Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 34 views

    Formal Languages, Automata and Computability

    Uploaded by

    Mahnoor Khandwani
    This document discusses reductions and undecidability proofs. It shows that the halting problem (HALTTM) is undecidable by reducing the acceptance problem (ATM) to it. Specifically, it constructs a Turing machine D that on input (M,w) simulates a hypothetical decision machine H for ATM. It then shows that D can construct an instance (DH,DH) that H would fail to classify correctly, proving no such H can exist and ATM is undecidable. Similarly, it reduces various language problems like the emptiness problem (ETM) to ATM, showing their undecidability by reducing ATM which is already known to be undecidable. The key concept

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Formal Languages, Automata and Computability

    Uploaded by

    Mahnoor Khandwani
    34 views28 pages
    This document discusses reductions and undecidability proofs. It shows that the halting problem (HALTTM) is undecidable by reducing the acceptance problem (ATM) to it. Specifically, it constructs a Turing machine D that on input (M,w) simulates a hypothetical decision machine H for ATM. It then shows that D can construct an instance (DH,DH) that H would fail to classify correctly, proving no such H can exist and ATM is undecidable. Similarly, it reduces various language problems like the emptiness problem (ETM) to ATM, showing their undecidability by reducing ATM which is already known to be undecidable. The key concept

    Original Title

    Lecture10x.ppt

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses reductions and undecidability proofs. It shows that the halting problem (HALTTM) is undecidable by reducing the acceptance problem (ATM) to it. Specifically, it constructs a Turing machine D that on input (M,w) simulates a hypothetical decision machine H for ATM. It then shows that D can construct an instance (DH,DH) that H would fail to classify correctly, proving no such H can exist and ATM is undecidable. Similarly, it reduces various language problems like the emptiness problem (ETM) to ATM, showing their undecidability by reducing ATM which is already known to be undecidable. The key concept

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    34 views28 pages

    Formal Languages, Automata and Computability

    Uploaded by

    Mahnoor Khandwani
    This document discusses reductions and undecidability proofs. It shows that the halting problem (HALTTM) is undecidable by reducing the acceptance problem (ATM) to it. Specifically, it constructs a Turing machine D that on input (M,w) simulates a hypothetical decision machine H for ATM. It then shows that D can construct an instance (DH,DH) that H would fail to classify correctly, proving no such H can exist and ATM is undecidable. Similarly, it reduces various language problems like the emptiness problem (ETM) to ATM, showing their undecidability by reducing ATM which is already known to be undecidable. The key concept

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPT, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as ppt, pdf, or txt
    of 28

    15-453

    FORMAL LANGUAGES,
    AUTOMATA AND
    COMPUTABILITY
    UNDECIDABILITY II:
    REDUCTIONS
    ATM = { (M,w) | M is a TM that accepts string w }
    ATM is undecidable: (constructive proof & subtle)
    Assume machine H semi-decides ATM
    Accept if M accepts w
    H( (M,w) ) =
    Rejects or loops otherwise

    Construct a new TM DH as follows: on input M,


    run H on (M,M) and output the “opposite” of H
    whenever possible.
    Reject if D
    MH accepts D MH
    (i.e. if H( MH , D
    D MH ) = Accept)

    Accept if D MH rejects DMH


    DH ( D
    MH ) =
    MH , D
    (i.e. if H( D MH ) = Reject)

    loops if D MH loops on D MH
    (i.e. if H( D
    MH , DMH ) loops)

    Note: There is no contradiction here!


    DH loops on DH
    We can effectively construct an instance which
    does not belong to ATM (namely, (DH, DH) )
    but H fails to tell us that.
    That is:
    Given any semi-decision machine H for ATM
    (and thus a potential decision machine for ATM ),
    we can effectively construct an instance which
    does not belong to ATM (namely, ( DH, DH ))
    but H fails to tell us that.
    So H cannot be a decision machine for ATM
    THE HALTING PROBLEM
    HALTTM = { (M,w) | M is a TM that halts on string w }
    Theorem: HALTTM is undecidable
    Proof: Assume, for a contradiction, that TM H
    decides HALTTM
    We use H to construct a TM D that decides ATM

    On input (M,w), D runs H on (M,w)


    If H rejects then reject
    If H accepts, run M on w until it halts:
    Accept if M accepts and
    Reject if M rejects
    (M,w)

    (M,w)
    If M halts
    D H Does M
    w
    halt on w?

    If M doesn’t M
    halt: REJECT
    In most cases, we will show that a
    language L is undecidable by showing
    that if it is decidable, then so is ATM

    We reduce deciding ATM to deciding


    the language in question
    ATM “<” L
    So, ATM “<” HaltTM
    Is HaltTM “<” ATM ?
    ETM = { M | M is a TM and L(M) =  }
    Theorem: ETM is undecidable
    Proof: Assume, for a contradiction, that TM Z
    decides ETM Use Z as a subroutine to decide ATM
    Algorithm for deciding ATM: On input (M,w):

    1. Create Mw
    Mw
    s If s  w, REJECT
    If s = w, run M(w)

    So, L (Mw) =   M(w) does not accept


    L (Mw)    M(w) accepts
    2. Run Z on Mw
    Mw
    s If s  w, REJECT
    If s = w, run M(w) (M,w)
    So, L (Mw) =   M(w)
    does not accept N Mw

    Decision Machine
    Z L(M w) ==?
    L(N)
    ?
    for ATM
    Accepts if M does not accept w
    Rejects, otherwise
    REVERSE accept/reject
    REGULARTM = { M | M is a TM and L(M) is regular}
    Theorem: REGULARTM is undecidable
    Proof: Assume, for a contradiction, that TM R
    decides REGULARTM
    Mw
    s If s = 0n1n, accept
    Else run M(w)

    L(Mw) = Σ* if M(w) accepts


    N Mw
    {0n1n } otherwise
    L(Mw) is regular  M(w) accepts
    R IsIsL(M
    L(N) regular?
    w) regular?

