4 tayangan

Diunggah oleh Nick Soni

Decidability and Reductions

- RAI notes on reactive paradigm
- Gaussian Elimination
- Linear Algebra
- Dfd Cheatsheet
- Chapter 05 Finite Autamata
- Generalized Quantifiers, Semantic Automata, and Numerical Cognition
- Application Notes
- Cse208 Theory-Of-computation Th 1.10 Ac26
- Period of a String
- solving sles
- Automata Theory
- 1
- 04 Linear Algebra
- l4-FSM-CFSM.pdf
- XII Maths Chapterwise Advanced Study Material 2015 17
- Factor Oracle - A New Structure for Pattern Matching
- lect1 - Feb02_CS422
- Lec3_Maths_3_20110928
- Fa 2
- poc-lab-5

Anda di halaman 1dari 178

C OMPUTATION

P OST C ORRESPONDENCE P ROBLEM

R EVIEW OF D ECIDABILITY AND R EDUCTIONS

R EDUCIBILITY

A reduction is a way of converting one problem to another problem, so

that the solution to the second problem can be used to solve the first

problem.

R EDUCIBILITY

A reduction is a way of converting one problem to another problem, so

that the solution to the second problem can be used to solve the first

problem.

Finding the area of a rectangle, reduces to measuring its width and height

R EDUCIBILITY

A reduction is a way of converting one problem to another problem, so

that the solution to the second problem can be used to solve the first

problem.

Finding the area of a rectangle, reduces to measuring its width and height

Solving a set of linear equations, reduces to inverting a matrix.

R EDUCIBILITY

A reduction is a way of converting one problem to another problem, so

that the solution to the second problem can be used to solve the first

problem.

Finding the area of a rectangle, reduces to measuring its width and height

Solving a set of linear equations, reduces to inverting a matrix.

Reducibility involves two problems A and B.

R EDUCIBILITY

A reduction is a way of converting one problem to another problem, so

that the solution to the second problem can be used to solve the first

problem.

Finding the area of a rectangle, reduces to measuring its width and height

Solving a set of linear equations, reduces to inverting a matrix.

Reducibility involves two problems A and B.

If A reduces to B, you can use a solution to B to solve A

R EDUCIBILITY

A reduction is a way of converting one problem to another problem, so

that the solution to the second problem can be used to solve the first

problem.

Finding the area of a rectangle, reduces to measuring its width and height

Solving a set of linear equations, reduces to inverting a matrix.

Reducibility involves two problems A and B.

If A reduces to B, you can use a solution to B to solve A

When A is reducible to B, solving A can not be harder than solving B.

R EDUCIBILITY

A reduction is a way of converting one problem to another problem, so

that the solution to the second problem can be used to solve the first

problem.

Finding the area of a rectangle, reduces to measuring its width and height

Solving a set of linear equations, reduces to inverting a matrix.

Reducibility involves two problems A and B.

If A reduces to B, you can use a solution to B to solve A

When A is reducible to B, solving A can not be harder than solving B.

If A is reducible to B and B is decidable, then A is also decidable.

R EDUCIBILITY

A reduction is a way of converting one problem to another problem, so

that the solution to the second problem can be used to solve the first

problem.

Finding the area of a rectangle, reduces to measuring its width and height

Solving a set of linear equations, reduces to inverting a matrix.

Reducibility involves two problems A and B.

If A reduces to B, you can use a solution to B to solve A

When A is reducible to B, solving A can not be harder than solving B.

If A is reducible to B and B is decidable, then A is also decidable.

If A is undecidable and reducible to B, then B is undecidable.

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

T HEOREM 5.2

ETM = {hMi | M is a TM and L(M) = } is undecidable.

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

T HEOREM 5.2

ETM = {hMi | M is a TM and L(M) = } is undecidable.

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

T HEOREM 5.2

ETM = {hMi | M is a TM and L(M) = } is undecidable.

Note that S takes hM, wi as input.

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

T HEOREM 5.2

ETM = {hMi | M is a TM and L(M) = } is undecidable.

Note that S takes hM, wi as input.

One idea is to run R on hMi to check if M accepts some string or not

but that that does not tell us if M accepts w.

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

T HEOREM 5.2

ETM = {hMi | M is a TM and L(M) = } is undecidable.

Note that S takes hM, wi as input.

One idea is to run R on hMi to check if M accepts some string or not

but that that does not tell us if M accepts w.

Instead we modify M to M1 . M1 rejects all strings other than w but on w,

it does what M does.

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

T HEOREM 5.2

ETM = {hMi | M is a TM and L(M) = } is undecidable.

Note that S takes hM, wi as input.

One idea is to run R on hMi to check if M accepts some string or not

but that that does not tell us if M accepts w.

Instead we modify M to M1 . M1 rejects all strings other than w but on w,

it does what M does.

Now we can check if L(M1 ) = .

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

T HEOREM 5.2

ETM = {hMi | M is a TM and L(M) = } is undecidable.

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

T HEOREM 5.2

ETM = {hMi | M is a TM and L(M) = } is undecidable.

P ROOF

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

T HEOREM 5.2

ETM = {hMi | M is a TM and L(M) = } is undecidable.

P ROOF

For any w define M1 as

M1 = On input x:

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

T HEOREM 5.2

ETM = {hMi | M is a TM and L(M) = } is undecidable.

P ROOF

For any w define M1 as

M1 = On input x:

1 If x 6= w, reject.

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

T HEOREM 5.2

ETM = {hMi | M is a TM and L(M) = } is undecidable.

P ROOF

For any w define M1 as

M1 = On input x:

1 6 w, reject.

If x =

2 If x = w, run M on input w and accept if M does.

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

T HEOREM 5.2

ETM = {hMi | M is a TM and L(M) = } is undecidable.

P ROOF

For any w define M1 as

M1 = On input x:

1 6 w, reject.

If x =

2 If x = w, run M on input w and accept if M does.

Note that M1 either accepts w only or nothing!

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

P ROOF CONTINUED

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

P ROOF CONTINUED

Assume R decides ETM

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

P ROOF CONTINUED

Assume R decides ETM

S defines below uses R to decide on ATM

S = On input hM, wi

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

P ROOF CONTINUED

Assume R decides ETM

S defines below uses R to decide on ATM

S = On input hM, wi

1 Use hM, wi to construct M1 above.

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

P ROOF CONTINUED

Assume R decides ETM

S defines below uses R to decide on ATM

S = On input hM, wi

1 Use hM, wi to construct M1 above.

2 Run R on input hM1 i

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

P ROOF CONTINUED

Assume R decides ETM

S defines below uses R to decide on ATM

S = On input hM, wi

1 Use hM, wi to construct M1 above.

2 Run R on input hM1 i

3 If R accepts, reject, if R rejects, accept.

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

P ROOF CONTINUED

Assume R decides ETM

S defines below uses R to decide on ATM

S = On input hM, wi

1 Use hM, wi to construct M1 above.

2 Run R on input hM1 i

3 If R accepts, reject, if R rejects, accept.

So, if R decides L(M1 ) is empty,

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

P ROOF CONTINUED

Assume R decides ETM

S defines below uses R to decide on ATM

S = On input hM, wi

1 Use hM, wi to construct M1 above.

2 Run R on input hM1 i

3 If R accepts, reject, if R rejects, accept.

So, if R decides L(M1 ) is empty,

then M does NOT accept w,

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

P ROOF CONTINUED

Assume R decides ETM

S defines below uses R to decide on ATM

S = On input hM, wi

1 Use hM, wi to construct M1 above.

2 Run R on input hM1 i

3 If R accepts, reject, if R rejects, accept.

So, if R decides L(M1 ) is empty,

then M does NOT accept w,

else M accepts w.

