Decidability and Reductions

F ORMAL L ANGUAGES , AUTOMATA AND
C OMPUTATION
P OST C ORRESPONDENCE P ROBLEM
( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 1 / 28

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

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

R EDUCIBILITY
problem.
Reducibility involves two problems A and B.

R EDUCIBILITY
problem.
If A reduces to B, you can use a solution to B to solve A

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

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

R EDUCIBILITY
problem.
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.

T HEOREM 5.2
Suppose R decides ETM . We try to construct S to decide ATM using R.

T HEOREM 5.2

Note that S takes hM, wi as input.

T HEOREM 5.2

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.

T HEOREM 5.2

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

T HEOREM 5.2

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 ) = .

T HEOREM 5.2

T HEOREM 5.2
P ROOF

T HEOREM 5.2
P ROOF
For any w define M1 as
M1 = On input x:

T HEOREM 5.2
P ROOF
M1 = On input x:
1 If x 6= w, reject.

T HEOREM 5.2
P ROOF
M1 = On input x:
1 6 w, reject.
If x =
2 If x = w, run M on input w and accept if M does.

T HEOREM 5.2
P ROOF
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 ROOF CONTINUED

P ROOF CONTINUED
Assume R decides ETM

P ROOF CONTINUED
S defines below uses R to decide on ATM
S = On input hM, wi

P ROOF CONTINUED
S = On input hM, wi
1 Use hM, wi to construct M1 above.

P ROOF CONTINUED
S = On input hM, wi
2 Run R on input hM1 i

P ROOF CONTINUED
S = On input hM, wi
3 If R accepts, reject, if R rejects, accept.

P ROOF CONTINUED
S = On input hM, wi
So, if R decides L(M1 ) is empty,

P ROOF CONTINUED
S = On input hM, wi
then M does NOT accept w,

P ROOF CONTINUED
S = On input hM, wi
else M accepts w.

P ROOF CONTINUED
S = On input hM, wi
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

configurations
C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl
such that
C1 is the start configuration for input w

configurations
C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl
such that
Cl is an accepting configuration, and

configurations
C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl
such that
each Ci follows legally from the preceding configuration.

configurations
C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl
such that
A rejecting computation history is defined similarly.

configurations
C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl
such that
Computation histories are finite sequences if M does not halt on M,
there is no computation history.

configurations
C1 , C2 , . . . , Cl
such that
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.

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 EMMA
P ROOF .

L EMMA
P ROOF .
The machine can be in one of q states.

L EMMA
P ROOF .
The head can be on one of the n cells.

L EMMA
P ROOF .
At most g n distinct strings can occur on the tape.

L EMMA
P ROOF .
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.
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
#| {z }#| {z }#| {z }##| {z }#

C1 C2 C3 Cl

Consider the string
#| {z }#| {z }#| {z }##| {z }#

C1 C2 C3 Cl
The set of all valid accepting histories is also a language!!

Consider the string
#| {z }#| {z }#| {z }##| {z }#

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.

Consider the string
#| {z }#| {z }#| {z }##| {z }#

C1 C2 C3 Cl

Check if C1 = q0 w1 w2 wn

Consider the string
#| {z }#| {z }#| {z }##| {z }#

C1 C2 C3 Cl

Check if Cl = qaccept

Consider the string
#| {z }#| {z }#| {z }##| {z }#

C1 C2 C3 Cl

Check if each Ci+1 follows from Ci legally.

Consider the string
#| {z }#| {z }#| {z }##| {z }#

C1 C2 C3 Cl

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

Consider the string
#| {z }#| {z }#| {z }##| {z }#

C1 C2 C3 Cl

Note that B is not constructed for the purpose of running it on any input!
If L(B) 6= then M accepts w

Undecidability is not just confined to problems concerning automata and
languages.

languages.
There are other natural problems which can be proved undecidable.

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

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

a .

languages.

a .
Suppose we have dominos

b a ca abc
, , ,
ca ab a c

languages.

a .

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

languages.

a .

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.

A N INSTANCE OF THE PCP

A PCP instance over is a finite collection P of dominos

t1 t2 tk
P= , , ,
b1 b2 bk
where for all i, 1 i k, ti , bi .

A N INSTANCE OF THE PCP

A PCP instance over is a finite collection P of dominos

t1 t2 tk
P= , , ,
b1 b2 bk
where for all i, 1 i k, ti , bi .
M ATCH
Given a PCP instance P, a match is a nonempty sequence
i1 , i2 , . . . , i`
of numbers from {1, 2, . . . , k } (with repetition) such that

ti1 ti2 ti` = bi1 bi2 bi`

Q UESTION :
Does a given PCP instance P have a match?

Q UESTION :
L ANGUAGE FORMULATION :
PCP = {hPi | P is a PCP instance and it has a match}

Q UESTION :
T HEOREM 5.15
PCP is undecidable.

Q UESTION :
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).

P ROOF
2 We reduce MPCP to PCP.

