Post's Correspondence Problem

Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Post’s Correspondence Problem Motivation

Introduction
Proof of
recursive
unsolvability of
PCP
Bas van Gijzel The classic proof (Post)
A modern proof (Sipser)
Concluding
remarks
May 17, 2010
1
Outline
Post’s
Correspondence
Post’s Correspondence Problem Problem
Motivation Motivation
Introduction
Introduction Proof of
recursive
unsolvability of
PCP
The classic proof (Post)
Proof of recursive unsolvability of PCP A modern proof (Sipser)
The classic proof (Post) Concluding

remarks
Concluding remarks
2
Outline
Post’s
Correspondence
Introduction
recursive
unsolvability of
PCP

remarks
Concluding remarks
3
Outline
Post’s
Correspondence
Introduction
recursive
unsolvability of
PCP

remarks
Concluding remarks
4
A small motivation
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
I Post’s Correspondence Problem (PCP) is an instance of Motivation
Introduction
a recursively unsolvable decision problem. Proof of

recursive
• Why would we need another one? unsolvability of
PCP
I PCP is remarkably simple to explain, and thus an easy The classic proof (Post)
instance of an undecidable problem. Concluding

remarks
I Other problems can then be reduced to PCP to prove
undecidability.
5
A small motivation
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
undecidability.
5
A small motivation
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
undecidability.
5
A small motivation
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
undecidability.
5
Emil Leon Post
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Motivation
Introduction
Proof of
recursive
unsolvability of
PCP
Concluding
remarks
6
Outline
Post’s
Correspondence
Introduction
recursive
unsolvability of
PCP

remarks
Concluding remarks
7
Introduction to the problem
Post’s
I Let’s consider strings containing a’s and b’s. Correspondence
Problem
• For example "aaabba". Motivation
• We don’t consider empty strings. Introduction
Proof of
I We have multiple pairs (x1 , y1 ), ...(xn , yn ). recursive
unsolvability of
• These pairs x1 etc. are strings on a’s and b’s. PCP
• Again not (empty string). A modern proof (Sipser)
Concluding
The correspondence decision problem is then the problem remarks
of determining whether there is a solution where the

sequence/concatenation x1 x2 ...xm is equal to the
corresponding y1 y2 ...ym . This can contain repeated pairs,
miss certain pairs, differ in order.
8
Post’s
Problem
Proof of
unsolvability of
Concluding

8
Post’s
Problem
Proof of
unsolvability of
Concluding

8
Post’s
Problem
Proof of
unsolvability of
Concluding

8
Post’s
Problem
Proof of
unsolvability of
Concluding

8
Post’s
Problem
Proof of
unsolvability of
Concluding

8
Post’s
Problem
Proof of
unsolvability of
Concluding

8
Post’s
Problem
Proof of
unsolvability of
Concluding

8
Introduction to the problem: intuitively(1)
I The problem can be formulated as a problem about

Post’s
matching domino tiles. Correspondence
Problem
I We have multiple domino tiles with on the top the xi Motivation
Introduction
strings and on the bottom the yi strings. Proof of

recursive
I A solution to the decision problem is then a solution of unsolvability of
PCP
matching a row of dominoes. (possibly containing The classic proof (Post)
doubles) Concluding
remarks
Can we match the dominoes d1 , d2 , d3 below? We can’t turn
dominoes but can use dominoes multiple times.
bb ab b
b ba bb
9

Post’s
Problem
Introduction

recursive
PCP
doubles) Concluding
remarks
bb ab b
b ba bb
9

Post’s
Problem
Introduction

recursive
PCP
doubles) Concluding
remarks
bb ab b
b ba bb
9

Post’s
Problem
Introduction

recursive
PCP
doubles) Concluding
remarks
bb ab b
b ba bb
9

Post’s
Problem
Introduction

recursive
PCP
doubles) Concluding
remarks
bb ab b
b ba bb
9

Post’s
Problem
Introduction

recursive
PCP
doubles) Concluding
remarks
bb ab b
b ba bb
9
Post’s
Correspondence
A solution to the problem would be the sequence of Problem
Motivation
dominoes d1 d2 d2 d3 . Introduction
Proof of
recursive
bb ab ab b unsolvability of
PCP
b ba ba bb The classic proof (Post)
Concluding
This sequence of dominoes can be seen as the equality remarks
between the upper and lower part of the dominoes, namely
x1 x2 x2 x3 = y1 y2 y2 y3 .
So we have bbababb = bbababb , which is a solution.
10
Post’s
Correspondence
Motivation
Proof of
recursive
PCP
Concluding
x1 x2 x2 x3 = y1 y2 y2 y3 .
10
Post’s
Correspondence
Motivation
Proof of
recursive
PCP
Concluding
x1 x2 x2 x3 = y1 y2 y2 y3 .
10
A small rerun on decision problems(1)
Referring back to the slides of Clemens. Post’s