P ROVING U NDECIDABILITY VIA R EDUCTIONS

P ROOF CONTINUED

Assume R decides ETM

S defines below uses R to decide on ATM

S = On input hM, wi

1 Use hM, wi to construct M1 above.

2 Run R on input hM1 i

3 If R accepts, reject, if R rejects, accept.

So, if R decides L(M1 ) is empty,

then M does NOT accept w,

else M accepts w.

If R decides ETM then S decides ATM Contradiction.

R EDUCTIONS VIA C OMPUTATION H ISTORIES

An accepting computation history for a TM is a sequence of

configurations

C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl

such that

R EDUCTIONS VIA C OMPUTATION H ISTORIES

An accepting computation history for a TM is a sequence of

configurations

C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl

such that

C1 is the start configuration for input w

R EDUCTIONS VIA C OMPUTATION H ISTORIES

An accepting computation history for a TM is a sequence of

configurations

C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl

such that

C1 is the start configuration for input w

Cl is an accepting configuration, and

R EDUCTIONS VIA C OMPUTATION H ISTORIES

An accepting computation history for a TM is a sequence of

configurations

C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl

such that

C1 is the start configuration for input w

Cl is an accepting configuration, and

each Ci follows legally from the preceding configuration.

R EDUCTIONS VIA C OMPUTATION H ISTORIES

An accepting computation history for a TM is a sequence of

configurations

C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl

such that

C1 is the start configuration for input w

Cl is an accepting configuration, and

each Ci follows legally from the preceding configuration.

A rejecting computation history is defined similarly.

R EDUCTIONS VIA C OMPUTATION H ISTORIES

An accepting computation history for a TM is a sequence of

configurations

C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl

such that

C1 is the start configuration for input w

Cl is an accepting configuration, and

each Ci follows legally from the preceding configuration.

A rejecting computation history is defined similarly.

Computation histories are finite sequences if M does not halt on M,

there is no computation history.

R EDUCTIONS VIA C OMPUTATION H ISTORIES

An accepting computation history for a TM is a sequence of

configurations

C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl

such that

C1 is the start configuration for input w

Cl is an accepting configuration, and

each Ci follows legally from the preceding configuration.

A rejecting computation history is defined similarly.

Computation histories are finite sequences if M does not halt on M,

there is no computation history.

Deterministic v.s nondeterministic computation histories.

L INEAR B OUNDED AUTOMATON

Suppose we cripple a TM so that the head never moves outside the

boundaries of the input string.

L INEAR B OUNDED AUTOMATON

Suppose we cripple a TM so that the head never moves outside the

boundaries of the input string.

Such a TM is called a linear bounded automaton (LBA)

L INEAR B OUNDED AUTOMATON

Suppose we cripple a TM so that the head never moves outside the

boundaries of the input string.

Such a TM is called a linear bounded automaton (LBA)

Despite their memory limitation, LBAs are quite powerful.

L INEAR B OUNDED AUTOMATON

Suppose we cripple a TM so that the head never moves outside the

boundaries of the input string.

Such a TM is called a linear bounded automaton (LBA)

Despite their memory limitation, LBAs are quite powerful.

L EMMA

Let M be a LBA with q states, g symbols in the tape alphabet. There are

exactly qng n distinct configurations for a tape of length n.

L INEAR B OUNDED AUTOMATON

Suppose we cripple a TM so that the head never moves outside the

boundaries of the input string.

Such a TM is called a linear bounded automaton (LBA)

Despite their memory limitation, LBAs are quite powerful.

L EMMA

Let M be a LBA with q states, g symbols in the tape alphabet. There are

exactly qng n distinct configurations for a tape of length n.

P ROOF .

L INEAR B OUNDED AUTOMATON

Suppose we cripple a TM so that the head never moves outside the

boundaries of the input string.

Such a TM is called a linear bounded automaton (LBA)

Despite their memory limitation, LBAs are quite powerful.

L EMMA

Let M be a LBA with q states, g symbols in the tape alphabet. There are

exactly qng n distinct configurations for a tape of length n.

P ROOF .

The machine can be in one of q states.

L INEAR B OUNDED AUTOMATON

Suppose we cripple a TM so that the head never moves outside the

boundaries of the input string.

Such a TM is called a linear bounded automaton (LBA)

Despite their memory limitation, LBAs are quite powerful.

Let M be a LBA with q states, g symbols in the tape alphabet. There are

exactly qng n distinct configurations for a tape of length n.

P ROOF .

The machine can be in one of q states.

The head can be on one of the n cells.

L INEAR B OUNDED AUTOMATON

Suppose we cripple a TM so that the head never moves outside the

boundaries of the input string.

Such a TM is called a linear bounded automaton (LBA)

Despite their memory limitation, LBAs are quite powerful.

Let M be a LBA with q states, g symbols in the tape alphabet. There are

exactly qng n distinct configurations for a tape of length n.

P ROOF .

The machine can be in one of q states.

The head can be on one of the n cells.

At most g n distinct strings can occur on the tape.

L INEAR B OUNDED AUTOMATON

Suppose we cripple a TM so that the head never moves outside the

boundaries of the input string.

Such a TM is called a linear bounded automaton (LBA)

Despite their memory limitation, LBAs are quite powerful.

Let M be a LBA with q states, g symbols in the tape alphabet. There are

exactly qng n distinct configurations for a tape of length n.

P ROOF .

The machine can be in one of q states.

The head can be on one of the n cells.

At most g n distinct strings can occur on the tape.

T HEOREM 5.9

ALBA = {hM, wi | M is an LBA that accepts string w} is decidable.

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 8 / 28

C OMPUTATION OVER C OMPUTATION H ISTORIES

Now for a really wild and crazy idea!

C OMPUTATION OVER C OMPUTATION H ISTORIES

Now for a really wild and crazy idea!

Consider an accepting computation history of a TM M, C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl

C OMPUTATION OVER C OMPUTATION H ISTORIES

Now for a really wild and crazy idea!

Consider an accepting computation history of a TM M, C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl

Note that each Ci is a string.

C OMPUTATION OVER C OMPUTATION H ISTORIES

Now for a really wild and crazy idea!

Consider an accepting computation history of a TM M, C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl

Note that each Ci is a string.

Consider the string

C1 C2 C3 Cl

C OMPUTATION OVER C OMPUTATION H ISTORIES

Now for a really wild and crazy idea!

Consider an accepting computation history of a TM M, C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl

Note that each Ci is a string.