P ROOF
MPCP AS A LANGUAGE PROBLEM

MPCP = {hPi | P is a PCP instance and it has a match which starts with
index 1}

P ROOF

index 1}

t1
So the solution to MPCP starts with the domino b1 . We later remove
this restriction in the second part of the proof.

P ROOF

index 1}

t1
So the solution to MPCP starts with the domino b1 . We later remove
this restriction in the second part of the proof.

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
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
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 #


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


t1 #
= ,
b1 #q0 w1 w2 wn #
where q 6= qreject

qa
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


t1 #
= ,
b1 #q0 w1 w2 wn #
where q 6= qreject

qa
br
where q 6= qreject

cqa
rcb

4 For every a put aa into P 0


t1 #
= ,
b1 #q0 w1 w2 wn #
where q 6= qreject

qa
br
where q 6= qreject

cqa
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)

Part 1 places the first domino and the match begins
#
# q0 0 1 0 0 #

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

q0 0
Part 2 places the domino 2q7

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

q0 0

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

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

q0 0

0 1 2 t
extend the match.
#
Part 5 puts in the domino #

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

q0 0

0 1 2 t
extend the match.
#
What exactly is going on ?

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

q0 0

0 1 2 t
extend the match.
#

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!

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

q0 0

0 1 2 t
extend the match.
#

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.
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.

6 For every a ,

aqaccept qaccept a
put and into P 0
qaccept qaccept
Just before these apply the upper and lower strings are like
... #
. . . # 2 1 qaccept 0 2 #

6 For every a ,

aqaccept qaccept a
put and into P 0
qaccept qaccept
... #
. . . # 2 1 qaccept 0 2 #
After using these dominos, we end up with
... #
. . . # qaccept #

6 For every a ,

aqaccept qaccept a
put and into P 0
qaccept qaccept
... #
. . . # 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.
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.

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

t1 t2 tk
P0 = , , ,
b1 b2 bk
We let P be the collection

?t1 ?t2 ?tk ?
P= , , ,
?b1 ? b2 ? bk ?

PCP P ROOF PART 2

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

t1 t2 tk
P0 = , , ,
b1 b2 bk

?t1 ?t2 ?tk ?
P= , , ,
?b1 ? b2 ? bk ?
The last domino just adds the missing ? at the end of the match.

PCP P ROOF PART 2

t1 t2 tk
P0 = , , ,
b1 b2 bk

?t1 ?t2 ?tk ?
P= , , ,
?b1 ? b2 ? bk ?
The last domino just adds the missing ? at the end of the match.
C ONCLUSION
PCP is undecidable!

S UMMARY OF R EDUCIBILITY
We know that language A is undecidable. By reducing A to B we want to show

that the language B is also undecidable.


1 Assume that we have a decider MB for B.



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



MA = On input hIA i



MA = On input hIA i
1. Algorithmically construct an input hIB i for MB , such that



MA = On input hIA i



MA = On input hIA i
a) Either



MA = On input hIA i
a) Either
If hIA i A then hIB i B

If hIA i 6 A then hIB i 6 B



MA = On input hIA i
a) Either b) or
If hIA i A then hIB i B

If hIA i 6 A then hIB i 6 B



MA = On input hIA i
a) Either b) or
If hIA i A then hIB i B If hIA i A then hIB i 6 B

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



MA = On input hIA i
a) Either b) or

2. Run the decider MB on hIB i for MB

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



MA = On input hIA i
a) Either b) or


3 We know MA can not exist so MB can not exist.



MA = On input hIA i
a) Either b) or


3 We know MA can not exist so MB can not exist.

4 B is undecidable.
C OMPUTABLE F UNCTIONS
I DEA
Turing Machines can also compute function f : .

I DEA
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

I DEA
always halts, and

I DEA
always halts, and
leaves just f (w) on its tape.

I DEA
always halts, and
Examples:
def
Let f (w) = ww be a function. Then f is computable.

I DEA
always halts, and
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

D EFINITION
1 There is a computable function f : such that

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

D EFINITION
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.

D EFINITION
T HEOREM 5.22
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

D EFINITION
T HEOREM 5.22
P ROOF
N = On input w
1 Compute f (w)

D EFINITION
T HEOREM 5.22
P ROOF
N = On input w
1 Compute f (w)
2 Run M on input f (w) and output whatever M outputs.

D EFINITION
T HEOREM 5.22
P ROOF
N = On input w
1 Compute f (w)

D EFINITION
T HEOREM 5.22
P ROOF
N = On input w
1 Compute f (w)
If A <m B and A is undecidable, then B is undecidable.

T HEOREM
ATM <m HALTTM

T HEOREM
ATM <m HALTTM
P ROOF .
Construct a computable function f which maps hM, wi to hM 0 , w 0 i such that
hM, wi ATM if and only if hM 0 , w 0 i HALTTM
Mf = On input hM, wi

T HEOREM
ATM <m HALTTM
P ROOF .
1. Construct the following machine M 0 :
M 0 = On input x

T HEOREM
ATM <m HALTTM
P ROOF .
M 0 = On input x
1. Run M on x.