Suppose A ⊆ E where E is a set of concrete objects. Correspondence
Problem
Motivation
A decision method for A in E is a method by which, Introduction
given an element a ∈ E , we can decide in a finite Proof of

recursive
number of steps whether or not a ∈ A . unsolvability of
PCP
A decision problem for A in E: Find a decision A modern proof (Sipser)
Concluding
method for A in E, or show that no such method remarks
can exist.
The decision problem for A in E is solvable (the set
A in E is (effectively) calculable) if there exists a
decision method for A in E.
11

Problem
Motivation

recursive
PCP
Concluding
can exist.
11

Problem
Motivation

recursive
PCP
Concluding
can exist.
11

Problem
Motivation

recursive
PCP
Concluding
can exist.
11
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Motivation
Introduction
Proof of
I First we consider a simple version of PCP which is recursive
unsolvability of
calculable. PCP
I Then we consider the full undecidable problem.
Concluding
remarks
12
A small rerun on decision problems(3): The
simplified problem.
Post’s
I Assume we are given a sequence of dominoes. Correspondence
Problem
Motivation
I Decide whether the top and bottom describe the same Introduction
string. Proof of
recursive
unsolvability of
Consider all possible finite sequences of dominoes d1 d2 ...dn PCP
and call this E . The subset of E for which it holds that A modern proof (Sipser)
x1 x2 ...xm = y1 y2 ...ym is the set of solutions, called A . To Concluding

remarks
solve a decision problem we would need a decision
procedure.
Here a decision procedure would just test equality between
pair components of the domino sequence, resulting in a
yes/no answer. This obviously takes finite steps, because
the sequences are finite.
13
simplified problem.
Post’s
Problem
Motivation
string. Proof of
recursive
unsolvability of

remarks
procedure.
13
simplified problem.
Post’s
Problem
Motivation
string. Proof of
recursive
unsolvability of

remarks
procedure.
13
simplified problem.
Post’s
Problem
Motivation
string. Proof of
recursive
unsolvability of

remarks
procedure.
13
simplified problem.
Post’s
Problem
Motivation
string. Proof of
recursive
unsolvability of

remarks
procedure.
13
simplified problem.
Post’s
Problem
Motivation
string. Proof of
recursive
unsolvability of

remarks
procedure.
13
simplified problem.
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Motivation
Introduction
Proof of
recursive
unsolvability of
So considering we have a decision method for the simplified PCP
problem we can see it is calculable. A modern proof (Sipser)
Now to consider the full problem. Concluding

remarks
14
simplified problem.
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Motivation
Introduction
Proof of
recursive
unsolvability of
So considering we have a decision method for the simplified PCP
problem we can see it is calculable. A modern proof (Sipser)
Now to consider the full problem. Concluding

remarks
14
Post’s
Correspondence
Full PCP is also an instance of a decision problem. Problem
Motivation
I Consider a finite list of tuples containing strings on a Introduction
and b (dominoes): (x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 ), ..., (xn , yn ). Proof of

recursive
unsolvability of
• The decision problem: Is there a sequences of indices PCP
ik1≤k ≤K with K ≥ 1 and 1 ≤ ik ≤ N for which it holds that The classic proof (Post)
x1 x2 ...xK = y1 y2 ...yK ? Concluding

remarks
To solve this decision problem we would need a decision
procedure. There does not exist (an algorithmic) decision
procedure for this!
15
Post’s
Correspondence
Motivation

recursive
unsolvability of

remarks
procedure for this!
15
Post’s
Correspondence
Motivation

recursive
unsolvability of

remarks
procedure for this!
15
Post’s
Correspondence
Motivation

recursive
unsolvability of

remarks
procedure for this!
15
Outline
Post’s
Correspondence
Introduction
recursive
unsolvability of
PCP