Consider the string

C1 C2 C3 Cl

C OMPUTATION OVER C OMPUTATION H ISTORIES

Now for a really wild and crazy idea!

Consider an accepting computation history of a TM M, C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl

Note that each Ci is a string.

Consider the string

C1 C2 C3 Cl

This string has length m and an LBA B can check if this is a valid

computation history for a TM M accepting w.

C OMPUTATION OVER C OMPUTATION H ISTORIES

Now for a really wild and crazy idea!

Consider an accepting computation history of a TM M, C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl

Note that each Ci is a string.

Consider the string

C1 C2 C3 Cl

This string has length m and an LBA B can check if this is a valid

computation history for a TM M accepting w.

Check if C1 = q0 w1 w2 wn

C OMPUTATION OVER C OMPUTATION H ISTORIES

Now for a really wild and crazy idea!

Consider an accepting computation history of a TM M, C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl

Note that each Ci is a string.

Consider the string

C1 C2 C3 Cl

This string has length m and an LBA B can check if this is a valid

computation history for a TM M accepting w.

Check if C1 = q0 w1 w2 wn

Check if Cl = qaccept

C OMPUTATION OVER C OMPUTATION H ISTORIES

Now for a really wild and crazy idea!

Consider an accepting computation history of a TM M, C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl

Note that each Ci is a string.

Consider the string

C1 C2 C3 Cl

This string has length m and an LBA B can check if this is a valid

computation history for a TM M accepting w.

Check if C1 = q0 w1 w2 wn

Check if Cl = qaccept

Check if each Ci+1 follows from Ci legally.

C OMPUTATION OVER C OMPUTATION H ISTORIES

Now for a really wild and crazy idea!

Consider an accepting computation history of a TM M, C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl

Note that each Ci is a string.

Consider the string

C1 C2 C3 Cl

This string has length m and an LBA B can check if this is a valid

computation history for a TM M accepting w.

Check if C1 = q0 w1 w2 wn

Check if Cl = qaccept

Check if each Ci+1 follows from Ci legally.

Note that B is not constructed for the purpose of running it on any input!

C OMPUTATION OVER C OMPUTATION H ISTORIES

Now for a really wild and crazy idea!

Consider an accepting computation history of a TM M, C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl

Note that each Ci is a string.

Consider the string

C1 C2 C3 Cl

This string has length m and an LBA B can check if this is a valid

computation history for a TM M accepting w.

Check if C1 = q0 w1 w2 wn

Check if Cl = qaccept

Check if each Ci+1 follows from Ci legally.

Note that B is not constructed for the purpose of running it on any input!

If L(B) 6= then M accepts w

P OST C ORRESPONDENCE P ROBLEM

Undecidability is not just confined to problems concerning automata and

languages.

P OST C ORRESPONDENCE P ROBLEM

Undecidability is not just confined to problems concerning automata and

languages.

There are other natural problems which can be proved undecidable.

P OST C ORRESPONDENCE P ROBLEM

Undecidability is not just confined to problems concerning automata and

languages.

There are other natural problems which can be proved undecidable.

The Post correspondence problem (PCP) is a tiling problem over strings.

P OST C ORRESPONDENCE P ROBLEM

Undecidability is not just confined to problems concerning automata and

languages.

There are other natural problems which can be proved undecidable.

The Post correspondence problem (PCP) is a tiling problem over strings.

A tile or a domino contains two strings, t and b; e.g., ca

a .

P OST C ORRESPONDENCE P ROBLEM

Undecidability is not just confined to problems concerning automata and

languages.

There are other natural problems which can be proved undecidable.

The Post correspondence problem (PCP) is a tiling problem over strings.

A tile or a domino contains two strings, t and b; e.g., ca

a .

Suppose we have dominos

b a ca abc

, , ,

ca ab a c

P OST C ORRESPONDENCE P ROBLEM

Undecidability is not just confined to problems concerning automata and

languages.

There are other natural problems which can be proved undecidable.

The Post correspondence problem (PCP) is a tiling problem over strings.

A tile or a domino contains two strings, t and b; e.g., ca

a .

Suppose we have dominos

b a ca abc

, , ,

ca ab a c

A match is a list of these dominos so that when concatenated the top and

the bottom strings are identical. For example,

a b ca a abc abcaaabc

=

ab ca a ab c abcaaabc

P OST C ORRESPONDENCE P ROBLEM

Undecidability is not just confined to problems concerning automata and

languages.

There are other natural problems which can be proved undecidable.

The Post correspondence problem (PCP) is a tiling problem over strings.

A tile or a domino contains two strings, t and b; e.g., ca

a .

Suppose we have dominos

b a ca abc

, , ,

ca ab a c

A match is a list of these dominos so that when concatenated the top and

the bottom strings are identical. For example,

a b ca a abc abcaaabc

=

ab ca a ab c abcaaabc

abc ca acc

The set of dominos ab , a , ba , does not have a solution.

P OST C ORRESPONDENCE P ROBLEM

A PCP instance over is a finite collection P of dominos

t1 t2 tk

P= , , ,

b1 b2 bk

P OST C ORRESPONDENCE P ROBLEM

A PCP instance over is a finite collection P of dominos

t1 t2 tk

P= , , ,

b1 b2 bk

M ATCH

Given a PCP instance P, a match is a nonempty sequence

i1 , i2 , . . . , i`

ti1 ti2 ti` = bi1 bi2 bi`

P OST C ORRESPONDENCE P ROBLEM

Q UESTION :

Does a given PCP instance P have a match?

P OST C ORRESPONDENCE P ROBLEM

Q UESTION :

Does a given PCP instance P have a match?

L ANGUAGE FORMULATION :

PCP = {hPi | P is a PCP instance and it has a match}

P OST C ORRESPONDENCE P ROBLEM

Q UESTION :

Does a given PCP instance P have a match?

L ANGUAGE FORMULATION :

PCP = {hPi | P is a PCP instance and it has a match}

T HEOREM 5.15

PCP is undecidable.

P OST C ORRESPONDENCE P ROBLEM

Q UESTION :

Does a given PCP instance P have a match?

L ANGUAGE FORMULATION :

PCP = {hPi | P is a PCP instance and it has a match}

T HEOREM 5.15

PCP is undecidable.

Proof: By reduction using computation histories. If PCP is decidable then so

is ATM . That is, if PCP has a match, then M accepts w.

