


<M, <M>> and outputs opp of what H does. If M accepts its description reject
otherwise accept. D basically takes its input and accept if the input doesn’t
accept itself otherwise rejects, If D is passed itself as input, It will run itself on its
own description. Since its bound to do the opposite, it will reject when D accepts
its description showing a contradiction.
Reducibility

By using reduction to Atm. Use Halt to tell if machine stops. If doesn’t reject
otherwise pass to Atm.

Make new machine which


only accepts w, if not w then reject. Run this machine on Etm to decide Atm. Now
if M doesn’t accept w we know that it wont accept any other string too. If
R(decider for Etm) reject we know that language of M is not empty which means
it accepts w, since it only accepts w.
Regular TM is undecidable: make a new machine whose language depends on
whether M accepts w or not. Basically decider for regular TM will depend upon
the machine given to it which in turn will be dependant upon its language which
in turn will be dependant upon whether M accepts w or not.
EQtm is undecidable: use EQtm as subroutine for Etm. Showing that any machine
equal to a machine we already fixed to accept nothing helps us solve Etm which
is not possible.
Prove this using theorem 5.28 and 5.29. Show a mapping from Atm to -EQtm
which means -Atm to EQtm. And by using theorem 5.28 show EQtm is not
recognizable. Need to show that if some string w is accepted by M then it should
lie outside of EQtm. Similarly for the other way If M accepts w we need to show
that it lies in EQtm too which will be converted to -Atm and -EQtm showing that
both -EQtm and EQtm are unrecognizable
Time Complexity
Path E P: just do a breath first search from s.
RELPRIME E P: use Euclidean algorithm.
Use NTM as subroutine in verifier and vice versa. To use verifier in NTM, select a
string ND of length n^k to be used by verifier and check by verifier.
For input w,c for verifier: use c to help you find the right branch
nondeterministically.

Clique is in NP: Give a certificate which is a sub graph to check whether clique or
not.
CFGs

Some languages which can only be derived ambiguously are known as inherently
ambiguous.

You might also like