remarks
Concluding remarks
16
Outline
Post’s
Correspondence
Introduction
recursive
unsolvability of
PCP

remarks
Concluding remarks
17
Outline of the proof
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
I PCP: Motivation
Introduction
• Introduce Post Canonical Systems (PCS).
Proof of
• Introduce class of normal systems on PCS. recursive
unsolvability of
• State decision problem for this class. PCP
I Introduce a problem that was already proved A modern proof (Sipser)
undecidable (by Post). Concluding

remarks
I Reduction of this decision problem to PCP.
I Prove that the reduction is recursively (computable).
18
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
I PCP: Motivation
Introduction
Proof of
unsolvability of

remarks
18
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
I PCP: Motivation
Introduction
Proof of
unsolvability of

remarks
18
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
I PCP: Motivation
Introduction
Proof of
unsolvability of

remarks
18
Post Canonical Systems(1)
Post’s
I Post describes a Post Canonical System (PCS) as a Correspondence
Problem
logical system. Motivation
Introduction
I It is now mostly seen as one of the first string rewriting Proof of
systems. recursive
unsolvability of
PCP
I A PCS contains: The classic proof (Post)
• a finite alphabet (for example {a, b }). A modern proof (Sipser)
Concluding
• a finite number of axioms/primitive assertions. remarks
• a finite number of productions (production rules).
I Enunciations (formulas of the system) can then be
obtained by applying a finite number of production
rules.
19
Post’s
Problem
Introduction
systems. recursive
unsolvability of
PCP
Concluding
rules.
19
Post’s
Problem
Introduction
systems. recursive
unsolvability of
PCP
Concluding
rules.
19
I a finite number of axioms/primitive assertions.
Primitive assertions are a specified finite set of Post’s
Correspondence
enunciations. So simply strings on the defined alphabet. Problem
Motivation
I a finite number of productions (production rules). Introduction
Proof of
In a canonical system, productions can be of the following recursive
unsolvability of
form: PCP
g11 P g12 Pi 0 2 ...g P g1(m1 +1)

i10 0
1m1 im1 Concluding
remarks
g21 P g22 Pi 00 2 ...g P g2(m2 +1)
i100 2m2 im200
...
(k ) (k ) (k )
gk1 Pi1 gk2 Pi2 ...gkmk Pim gk (mk +1)
k
⇒
g1 Pi1 g2 Pi2 ...gm Pim gm+1
gki are fixed sequences on the alphabet (words).

Pki are variables standing for words.
20
Correspondence
Motivation
Proof of
unsolvability of
form: PCP
g11 P g12 Pi 0 2 ...g P g1(m1 +1)

i10 0
1m1 im1 Concluding
remarks
g21 P g22 Pi 00 2 ...g P g2(m2 +1)
i100 2m2 im200
...
(k ) (k ) (k )
k
⇒

20
Correspondence
Motivation
Proof of
unsolvability of
form: PCP
g11 P g12 Pi 0 2 ...g P g1(m1 +1)

i10 0
1m1 im1 Concluding
remarks
g21 P g22 Pi 00 2 ...g P g2(m2 +1)
i100 2m2 im200
...
(k ) (k ) (k )
k
⇒

20
Correspondence
Motivation
Proof of
unsolvability of
form: PCP
g11 P g12 Pi 0 2 ...g P g1(m1 +1)

i10 0
1m1 im1 Concluding
remarks
g21 P g22 Pi 00 2 ...g P g2(m2 +1)
i100 2m2 im200
...
(k ) (k ) (k )
k
⇒

20
Post Canonical Systems(3): an example
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Alphabet: {a, b }
Motivation
Introduction
Primitive assertion(s): a Proof of

recursive
Production rules: unsolvability of
PCP
(1): P1 , a ⇒ aP1 b (note two antecedents) The classic proof (Post)
(2): P2 aP3 ⇒ P2 P3 Concluding