PCP T HE S TRUCTURE OF THE U NDECIDABILITY

P ROOF

The reduction works in two steps:

1 We reduce ATM to Modified PCP (MPCP).

PCP T HE S TRUCTURE OF THE U NDECIDABILITY

P ROOF

The reduction works in two steps:

1 We reduce ATM to Modified PCP (MPCP).

2 We reduce MPCP to PCP.

PCP T HE S TRUCTURE OF THE U NDECIDABILITY

P ROOF

The reduction works in two steps:

1 We reduce ATM to Modified PCP (MPCP).

2 We reduce MPCP to PCP.

MPCP = {hPi | P is a PCP instance and it has a match which starts with

index 1}

PCP T HE S TRUCTURE OF THE U NDECIDABILITY

P ROOF

The reduction works in two steps:

1 We reduce ATM to Modified PCP (MPCP).

2 We reduce MPCP to PCP.

MPCP = {hPi | P is a PCP instance and it has a match which starts with

index 1}

t1

So the solution to MPCP starts with the domino b1 . We later remove

PCP T HE S TRUCTURE OF THE U NDECIDABILITY

P ROOF

The reduction works in two steps:

1 We reduce ATM to Modified PCP (MPCP).

2 We reduce MPCP to PCP.

MPCP = {hPi | P is a PCP instance and it has a match which starts with

index 1}

t1

So the solution to MPCP starts with the domino b1 . We later remove

We also assume that the decider for M never moves its head to the left of

the input w.

PCP T HE P ROOF

For input hM, wi of ATM , construct an MPCP instance such that M accepts w

iff P 0 has a match starting with domino 1

PCP T HE P ROOF

For input hM, wi of ATM , construct an MPCP instance such that M accepts w

iff P 0 has a match starting with domino 1

The first part of the proof proceeds in 7 stages where we add different

types of dominos to P 0 depending on the TM

M = (Q, , , , q0 , qaccept , qreject ).

PCP T HE P ROOF

For input hM, wi of ATM , construct an MPCP instance such that M accepts w

iff P 0 has a match starting with domino 1

The first part of the proof proceeds in 7 stages where we add different

types of dominos to P 0 depending on the TM

M = (Q, , , , q0 , qaccept , qreject ).

Using the dominos, we try to construct an accepting computation history

for M accepting w.

PCP A DDING THE RIGHT KIND OF DOMINOS

1 The first domino kicks of the computation history

t1 #

= ,

b1 #q0 w1 w2 wn #

PCP A DDING THE RIGHT KIND OF DOMINOS

1 The first domino kicks of the computation history

t1 #

= ,

b1 #q0 w1 w2 wn #

2 Handle right moving transitions. For every a, b and every q, r Q

where q 6= qreject

qa

if (q, a) = (r , b, R), put into P 0

br

PCP A DDING THE RIGHT KIND OF DOMINOS

1 The first domino kicks of the computation history

t1 #

= ,

b1 #q0 w1 w2 wn #

2 Handle right moving transitions. For every a, b and every q, r Q

where q 6= qreject

qa

if (q, a) = (r , b, R), put into P 0

br

3 Handle left moving transitions. For every a, b, c and every q, r Q

where q 6= qreject

cqa

if (q, a) = (r , b, L), put into P 0

rcb

PCP A DDING THE RIGHT KIND OF DOMINOS

1 The first domino kicks of the computation history

t1 #

= ,

b1 #q0 w1 w2 wn #

2 Handle right moving transitions. For every a, b and every q, r Q

where q 6= qreject

qa

if (q, a) = (r , b, R), put into P 0

br

3 Handle left moving transitions. For every a, b, c and every q, r Q

where q 6= qreject

cqa

if (q, a) = (r , b, L), put into P 0

rcb

4 For every a put aa into P 0

PCP A DDING THE RIGHT KIND OF DOMINOS

1 The first domino kicks of the computation history

t1 #

= ,

b1 #q0 w1 w2 wn #

2 Handle right moving transitions. For every a, b and every q, r Q

where q 6= qreject

qa

if (q, a) = (r , b, R), put into P 0

br

3 Handle left moving transitions. For every a, b, c and every q, r Q

where q 6= qreject

cqa

if (q, a) = (r , b, L), put into P 0

rcb

4 For every a put aa into P 0

5 Put ## and #

t# into P .

0

PCP - H OW THE DOMINOS WORK

Let us assume = {0, 1, 2, t}, w = 0100 and that (q0 , 0) = (q7 , 2, R)

PCP - H OW THE DOMINOS WORK

Let us assume = {0, 1, 2, t}, w = 0100 and that (q0 , 0) = (q7 , 2, R)

Part 1 places the first domino and the match begins

#

# q0 0 1 0 0 #

PCP - H OW THE DOMINOS WORK

Let us assume = {0, 1, 2, t}, w = 0100 and that (q0 , 0) = (q7 , 2, R)

Part 1 places the first domino and the match begins

# q0 0

# q0 0 1 0 0 # 2 q7

q0 0

Part 2 places the domino 2q7

PCP - H OW THE DOMINOS WORK

Let us assume = {0, 1, 2, t}, w = 0100 and that (q0 , 0) = (q7 , 2, R)

Part 1 places the first domino and the match begins

# q0 0 1 0 0

# q0 0 1 0 0 # 2 q7 1 0 0

q0 0

Part 2 places the domino 2q7

0 1 2 t

Part 4 places the dominos 0 1 2 and t into P 0 so we can

extend the match.

PCP - H OW THE DOMINOS WORK

Let us assume = {0, 1, 2, t}, w = 0100 and that (q0 , 0) = (q7 , 2, R)

Part 1 places the first domino and the match begins

# q0 0 1 0 0 #

# q0 0 1 0 0 # 2 q7 1 0 0 #

q0 0

Part 2 places the domino 2q7

0 1 2 t

Part 4 places the dominos 0 1 2 and t into P 0 so we can

extend the match.

#

Part 5 puts in the domino #

PCP - H OW THE DOMINOS WORK

Let us assume = {0, 1, 2, t}, w = 0100 and that (q0 , 0) = (q7 , 2, R)

Part 1 places the first domino and the match begins

# q0 0 1 0 0 #

# q0 0 1 0 0 # 2 q7 1 0 0 #

q0 0

Part 2 places the domino 2q7

0 1 2 t

Part 4 places the dominos 0 1 2 and t into P 0 so we can

extend the match.

#

Part 5 puts in the domino #

PCP - H OW THE DOMINOS WORK

Let us assume = {0, 1, 2, t}, w = 0100 and that (q0 , 0) = (q7 , 2, R)

Part 1 places the first domino and the match begins

# q0 0 1 0 0 #

# q0 0 1 0 0 # 2 q7 1 0 0 #

q0 0

Part 2 places the domino 2q7

0 1 2 t

Part 4 places the dominos 0 1 2 and t into P 0 so we can

extend the match.

#

Part 5 puts in the domino #

We force the bottom string to create a copy on the top which is forced to

generate the next configuration on the bottom We are simulating M on

w!

PCP - H OW THE DOMINOS WORK

Let us assume = {0, 1, 2, t}, w = 0100 and that (q0 , 0) = (q7 , 2, R)

Part 1 places the first domino and the match begins

# q0 0 1 0 0 # 2 q7 1 0 0 #

q0 0

Part 2 places the domino 2q7

0 1 2 t

Part 4 places the dominos 0 1 2 and t into P 0 so we can

extend the match.

#

Part 5 puts in the domino #

We force the bottom string to create a copy on the top which is forced to

generate the next configuration on the bottom We are simulating M on

w!

The process continues until M reaches a halting state and we then pad

the upper string.