T HEOREM
ATM <m HALTTM
P ROOF .
M 0 = On input x
1. Run M on x.
2. If M accepts accept

T HEOREM
ATM <m HALTTM
P ROOF .
M 0 = On input x
1. Run M on x.
3. If M rejects enter a loop.

T HEOREM
ATM <m HALTTM
P ROOF .
M 0 = On input x
1. Run M on x.
3. If M rejects enter a loop.
2. Output hM 0 , wi.

M ORE EXAMPLES OF M APPING R EDUCIBILITY
Earlier we showed

Earlier we showed
ATM <m MPCP

Earlier we showed
ATM <m MPCP
MPCP <m PCP

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.

Earlier we showed
ATM <m MPCP
MPCP <m PCP
T HEOREM 5.24
If A <m B and B is Turing-recognizable, then A is Turing-recognizable.

Earlier we showed
ATM <m MPCP
MPCP <m PCP
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

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

5 A <m B
Useful observation:
Suppose you can show ATM <m B

5 A <m B
Useful observation:
This means ATM <m B

5 A <m B
Useful observation:
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
P ROOF I DEA
We show

E XAMPLE OF U SE
T HEOREM 5.30
P ROOF I DEA
We show
ATM <m EQTM

E XAMPLE OF U SE
T HEOREM 5.30
P ROOF I DEA
We show
ATM <m EQTM
ATM <m EQTM

E XAMPLE OF U SE
T HEOREM 5.30
P ROOF I DEA
We show
ATM <m EQTM
ATM <m EQTM
These then imply the theorem.

E XAMPLE OF U SE
P ROOF FOR ATM <m EQTM

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following f :
F = On input hM, wi where M is a TM and w is a string:

E XAMPLE OF U SE


1. Construct the following two machines M1 and M2

E XAMPLE OF U SE


M1 = On any input:
1. Reject

E XAMPLE OF U SE


M1 = On any input:
1. Reject
M2 = On any input:
1. Run M on w. If it accepts, accept.

E XAMPLE OF U SE


M1 = On any input:
1. Reject
M2 = On any input:
2. Output hM1 , M2 i.

E XAMPLE OF U SE


M1 = On any input:
1. Reject
M2 = On any input:
M1 accepts nothing.

E XAMPLE OF U SE


M1 = On any input:
1. Reject
M2 = On any input:
M1 accepts nothing.
If M accepts w then M2 accepts everything. So M1 and M2 are not
equivalent.

E XAMPLE OF U SE


M1 = On any input:
1. Reject
M2 = On any input:
M1 accepts nothing.
equivalent.
If M does not accept w then M2 accepts nothing. So M1 and M2 are
equivalent.

E XAMPLE OF U SE


M1 = On any input:
1. Reject
M2 = On any input:
M1 accepts nothing.
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 )
E XAMPLE OF U SE

We show ATM <m EQTM (and hence ATM <m EQTM ) with the following g:
G = On input hM, wi where M is a TM and w is a string:

E XAMPLE OF U SE



E XAMPLE OF U SE


M1 = On any input:
1. Accept

E XAMPLE OF U SE


M1 = On any input:
1. Accept
M2 = On any input:

E XAMPLE OF U SE


M1 = On any input:
1. Accept
M2 = On any input:

E XAMPLE OF U SE


M1 = On any input:
1. Accept
M2 = On any input:
M1 accepts everything.

E XAMPLE OF U SE


M1 = On any input:
1. Accept
M2 = On any input:
If M accepts w then M2 accepts everything. So M1 and M2 are equivalent.

E XAMPLE OF U SE


M1 = On any input:
1. Accept
M2 = On any input:
If M does not accept w then M2 accepts nothing. So M1 and M2 are not
equivalent.

E XAMPLE OF U SE


M1 = On any input:
1. Accept
M2 = On any input:
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 )

Decidability and Reductions

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Decidability and Reductions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

F ORMAL L ANGUAGES , AUTOMATA AND

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 1 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 2 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 3 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 3 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 3 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 3 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 3 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 3 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 3 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 3 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 4 / 28

Suppose R decides ETM . We try to construct S to decide ATM using R.

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 4 / 28

Suppose R decides ETM . We try to construct S to decide ATM using R.

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 4 / 28

Suppose R decides ETM . We try to construct S to decide ATM using R.

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 4 / 28

Suppose R decides ETM . We try to construct S to decide ATM using R.

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 4 / 28

Suppose R decides ETM . We try to construct S to decide ATM using R.

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 4 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 5 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 5 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 5 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 5 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 5 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 5 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 6 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 6 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 6 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 6 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 6 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 6 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 6 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 6 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 6 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 6 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 7 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 7 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 7 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 7 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 7 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 7 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 7 / 28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 9 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 9 / 28

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 9 / 28

#| {z }#| {z }#| {z }##| {z }#

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 9 / 28

#| {z }#| {z }#| {z }##| {z }#

The set of all valid accepting histories is also a language!!

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 9 / 28

#| {z }#| {z }#| {z }##| {z }#

The set of all valid accepting histories is also a language!!

( Lecture 17) Slides for 15-453 Spring 2011 9 / 28