remarks
Derivation of enunciation ab :
a ⇒1 aab ⇒2 ab
21
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Alphabet: {a, b }
Motivation
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
a ⇒1 aab ⇒2 ab
21
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Alphabet: {a, b }
Motivation
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
a ⇒1 aab ⇒2 ab
21
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Alphabet: {a, b }
Motivation
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
a ⇒1 aab ⇒2 ab
21
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Alphabet: {a, b }
Motivation
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
a ⇒1 aab ⇒2 ab
21
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Alphabet: {a, b }
Motivation
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
a ⇒1 aab ⇒2 ab
21
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Alphabet: {a, b }
Motivation
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
a ⇒1 aab ⇒2 ab
21
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Alphabet: {a, b }
Motivation
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
a ⇒1 aab ⇒2 ab
21
Post’s
Correspondence
I Determining whether an enunciation is part of a PCS is Problem
Motivation
undecidable. Introduction
Proof of
I A simpler (normal) form of a PCS exists, also called a recursive
unsolvability of
Post Normal System (PNS). PCP
• A PNS has restrictions on the assertions and production The classic proof (Post)
rules. Concluding
remarks
• Using the Normal-form theorem proved by Post, you
can reduce any PCS to a PNS.
• Thus the decision problem for PNS is still recursively
unsolvable.
22
Post’s
Correspondence
Motivation
Proof of
unsolvability of
rules. Concluding
remarks
unsolvable.
22
Post’s
Correspondence
Motivation
Proof of
unsolvability of
rules. Concluding
remarks
unsolvable.
22
Post Canonical Systems(5): normal form
The normal form of a PCS has a number of Post’s

Correspondence
restrictions/simplifications. Problem
Motivation
I Only one primitive assertion, non-null. Introduction
Proof of
I One antecedent in production rules. recursive
unsolvability of
PCP
I Production rules have additional restrictions on form. The classic proof (Post)
Form of production rules: Concluding

remarks
ai P produces Pai0
ai stands for a fixed word.

P is a variable standing for a word, possibly null.
23

Correspondence
Motivation
Proof of
unsolvability of
PCP

remarks
ai P produces Pai0

23

Correspondence
Motivation
Proof of
unsolvability of
PCP

remarks
ai P produces Pai0

23

Correspondence
Motivation
Proof of
unsolvability of
PCP

remarks
ai P produces Pai0

23
From PNS to PCP (1)
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
I Determining whether an enunciation is part of a PNS is Motivation
Introduction
again undecidable. Proof of

recursive
I This can also be formulated as the transformation from unsolvability of
PCP
the axiom A to the enunciation B . Thus: The classic proof (Post)
• The transformation is a finite number of applications of
Concluding
production rules to A . Giving the equation: remarks
• A = ai P 1, P1 ai01 = ai02 P2 , ..., Pn−1 ai0n−1 = ain Pn , Pn ai0n = B
• Special case n = 0 gives A = B .
24
From PNS to PCP (1)
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Introduction

recursive
PCP
Concluding
24
From PNS to PCP (1)
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Introduction

recursive
PCP
Concluding
24
From PNS to PCP (1)
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Introduction

recursive
PCP
Concluding
24
From PNS to PCP (2)
A very rough sketch of the further proof:

Post’s
1. Take the previous equations: Correspondence
Problem
A = ai P 1, P1 ai01 = ai02 P2 , ..., Pn−1 ai0n−1 = ain Pn , Pn ai0n = B . Motivation
Introduction
2. Rewrite this to a more suitable form. Proof of

recursive
3. Remove additional constraints regarding the length unsolvability of
PCP
(derive these from the equations themselves). The classic proof (Post)
4. Remove the A and B in the equations. Concluding

remarks
5. Arrive at the equation from the PCP problem:
x1 x2 ...xm = y1 y2 ...ym .
6. Prove the transformation steps recursive.
We now have "proven" that the decision problem for PCP is
recursively uncomputable.
25
From PNS to PCP (2)

Post’s
Problem
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
x1 x2 ...xm = y1 y2 ...ym .
25
From PNS to PCP (2)

Post’s
Problem
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
x1 x2 ...xm = y1 y2 ...ym .
25
From PNS to PCP (2)

Post’s
Problem
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
x1 x2 ...xm = y1 y2 ...ym .
25
From PNS to PCP (2)

Post’s
Problem
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
x1 x2 ...xm = y1 y2 ...ym .
25
From PNS to PCP (2)

Post’s
Problem
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
x1 x2 ...xm = y1 y2 ...ym .
25
From PNS to PCP (2)