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 16 / 28

PCP M ORE DOMINO TYPES

6 For every a ,

aqaccept qaccept a

put and into P 0

qaccept qaccept

These dominos clean-up by adding any symbols to the top string while

adding just the state symbol to the lower string.

PCP M ORE DOMINO TYPES

6 For every a ,

aqaccept qaccept a

put and into P 0

qaccept qaccept

These dominos clean-up by adding any symbols to the top string while

adding just the state symbol to the lower string.

Just before these apply the upper and lower strings are like

... #

. . . # 2 1 qaccept 0 2 #

PCP M ORE DOMINO TYPES

6 For every a ,

aqaccept qaccept a

put and into P 0

qaccept qaccept

These dominos clean-up by adding any symbols to the top string while

adding just the state symbol to the lower string.

Just before these apply the upper and lower strings are like

... #

. . . # 2 1 qaccept 0 2 #

After using these dominos, we end up with

... #

. . . # qaccept #

PCP M ORE DOMINO TYPES

6 For every a ,

aqaccept qaccept a

put and into P 0

qaccept qaccept

These dominos clean-up by adding any symbols to the top string while

adding just the state symbol to the lower string.

Just before these apply the upper and lower strings are like

... #

. . . # 2 1 qaccept 0 2 #

After using these dominos, we end up with

... #

. . . # qaccept #

7 Finally we add the domino

qaccept ##

#

to complete the match.

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 17 / 28

PCP P ROOF S UMMARY OF PART 1

This concludes the construction of P 0 .

PCP P ROOF S UMMARY OF PART 1

This concludes the construction of P 0 .

Thus if M accepts w, the set of MPCP dominos constructed have a

solution to the MPCP problem.

PCP P ROOF S UMMARY OF PART 1

This concludes the construction of P 0 .

Thus if M accepts w, the set of MPCP dominos constructed have a

solution to the MPCP problem.

But not yet to the PCP problem.

PCP P ROOF PART 2

Suppose we have the MPCP instance

t1 t2 tk

P0 = , , ,

b1 b2 bk

PCP P ROOF PART 2

Suppose we have the MPCP instance

t1 t2 tk

P0 = , , ,

b1 b2 bk

?t1 ?t2 ?tk ?

P= , , ,

?b1 ? b2 ? bk ?

PCP P ROOF PART 2

Suppose we have the MPCP instance

t1 t2 tk

P0 = , , ,

b1 b2 bk

?t1 ?t2 ?tk ?

P= , , ,

?b1 ? b2 ? bk ?

The only domino that could possibly start a match is the first one!

PCP P ROOF PART 2

Suppose we have the MPCP instance

t1 t2 tk

P0 = , , ,

b1 b2 bk

?t1 ?t2 ?tk ?

P= , , ,

?b1 ? b2 ? bk ?

The only domino that could possibly start a match is the first one!

The last domino just adds the missing ? at the end of the match.

PCP P ROOF PART 2

Suppose we have the MPCP instance

t1 t2 tk

P0 = , , ,

b1 b2 bk

?t1 ?t2 ?tk ?

P= , , ,

?b1 ? b2 ? bk ?

The only domino that could possibly start a match is the first one!

The last domino just adds the missing ? at the end of the match.

C ONCLUSION

PCP is undecidable!

S UMMARY OF R EDUCIBILITY

that the language B is also undecidable.

S UMMARY OF R EDUCIBILITY

that the language B is also undecidable.

S UMMARY OF R EDUCIBILITY

that the language B is also undecidable.

2 Using MB we construct a decider MA for the language A:

S UMMARY OF R EDUCIBILITY

that the language B is also undecidable.

2 Using MB we construct a decider MA for the language A:

MA = On input hIA i

S UMMARY OF R EDUCIBILITY

that the language B is also undecidable.

2 Using MB we construct a decider MA for the language A:

MA = On input hIA i

1. Algorithmically construct an input hIB i for MB , such that

S UMMARY OF R EDUCIBILITY

that the language B is also undecidable.

2 Using MB we construct a decider MA for the language A:

MA = On input hIA i

1. Algorithmically construct an input hIB i for MB , such that

S UMMARY OF R EDUCIBILITY

that the language B is also undecidable.

2 Using MB we construct a decider MA for the language A:

MA = On input hIA i

1. Algorithmically construct an input hIB i for MB , such that

a) Either

S UMMARY OF R EDUCIBILITY

that the language B is also undecidable.

2 Using MB we construct a decider MA for the language A:

MA = On input hIA i

1. Algorithmically construct an input hIB i for MB , such that

a) Either

If hIA i 6 A then hIB i 6 B

S UMMARY OF R EDUCIBILITY

that the language B is also undecidable.

2 Using MB we construct a decider MA for the language A:

MA = On input hIA i

1. Algorithmically construct an input hIB i for MB , such that

a) Either b) or

If hIA i 6 A then hIB i 6 B

S UMMARY OF R EDUCIBILITY

that the language B is also undecidable.

2 Using MB we construct a decider MA for the language A:

MA = On input hIA i

1. Algorithmically construct an input hIB i for MB , such that

a) Either b) or

If hIA i 6 A then hIB i 6 B If hIA i 6 A then hIB i B

S UMMARY OF R EDUCIBILITY

that the language B is also undecidable.

2 Using MB we construct a decider MA for the language A:

MA = On input hIA i

1. Algorithmically construct an input hIB i for MB , such that

a) Either b) or

If hIA i 6 A then hIB i 6 B If hIA i 6 A then hIB i B

Case a): MA accepts if MB accepts, and rejects if MB rejects

Case b): MA rejects if MB accepts, and accepts if MB reject.

S UMMARY OF R EDUCIBILITY

that the language B is also undecidable.

2 Using MB we construct a decider MA for the language A:

MA = On input hIA i

1. Algorithmically construct an input hIB i for MB , such that

a) Either b) or

If hIA i 6 A then hIB i 6 B If hIA i 6 A then hIB i B

Case a): MA accepts if MB accepts, and rejects if MB rejects

Case b): MA rejects if MB accepts, and accepts if MB reject.

S UMMARY OF R EDUCIBILITY

that the language B is also undecidable.

2 Using MB we construct a decider MA for the language A:

MA = On input hIA i

1. Algorithmically construct an input hIB i for MB , such that

a) Either b) or

If hIA i 6 A then hIB i 6 B If hIA i 6 A then hIB i B

Case a): MA accepts if MB accepts, and rejects if MB rejects

Case b): MA rejects if MB accepts, and accepts if MB reject.

4 B is undecidable.

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 20 / 28

C OMPUTABLE F UNCTIONS

I DEA

Turing Machines can also compute function f : .

C OMPUTABLE F UNCTIONS

I DEA

Turing Machines can also compute function f : .

C OMPUTABLE F UNCTION

A function f : is a computable function if and only if there exists a

TM Mf , which on any given input w

C OMPUTABLE F UNCTIONS

I DEA

Turing Machines can also compute function f : .

C OMPUTABLE F UNCTION

A function f : is a computable function if and only if there exists a

TM Mf , which on any given input w

always halts, and

C OMPUTABLE F UNCTIONS

I DEA

Turing Machines can also compute function f : .