    Yes  M accepts w
    ALLPDA = { P | P is a PDA and L(P) = Σ* }
    Theorem: ALLPDA is undecidable
    Proof: Assume, for a contradiction, that TM A
    decides ALLPDA

    We use A to decide ATM

    More subtle construction


    Idea! If M(w) does not accept, then there is no
    Idea!
    accepting computation for M on input w. Then any
    string of 0’s and 1’s will fail to be (a code for) an
    accepting computation. So, given (M, w) construct a
    PDA that accepts non-accepting computations of M on w.
    Thus, M(w) does not accept  L(P) = Σ*
    CONFIGURATIONS

    11010q700110
    q7

    1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0
    COMPUTATION HISTORIES
    An accepting computation history is a
    sequence of configurations C1,C2,…,Ck, where
    1. C1 is the start configuration,
    2. Ck is an accepting configuration,
    3. Each Ci follows from Ci-1

    An rejecting computation history is a


    sequence of configurations C1,C2,…,Ck, where
    1. C1 is the start configuration,
    2. Ck is a rejecting configuration,
    3. Each Ci follows from Ci-1
    M accepts w
    if and only if
    there exists an accepting
    computation history
    that starts with C1=q0w
    ALLPDA = { P | P is a PDA and L(P) = Σ* }
    Theorem: ALLPDA is undecidable
    Proof: Assume, for a contradiction, that TM A
    decides ALLPDA

    We use A to decide ATM

    On input (M,w), construct a PDA P that accepts


    Σ* if and only if M does not accept w

    P will recognize all strings that are NOT


    accepting computation histories for M on w
    P will recognize all strings (read as sequences
    of configurations) that:
    1. Do not start with C1
    2. Do not end with an accepting configuration
    3. Where some Ci does not properly yield Ci+1

    ε,ε → ε ε,ε → ε

    ε,ε → ε

    Non-deterministic checks for 1, 2, and 3.


    P recognizes all strings except:

    #C1# C2R #C3 #C4R #C5 #C6R #….# Ck

    If k is odd, put Ck on stack and see if Ck+1R


    follows properly:
    For example,
    If =uaqibv and  (qi,b) = (qj,c,R),
    then Ck properly yields Ck+1  Ck+1 = uacqjv
    P recognizes all strings except:

    #C1# C2R #C3 #C4R #C5 #C6R #….# Ck

    If k is odd, put Ck on stack and see if Ck+1R


    follows properly:
    For example,
    If =uaqibv and  (qi,b) = (qj,c,L),
    then Ck properly yields Ck+1  Ck+1 = uqjacv
    P recognizes all strings except:

    #C1# C2R #C3 #C4R #C5 #C6R #….# Ck

    If k is even, put CkR on stack and see if Ck+1


    follows properly:
    For example,
    If =uaqibv and  (qi,b) = (qj,c,L),
    then Ck properly yields Ck+1  Ck+1 = uqjacv
    ALLPDA = { P | P is a PDA and L(P) = Σ* }
    Theorem: ALLPDA is undecidable
    Proof: Assume, for a contradiction, that TM A
    decides ALLPDA

    We use A to decide ATM

    On input (M,w), construct a PDA P that accepts


    Σ* if and only if M does not accept w

    P will recognize all strings that are NOT


    accepting computation histories for M on w
    MAPPING REDUCIBILITY
    f : Σ*  Σ* is a computable function if some
    Turing machine M, on every input w, halts with
    just f(w) on its tape
    A language A is mapping reducible to
    language B, written A  m B, if there is a
    computable function (“coding”) f : Σ*  Σ*,
    where for every w,
    w  A  f(w) 
    B
    f is called a reduction from A to B
    A B
    f

    f
    Theorem: If A  m B and B is decidable,
    then A is decidable

    Proof: Let M decide B and let f be a


    reduction from A to B

    We build a machine N that decides A as follows:


    On input w:
    1. Compute f(w)
    2. Run M on f(w)
    All undecidability proofs from today
    can be seen as constructing an f that
    reduces ATM to the proper language

    Exercise. Construct such an f in each


    case. (Hint. Sometimes you have to
    consider the complement of the
    language. )
    All undecidability proofs from today
    can be seen as constructing an f that
    reduces ATM to the proper language

    ATM  m HALTTM :
    Map (M, w)  (M’, w)
    where M’(w) = M(w) if M(w) accepts
    loops otherwise

    So (M, w)  ATM  (M’, w)  HALTTM


    Read chapter 5.1-5.3 of the book for next time

    You might also like