Post’s
Problem
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
x1 x2 ...xm = y1 y2 ...ym .
25
Outline
Post’s
Correspondence
Introduction
recursive
unsolvability of
PCP

remarks
Concluding remarks
26
PCP as a Turing machine(1)
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
A very rough short sketch of the proof done by Michael Motivation
Introduction
Sipser. Proof of
recursive
1. Consider arbitrary Turing Machine (TM), M , and unsolvability of
PCP
arbitrary input, w. The classic proof (Post)
2. Let the language Concluding
ATM = {< M , w > |M is a TM and M accepts w}.

remarks
(This is the halting problem!)
27
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Introduction
Sipser. Proof of
recursive
PCP

remarks
27
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Introduction
Sipser. Proof of
recursive
PCP

remarks
27
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Introduction
Sipser. Proof of
recursive
PCP

remarks
27
Post’s
Correspondence
3 He now constructs an instance of PCP called P , where a Problem
match is an accepting computation history for M on w. Motivation
Introduction
i This done by taking the initial state (q0 ) and the input Proof of
recursive
string on the bottom of the first domino. This will be unsolvability of
called MPCP for Modified PCP. PCP
ii Introduce separators to distinguish states (add these to A modern proof (Sipser)
the alphabet of P ). Concluding

remarks
iii Adding dominoes corresponds to taking computation
steps.
iv The last state on the domino will contain an accepting
state.
28
Post’s
Correspondence
Introduction
recursive

remarks
steps.
state.
28
Post’s
Correspondence
Introduction
recursive

remarks
steps.
state.
28
Post’s
Correspondence
Introduction
recursive

remarks
steps.
state.
28
Post’s
Correspondence
Introduction
recursive

remarks
steps.
state.
28
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Motivation
4 Constructing a solution to P now corresponds to finding Introduction
Proof of
a solution to the halting problem (roughly). recursive
unsolvability of
PCP
5 The halting problem is recursively uncomputable, thus The classic proof (Post)
computing P must also be recursively uncomputable. A modern proof (Sipser)
Concluding
Because P is an instance of PCP, PCP must also be remarks
recursively uncomputable in general.
29
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Motivation
4 Constructing a solution to P now corresponds to finding Introduction
Proof of
a solution to the halting problem (roughly). recursive
unsolvability of
PCP
5 The halting problem is recursively uncomputable, thus The classic proof (Post)
computing P must also be recursively uncomputable. A modern proof (Sipser)
Concluding
Because P is an instance of PCP, PCP must also be remarks
recursively uncomputable in general.
29
Outline
Post’s
Correspondence
Introduction
recursive
unsolvability of
PCP

remarks
Concluding remarks
30
Summary
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Motivation
I PCP is a relatively easy to describe decision problem. Introduction
I We have seen two proofs that generally, PCP is Proof of

recursive
unsolvability of
recursively unsolvable. PCP
I We can use this fact to reduce another problem we A modern proof (Sipser)
suspect to be undecidable to PCP. Thus proving that Concluding

remarks
problem undecidable. Don’t forget to prove this step to
be recursive/computable!
31
Variants of PCP
Post’s
Correspondence
There are various useful and interesting variants that can Problem
be made on PCP. Motivation
Introduction
I Conditions on the alphabet. (An alphabet of size 1 is Proof of

recursive
decidable.) unsolvability of
PCP
I Conditions on the number of transformations. (Size ≤ 2 The classic proof (Post)
is decidable and ≥ 7 is undecidable.) Concluding

remarks
I Bounded PCP: Can we find a match between domino
tiles using at most k (possibly repeated) tiles?
I And many more useful variations...
32
Variants of PCP
Post’s
Correspondence
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
32
Variants of PCP
Post’s
Correspondence
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
32
Variants of PCP
Post’s
Correspondence
Introduction

recursive
PCP

remarks
32
Bounded PCP and NP-completeness
I Bounded PCP (BPCP) is an interesting case of PCP. Post’s

Correspondence
Problem
I Solving BPCP can be solved brute force, by trying all Motivation
Introduction
cases until size k .
Proof of
I BPCP is in the class of non-deterministic polynomial recursive
unsolvability of
PCP
time solvable problems (NP). The classic proof (Post)
I Any problem in NP can be reduced to BPCP in
Concluding
polynomial time, and thus BPCP is NP-complete. remarks
So putting these constraints on PCP gives us an

NP-complete problem!
And therefore very relevant to resource bounded models of
computation (Dragos).
33