C OMPUTABLE F UNCTION

A function f : is a computable function if and only if there exists a

TM Mf , which on any given input w

always halts, and

leaves just f (w) on its tape.

C OMPUTABLE F UNCTIONS

I DEA

Turing Machines can also compute function f : .

C OMPUTABLE F UNCTION

A function f : is a computable function if and only if there exists a

TM Mf , which on any given input w

always halts, and

leaves just f (w) on its tape.

Examples:

def

Let f (w) = ww be a function. Then f is computable.

C OMPUTABLE F UNCTIONS

I DEA

Turing Machines can also compute function f : .

C OMPUTABLE F UNCTION

A function f : is a computable function if and only if there exists a

TM Mf , which on any given input w

always halts, and

leaves just f (w) on its tape.

Examples:

def

Let f (w) = ww be a function. Then f is computable.

def

Let f (hn1 , n2 i) = hni where n1 and n2 are integers and n = n1 n2 . Then

f is computable.

M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

D EFINITION

Let A, B . We say that language A is mapping reducible to language B,

written A <m B, if and only if

M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

D EFINITION

Let A, B . We say that language A is mapping reducible to language B,

written A <m B, if and only if

1 There is a computable function f : such that

M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

D EFINITION

Let A, B . We say that language A is mapping reducible to language B,

written A <m B, if and only if

1 There is a computable function f : such that

2 For every w , w A if and only if f (w) B.

M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

D EFINITION

Let A, B . We say that language A is mapping reducible to language B,

written A <m B, if and only if

1 There is a computable function f : such that

2 For every w , w A if and only if f (w) B.

The function f is called a reduction of A to B.

T HEOREM 5.22

If A <m B and B is decidable, then A is decidable.

M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

D EFINITION

Let A, B . We say that language A is mapping reducible to language B,

written A <m B, if and only if

1 There is a computable function f : such that

2 For every w , w A if and only if f (w) B.

The function f is called a reduction of A to B.

T HEOREM 5.22

If A <m B and B is decidable, then A is decidable.

P ROOF

Let M be a decider for B and f be a mapping from A to B. Then N decides A.

N = On input w

M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

D EFINITION

Let A, B . We say that language A is mapping reducible to language B,

written A <m B, if and only if

1 There is a computable function f : such that

2 For every w , w A if and only if f (w) B.

The function f is called a reduction of A to B.

T HEOREM 5.22

If A <m B and B is decidable, then A is decidable.

P ROOF

Let M be a decider for B and f be a mapping from A to B. Then N decides A.

N = On input w

1 Compute f (w)

M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

D EFINITION

Let A, B . We say that language A is mapping reducible to language B,

written A <m B, if and only if

1 There is a computable function f : such that

2 For every w , w A if and only if f (w) B.

The function f is called a reduction of A to B.

T HEOREM 5.22

If A <m B and B is decidable, then A is decidable.

P ROOF

Let M be a decider for B and f be a mapping from A to B. Then N decides A.

N = On input w

1 Compute f (w)

2 Run M on input f (w) and output whatever M outputs.

M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

D EFINITION

Let A, B . We say that language A is mapping reducible to language B,

written A <m B, if and only if

1 There is a computable function f : such that

2 For every w , w A if and only if f (w) B.

The function f is called a reduction of A to B.

T HEOREM 5.22

If A <m B and B is decidable, then A is decidable.

P ROOF

Let M be a decider for B and f be a mapping from A to B. Then N decides A.

N = On input w

1 Compute f (w)

2 Run M on input f (w) and output whatever M outputs.

M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

D EFINITION

Let A, B . We say that language A is mapping reducible to language B,

written A <m B, if and only if

1 There is a computable function f : such that

2 For every w , w A if and only if f (w) B.

The function f is called a reduction of A to B.

T HEOREM 5.22

If A <m B and B is decidable, then A is decidable.

P ROOF

Let M be a decider for B and f be a mapping from A to B. Then N decides A.

N = On input w

1 Compute f (w)

2 Run M on input f (w) and output whatever M outputs.

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 22 / 28

M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

T HEOREM

ATM <m HALTTM

M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

T HEOREM

ATM <m HALTTM

P ROOF .

Construct a computable function f which maps hM, wi to hM 0 , w 0 i such that

Mf = On input hM, wi

M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

T HEOREM

ATM <m HALTTM

P ROOF .

Construct a computable function f which maps hM, wi to hM 0 , w 0 i such that

Mf = On input hM, wi

1. Construct the following machine M 0 :

M 0 = On input x

M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

T HEOREM

ATM <m HALTTM

P ROOF .

Construct a computable function f which maps hM, wi to hM 0 , w 0 i such that

Mf = On input hM, wi

1. Construct the following machine M 0 :

M 0 = On input x

1. Run M on x.

M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

T HEOREM

ATM <m HALTTM

P ROOF .

Construct a computable function f which maps hM, wi to hM 0 , w 0 i such that

Mf = On input hM, wi

1. Construct the following machine M 0 :

M 0 = On input x

1. Run M on x.

2. If M accepts accept

M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

T HEOREM

ATM <m HALTTM

P ROOF .

Construct a computable function f which maps hM, wi to hM 0 , w 0 i such that

Mf = On input hM, wi

1. Construct the following machine M 0 :

M 0 = On input x

1. Run M on x.

2. If M accepts accept

3. If M rejects enter a loop.

M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

T HEOREM

ATM <m HALTTM

P ROOF .

Construct a computable function f which maps hM, wi to hM 0 , w 0 i such that

Mf = On input hM, wi

1. Construct the following machine M 0 :

M 0 = On input x

1. Run M on x.

2. If M accepts accept

3. If M rejects enter a loop.

2. Output hM 0 , wi.

M ORE EXAMPLES OF M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

Earlier we showed

M ORE EXAMPLES OF M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

Earlier we showed

ATM <m MPCP

M ORE EXAMPLES OF M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

Earlier we showed

ATM <m MPCP

MPCP <m PCP

M ORE EXAMPLES OF M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

Earlier we showed

ATM <m MPCP

MPCP <m PCP

In Theorem 5.4 we showed ETM <m EQTM . The reduction f maps from

hMi to the output hM, M1 i where M1 is the machine that rejects all inputs.

M ORE EXAMPLES OF M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

Earlier we showed

ATM <m MPCP

MPCP <m PCP

In Theorem 5.4 we showed ETM <m EQTM . The reduction f maps from

hMi to the output hM, M1 i where M1 is the machine that rejects all inputs.

T HEOREM 5.24

If A <m B and B is Turing-recognizable, then A is Turing-recognizable.

M ORE EXAMPLES OF M APPING R EDUCIBILITY

Earlier we showed

ATM <m MPCP

MPCP <m PCP

In Theorem 5.4 we showed ETM <m EQTM . The reduction f maps from

hMi to the output hM, M1 i where M1 is the machine that rejects all inputs.

T HEOREM 5.24

If A <m B and B is Turing-recognizable, then A is Turing-recognizable.

P ROOF

Essentially the same as the previous proof.

