d e c i d a b i l i t y
DESCRIPTION
D E C I D A B I L I T Y. Objectives. To investigate the power of algorithms to solve problems. To explore the limits of algorithmic solvability . To study this phenomenon “ unsolvability ”: the problem must be simplified or altered before you can find an algorithmic solution. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
D E C I D A B I L I T Y
![Page 2: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
![Page 3: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Objectives
•To investigate the power of algorithms to solve problems.•To explore the limits of algorithmic solvability.•To study this phenomenon “unsolvability”: – the problem must be simplified or altered
before you can find an algorithmic solution.– cultural.
![Page 4: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
DECIDABLE LANGUAGES
• Languages that are decidable by algorithms.
– For example:• present an algorithm that tests whether a string is a
member of a context-free language (CFL).
![Page 5: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
DECIDABLE PROBLEMS CONCERNINGREGULAR LANGUAGES
• algorithms for testing:– whether a finite automaton accepts a string, – whether the language of a finite automaton is
empty, and – whether two finite automata are equivalent.
![Page 6: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
DECIDABLE PROBLEMS CONCERNINGREGULAR LANGUAGES (cont.)
• For example:– the acceptance problem for DFAs of testing
whether a particular deterministic finite automaton accepts a given string can be expressed as a language, ADFA.
![Page 7: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
![Page 8: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
PROOF 4.1• B is simply a list of its
five components, Q, A, , qo, and F.
• When M receives its input, M first determines whether it properly represents a DFA B and a string w. If not, Al rejects.
ƍ
![Page 9: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
PROOF 4.1 (cont)
• It keeps track of B's current state and B's current position in the input w by writing this information down on its tape.
• Initially, B's current state is qo and B's current input position is the leftmost symbol of w.
• The states and position are updated according to the specified transition function .
• When M finishes processing the last symbol of w, M accepts the input if B is in an accepting state; M rejects the input if B is in a nonaccepting state.
ƍ
![Page 10: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
DECIDABLE PROBLEMS CONCERNINGREGULAR LANGUAGES (cont.)
![Page 11: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
NFAPROOF
THEOREM 1.39Every nondeterministic finite automaton has an equivalent deterministic finite automaton.
![Page 12: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Regular expressions “REX”
PROO
F
![Page 13: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Emptiness
PROOF
![Page 14: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
THEOREM 4.5EQDFA is a decidable language.
![Page 15: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
DECIDABLE PROBLEMS CONCERNINGCONTEXT-FREE LANGUAGES
• Theorem 4.8 read only• Theorem 4.9 read only
![Page 16: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
THE HALTING PROBLEM
• There is a specific problem that is algorithmically unsolvable.
• All problem can be solved via computer???• Some ordinary problems that people want to solve
turn out to be computationally unsolvable.• Computer program and a precise specification of
what that program is supposed to do (e.g., sort a list of numbers)
• “program + specification = mathematically precise objects”.
![Page 17: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
TM recognizer - decider
• This theorem shows that recognizers are more powerful than deciders.
![Page 18: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
TM “recognizer – decider” (cont.)
• this machine loops on input <M, w> if M loops on w, which is why this machine does not decide ATM = halting problem.
![Page 19: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
THE DIAGONALIZATION METHOD
• The proof of the undecidability of the halting problem uses a technique called diagonalization, discovered by mathematician Georg Cantor in 1873.
• If we have two infinite sets, how can we tell whether one is larger than the other or whether they are of the same size?
• DEFINITION 4.12 - one-to-one.
![Page 20: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
EXAMPLE 1 (countable)• Let N be the set of natural numbers {1, 2, 3, ... } and • let Ɛ be the set of even natural numbers {2,4,6,. .. }.
• The correspondence f mapping N to Ɛ is simply f(n) = 2n.• pairing each member of N with its own member of Ɛ is possible,
so we declare these two sets to be the same size.
![Page 21: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
• some languages are not decidable or even Turing recognizable, for the reason that there are uncountably many languages yet only countably many Turing machines.
EXAMPLE 2 (uncountable)
![Page 22: D E C I D A B I L I T Y](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062323/56816499550346895dd671b8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
A TURING-UNRECOGNIZABLE LANGUAGE (Homework)