Correspondence
Problem
Introduction
Proof of
unsolvability of
PCP
Concluding

33

Correspondence
Problem
Introduction
Proof of
unsolvability of
PCP
Concluding

33

Correspondence
Problem
Introduction
Proof of
unsolvability of
PCP
Concluding

33

Correspondence
Problem
Introduction
Proof of
unsolvability of
PCP
Concluding

33

Correspondence
Problem
Introduction
Proof of
unsolvability of
PCP
Concluding

33
References
Post’s
Correspondence
I Emil Post, "Formal Reductions of the General Problem
Motivation
Combinatorial Decision Problem", American Journal of Introduction
Mathematics 65 II 197-215 (1943). Proof of

recursive
unsolvability of
I Emil Post, "A variant of a recursively unsolvable PCP
problem", Bulletin American Mathematics Society 52, A modern proof (Sipser)
(1946). Concluding
remarks
I Michael Sipser, "Introduction to the Theory of
Computation" (2nd edition), Thomson Course
Technology, (2005).
34
Questions
Post’s
Correspondence
Problem
Motivation
Introduction
Proof of
recursive
unsolvability of
PCP
Concluding
remarks
35

Post&#39;s Correspondence Problem

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Post&#39;s Correspondence Problem

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Post’s

Post’s Correspondence Problem Motivation

May 17, 2010

The classic proof (Post) Concluding

The classic proof (Post) Concluding

The classic proof (Post) Concluding

a recursively unsolvable decision problem. Proof of

instance of an undecidable problem. Concluding

a recursively unsolvable decision problem. Proof of

instance of an undecidable problem. Concluding

a recursively unsolvable decision problem. Proof of

instance of an undecidable problem. Concluding

a recursively unsolvable decision problem. Proof of

instance of an undecidable problem. Concluding

The classic proof (Post) Concluding

• We don’t consider empty strings. Introduction

of determining whether there is a solution where the

• We don’t consider empty strings. Introduction

of determining whether there is a solution where the

• We don’t consider empty strings. Introduction

of determining whether there is a solution where the

• We don’t consider empty strings. Introduction

of determining whether there is a solution where the

• We don’t consider empty strings. Introduction

of determining whether there is a solution where the

• We don’t consider empty strings. Introduction

of determining whether there is a solution where the

• We don’t consider empty strings. Introduction

of determining whether there is a solution where the

• We don’t consider empty strings. Introduction

of determining whether there is a solution where the

I The problem can be formulated as a problem about

strings and on the bottom the yi strings. Proof of

I The problem can be formulated as a problem about

strings and on the bottom the yi strings. Proof of

I The problem can be formulated as a problem about

strings and on the bottom the yi strings. Proof of

I The problem can be formulated as a problem about

strings and on the bottom the yi strings. Proof of

I The problem can be formulated as a problem about

strings and on the bottom the yi strings. Proof of

I The problem can be formulated as a problem about

strings and on the bottom the yi strings. Proof of

Referring back to the slides of Clemens. Post’s

given an element a ∈ E , we can decide in a finite Proof of

A decision problem for A in E: Find a decision A modern proof (Sipser)

Referring back to the slides of Clemens. Post’s

given an element a ∈ E , we can decide in a finite Proof of

A decision problem for A in E: Find a decision A modern proof (Sipser)

Referring back to the slides of Clemens. Post’s

given an element a ∈ E , we can decide in a finite Proof of

A decision problem for A in E: Find a decision A modern proof (Sipser)

Referring back to the slides of Clemens. Post’s

given an element a ∈ E , we can decide in a finite Proof of

A decision problem for A in E: Find a decision A modern proof (Sipser)

x1 x2 ...xm = y1 y2 ...ym is the set of solutions, called A . To Concluding

x1 x2 ...xm = y1 y2 ...ym is the set of solutions, called A . To Concluding

x1 x2 ...xm = y1 y2 ...ym is the set of solutions, called A . To Concluding

x1 x2 ...xm = y1 y2 ...ym is the set of solutions, called A . To Concluding

x1 x2 ...xm = y1 y2 ...ym is the set of solutions, called A . To Concluding

x1 x2 ...xm = y1 y2 ...ym is the set of solutions, called A . To Concluding

Now to consider the full problem. Concluding

Now to consider the full problem. Concluding

Post's Correspondence Problem

Post's Correspondence Problem