S UMMARY OF M APPING R EDUCIBILITY R ESULTS

S UMMARY OF T HEOREMS

Assume that A <m B. Then

S UMMARY OF M APPING R EDUCIBILITY R ESULTS

S UMMARY OF T HEOREMS

Assume that A <m B. Then

1 If B is decidable then A is decidable.

S UMMARY OF M APPING R EDUCIBILITY R ESULTS

S UMMARY OF T HEOREMS

Assume that A <m B. Then

1 If B is decidable then A is decidable.

2 If A is undecidable then B is undecidable.

S UMMARY OF M APPING R EDUCIBILITY R ESULTS

S UMMARY OF T HEOREMS

Assume that A <m B. Then

1 If B is decidable then A is decidable.

2 If A is undecidable then B is undecidable.

3 If B is Turing-recognizable then A is Turing-recognizable.

S UMMARY OF M APPING R EDUCIBILITY R ESULTS

S UMMARY OF T HEOREMS

Assume that A <m B. Then

1 If B is decidable then A is decidable.

2 If A is undecidable then B is undecidable.

3 If B is Turing-recognizable then A is Turing-recognizable.

4 If A is not Turing-recognizable then B is not Turing-recognizable.

S UMMARY OF M APPING R EDUCIBILITY R ESULTS

S UMMARY OF T HEOREMS

Assume that A <m B. Then

1 If B is decidable then A is decidable.

2 If A is undecidable then B is undecidable.

3 If B is Turing-recognizable then A is Turing-recognizable.

4 If A is not Turing-recognizable then B is not Turing-recognizable.

5 A <m B

S UMMARY OF M APPING R EDUCIBILITY R ESULTS

S UMMARY OF T HEOREMS

Assume that A <m B. Then

1 If B is decidable then A is decidable.

2 If A is undecidable then B is undecidable.

3 If B is Turing-recognizable then A is Turing-recognizable.

4 If A is not Turing-recognizable then B is not Turing-recognizable.

5 A <m B

Useful observation:

Suppose you can show ATM <m B

S UMMARY OF M APPING R EDUCIBILITY R ESULTS

S UMMARY OF T HEOREMS

Assume that A <m B. Then

1 If B is decidable then A is decidable.

2 If A is undecidable then B is undecidable.

3 If B is Turing-recognizable then A is Turing-recognizable.

4 If A is not Turing-recognizable then B is not Turing-recognizable.

5 A <m B

Useful observation:

Suppose you can show ATM <m B

This means ATM <m B

S UMMARY OF M APPING R EDUCIBILITY R ESULTS

Assume that A <m B. Then

1 If B is decidable then A is decidable.

2 If A is undecidable then B is undecidable.

3 If B is Turing-recognizable then A is Turing-recognizable.

4 If A is not Turing-recognizable then B is not Turing-recognizable.

5 A <m B

Useful observation:

Suppose you can show ATM <m B

This means ATM <m B

Since ATM is Turing-unrecognizable then B is Turing-unrecognizable.

E XAMPLE OF U SE

T HEOREM 5.30

EQTM = {hM1 , M2 i | M1 and M2 are TMs and L(M1 ) = L(M2 )} is neither Turing

recognizable nor co-Turing-recognizable.

E XAMPLE OF U SE

T HEOREM 5.30

EQTM = {hM1 , M2 i | M1 and M2 are TMs and L(M1 ) = L(M2 )} is neither Turing

recognizable nor co-Turing-recognizable.

P ROOF I DEA

We show

E XAMPLE OF U SE

T HEOREM 5.30

EQTM = {hM1 , M2 i | M1 and M2 are TMs and L(M1 ) = L(M2 )} is neither Turing

recognizable nor co-Turing-recognizable.

P ROOF I DEA

We show

ATM <m EQTM

E XAMPLE OF U SE

EQTM = {hM1 , M2 i | M1 and M2 are TMs and L(M1 ) = L(M2 )} is neither Turing

recognizable nor co-Turing-recognizable.

P ROOF I DEA

We show

ATM <m EQTM

ATM <m EQTM

E XAMPLE OF U SE

EQTM = {hM1 , M2 i | M1 and M2 are TMs and L(M1 ) = L(M2 )} is neither Turing

recognizable nor co-Turing-recognizable.

P ROOF I DEA

We show

ATM <m EQTM

ATM <m EQTM

These then imply the theorem.

E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following f :

E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following f :

1. Construct the following two machines M1 and M2

E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following f :

1. Construct the following two machines M1 and M2

M1 = On any input:

1. Reject

E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following f :

1. Construct the following two machines M1 and M2

M1 = On any input:

1. Reject

M2 = On any input:

1. Run M on w. If it accepts, accept.

E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following f :

1. Construct the following two machines M1 and M2

M1 = On any input:

1. Reject

M2 = On any input:

1. Run M on w. If it accepts, accept.

2. Output hM1 , M2 i.

E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following f :

1. Construct the following two machines M1 and M2

M1 = On any input:

1. Reject

M2 = On any input:

1. Run M on w. If it accepts, accept.

2. Output hM1 , M2 i.

M1 accepts nothing.

E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following f :

1. Construct the following two machines M1 and M2

M1 = On any input:

1. Reject

M2 = On any input:

1. Run M on w. If it accepts, accept.

2. Output hM1 , M2 i.

M1 accepts nothing.

If M accepts w then M2 accepts everything. So M1 and M2 are not

equivalent.

E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following f :

1. Construct the following two machines M1 and M2

M1 = On any input:

1. Reject

M2 = On any input:

1. Run M on w. If it accepts, accept.

2. Output hM1 , M2 i.

M1 accepts nothing.

If M accepts w then M2 accepts everything. So M1 and M2 are not

equivalent.

If M does not accept w then M2 accepts nothing. So M1 and M2 are

equivalent.

E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following f :

1. Construct the following two machines M1 and M2

M1 = On any input:

1. Reject

M2 = On any input:

1. Run M on w. If it accepts, accept.

2. Output hM1 , M2 i.

M1 accepts nothing.

If M accepts w then M2 accepts everything. So M1 and M2 are not

equivalent.

If M does not accept w then M2 accepts nothing. So M1 and M2 are

equivalent.

So ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM )

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 27 / 28

E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following g:

E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following g:

1. Construct the following two machines M1 and M2

E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following g:

1. Construct the following two machines M1 and M2

M1 = On any input:

1. Accept

E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following g:

1. Construct the following two machines M1 and M2

M1 = On any input:

1. Accept

M2 = On any input:

1. Run M on w. If it accepts, accept.

E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following g:

1. Construct the following two machines M1 and M2

M1 = On any input:

1. Accept

M2 = On any input:

1. Run M on w. If it accepts, accept.

2. Output hM1 , M2 i.

E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following g:

1. Construct the following two machines M1 and M2

M1 = On any input:

1. Accept

M2 = On any input:

1. Run M on w. If it accepts, accept.

2. Output hM1 , M2 i.

M1 accepts everything.

E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following g:

1. Construct the following two machines M1 and M2

M1 = On any input:

1. Accept

M2 = On any input:

1. Run M on w. If it accepts, accept.

2. Output hM1 , M2 i.

M1 accepts everything.

If M accepts w then M2 accepts everything. So M1 and M2 are equivalent.

E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following g:

1. Construct the following two machines M1 and M2

M1 = On any input:

1. Accept

M2 = On any input:

1. Run M on w. If it accepts, accept.

2. Output hM1 , M2 i.

M1 accepts everything.

If M accepts w then M2 accepts everything. So M1 and M2 are equivalent.

If M does not accept w then M2 accepts nothing. So M1 and M2 are not

equivalent.

E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following g:

1. Construct the following two machines M1 and M2

M1 = On any input:

1. Accept

M2 = On any input:

1. Run M on w. If it accepts, accept.

2. Output hM1 , M2 i.

M1 accepts everything.

If M accepts w then M2 accepts everything. So M1 and M2 are equivalent.

If M does not accept w then M2 accepts nothing. So M1 and M2 are not

equivalent.

So ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM )

- Gaussian EliminationDiunggah olehnefoxy
- Linear AlgebraDiunggah olehtudor996285
- Dfd CheatsheetDiunggah olehCanh Thanh Nguyen Huu
- Generalized Quantifiers, Semantic Automata, and Numerical CognitionDiunggah olehShane Steinert-Threlkeld
- RAI notes on reactive paradigmDiunggah olehAbhiiGoodguy
- Chapter 05 Finite AutamataDiunggah olehMuhammad Waqas
- Application NotesDiunggah olehelfrich
- Cse208 Theory-Of-computation Th 1.10 Ac26Diunggah olehnetgalaxy2010
- Period of a StringDiunggah olehAvinash Pandey
- solving slesDiunggah olehapi-234725699
- Automata TheoryDiunggah olehChristopherLim
- 1Diunggah olehdjay35
- 04 Linear AlgebraDiunggah olehhisuin
- l4-FSM-CFSM.pdfDiunggah olehnew2track
- XII Maths Chapterwise Advanced Study Material 2015 17Diunggah olehAshok Pradhan
- Factor Oracle - A New Structure for Pattern MatchingDiunggah olehrafaelvalle
- lect1 - Feb02_CS422Diunggah olehHamdi El Sadr
- Lec3_Maths_3_20110928Diunggah olehk_ling1
- Fa 2Diunggah olehVijay Rathore
- poc-lab-5Diunggah olehoop
- 4 Simultaneous EquationsDiunggah olehweielaine
- Elimination of lexical ambiguities by grammarsDiunggah olehAlan Libert
- Application of Search Model to Detect Urhobo Names in Niger Delta Region of Nigeria: A Preliminary StudyDiunggah olehJAM
- Alg1 05 Student JournalDiunggah olehalex
- 3_fa2Diunggah olehHuong Luong
- 68150FDiunggah olehMateus Oliveira Cabral
- Exercises_linalg - CopyDiunggah olehTop trending and funny video
- 3Diunggah olehCskarthi Keyan
- Lecture 21Diunggah olehervin_osmanagić
- ELEC301x_Week_2_Lecture_Notes.pdfDiunggah olehDANE80

- Arrays Tables and SetDiunggah olehRitwik Kumar
- made easy cse workbookDiunggah olehNick Soni
- Assignment-IC-Binary-Trees.pdfDiunggah olehNick Soni
- First–Order LogicDiunggah olehNick Soni
- graphsDiunggah olehNick Soni
- Soft computing 2.pdfDiunggah olehNick Soni
- Activity Diagrams uml diagrams-basic [for educational purpose only]Diunggah olehFor_Educational_Purpose
- CNDiunggah olehNick Soni
- GroupsDiunggah olehNick Soni
- Groups FieldsDiunggah olehNick Soni
- LatticeDiunggah olehNick Soni
- DBMS exercises.pdfDiunggah olehNick Soni
- DBMSBASICDiunggah olehNick Soni
- DBMSADVDDiunggah olehNick Soni
- Query Processing.pdfDiunggah olehNick Soni
- UNIT 3-Intermediate Code GenDiunggah olehNick Soni
- 11CS10038Diunggah olehNick Soni
- Error HandlingDiunggah olehNick Soni
- Programming LanguageDiunggah olehNick Soni
- c Programing LanguageDiunggah olehNick Soni
- C Programming- A Modern Approach, Ch 10,11 AdvancedDiunggah olehNick Soni
- C Programming Practice Set 4 Restricted EditingDiunggah olehRaJu SinGh
- C Programming Practice Set 6 Restricted EditingDiunggah olehNick Soni
- C Programming Practice Set 5 Restrict EditingDiunggah olehNick Soni
- Computer Objective PapersDiunggah olehManohar Reddy

- PV coupling.pdfDiunggah olehWalter Henderson
- 9. Chapter 8 - NP Hard and NP Complete ProblemsDiunggah olehAnil Kumar
- 2-B.E.D. Problem SolvingDiunggah olehSophie_daisy
- PV CouplingDiunggah olehWalter Henderson
- final_review_sp06_sol.pdfDiunggah olehRohit
- Transportation Problem-1.pptDiunggah olehKautzar Satrio
- Computational Complexity TheoryDiunggah olehtechzones
- MCS-031 Solved Assignment 2015-16Diunggah olehlekshmi123456789
- Design of Current Controller for Two Quadrant DC Motor Drive by Using Model Order Reduction TechniqueDiunggah olehijcsis
- Or-Tool User Manual A4.v.0.2.7Diunggah olehvietdniit
- Self-Reference and Computational Complexity Chris LanganDiunggah olehLecks90
- Algorithm TheoriesDiunggah olehjan boomsma
- Expert Systems ThesisDiunggah olehAnjnaKandari
- Gallagher B. (Yes, Your Brain Does Process Information)Diunggah olehettoreba
- BSc Thesis - An Enhanced Communication Discrete Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm for the Travelling Salesman ProblemDiunggah olehPeter Popoola
- Analysis of Upper Bounds for the Pallet Loading Problem LetchfordDiunggah olehSaid
- 17-tocDiunggah olehPreyanshMitharwal
- Single SchedDiunggah olehsagarbolisetti
- Cp7201 Tfoc Model Qp 1 Theoretical Foundations of Computer ScienceDiunggah olehappasami
- CS502 Fundamentals of Algorithms 2013 Final Term Questions Answers Solved With References by MoaazDiunggah olehShahrukh Usman
- complexitynotes02Diunggah olehritesh.shah433
- BEST Sperners Lemma PPADDiunggah olehAbraham Jyothimon
- Unit 11fi.pdfDiunggah olehSanjeev Malik
- Computational Complexity - Christos Papadimitriou.pdfDiunggah olehf
- Deciding ML typability is complete for deterministic exponential timeDiunggah olehprooftheory
- cs94-26Diunggah olehWildo Gómez
- Tetris ShortDiunggah olehleonardovarini
- Layout Skriptum ExtendedDiunggah olehعبدالله عمر
- MSC.Nastran 2001 Superelement User's GuideDiunggah olehKevin
- Algorithm DesignDiunggah olehMaria Simonetti