Compute 7 Examples

© All Rights Reserved

5 views

Compute 7 Examples

© All Rights Reserved

- Zeroth Review 1
- GE8151 Notes
- Reducing Lookup Table Size Used for Bit-counting Algorithm
- 4.pdf
- Fault Diagnosis Algorithm for Analog Electronic Circuits based on Node-Frequency Approach
- CS
- 6 Complexity of algorithms.pptx
- Counterexamples to Vaught’s Conjecture
- CEO: Different Reviews on PhD in Artificial Intelligence
- Online Judge
- Syllabus EE599 SWforEE Spring18 Jan261
- Application Oriented Line Differential Device Testing Paper IPTS 2009 Albert ENU
- final[1]
- samplePaper(alteracao)
- Soumya Ganguly SOP
- 3 ASD Analisis Algoritma.pdf
- 131591015318733999
- Big o Complexty Examples
- scimakelatex.30173.mision
- scimakelatex.26647.pablo+neruda.william+shakespeare.edgar+allan+poe

You are on page 1of 84

The language classes R = RE ∩ coRE

David Hilbert’s Tenth Problem

Encoding of TMs

Universal Turing Machines

The Halting/Acceptance problem

The Halting/Acceptance problems are undecidable

Diagonalization

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 1

Decidability vs. Enumerability

If a language L is decidable then clearly it is

enumerable (the other dirction does not hold, as we’ll

show in a couple of lectures).

It is also clear that if L is decidable then so is L, and

thus L is also enumerable.

Let RE denote the class of enumerable languages, and

let coRE denote the class of languages whose

complement is enumerable.

Let R denote the class of decidable languages. Then

what we just argued implies R⊆RE ∩ coRE .

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 2

Decidability vs. Enumerability (2)

Proof: We should prove the ⊇ direction. Namely if

L ∈ RE ∩ coRE , then L ∈ R.

In other words, if both L and its complement are

enumerable, then L is decidable.

Let M1 be a TM that accepts L.

Let M2 be a TM that accepts L.

We describe a TM, M , that decides L.

On input x, M runs M1 and M2 in parallel.

If M1 accepts, M accepts.

If M2 accepts, M rejects.

Should now show that indeed M decides L.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 3

Reformulation

enumerable and co-enumerable.

Proof: We must prove two directions:

If L and L are both enumerable, then L is decidable,

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 4

One Direction

Proof: Argued this three slides ago!

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 5

Other Direction

M2 the acceptor for L.

M = On input w

1. Run both M1 and M2 in parallel.

2. If M1 accepts, accept ; if M2 accepts, reject.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 6

In Parallel?

M alternates taking steps between M1 and M2 .

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 7

Claim

Every string is in L or in L (of course not in both).

Thus either M1 or M2 accepts the input w.

Consequently, since M halts whenever M1 or M2

accepts, M always halts, and hence is a decider.

Moreover, M accepts strings in L and rejects strings in

L.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 8

Revised View of the World of Languages

enumerable

decidable

context free

regular

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 9

Enumerators

Turing machine.

But why enumerable?

aa

abba

0

1 1 0

TM sends strings to printer

may create infinite list of strings

TM enumerates a language – all the strings produced.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 10

Theorem

if and only if some enumerator enumerates it.

Will show

If E enumerates language A, then some TM M accepts

A.

If M accepts A, then some enumerator E enumerates it.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 11

Theorem

accepts A.

On input w, TM M

to w.

If v = w, M accept.

If v 6= w, M continues running E .

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 12

Theorem

Claim:

enumerates it.

Let s1 , s2 , s3 , . . . is a list of all strings in Σ∗ (e.g. strings in

lexicographic order).

The enumerator, E

repeat the following for i = 1, 2, 3, . . .

run M for i steps on each input s1 , s2 , . . . , si .

if any computation accepts, print out the corresponding

s. ♣

Note that with this procedure, each output is duplicated

infinitely often.

How can this duplication be avoided?

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 13

Theorem

Claim:

enumerator E that enumerates L in lexicographic order.

Proof: Left as an exercise.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 14

What is an Algorithm???????

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 15

Indeed, What is an Algorithm?

Informally

a recipe

a procedure

a computer program

who cares? I know it when I see it :-(

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 16

Indeed, What is an Algorithm?

Historically,

notion has long history in Mathematics (starting with

Euclid’s gcd algorithm), but

not precisely defined until 20th century

informal notions rarely questioned,

still, they were insufficient

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 17

Remarks

computation.

Remarkably, all “reasonable” models were shown to be

equivalent to Turing machines.

All “reasonable” programming languages (e.g. Java,

Pascal, C, Python, Scheme, Mathematica, Maple,

Cobol,. . . ) are equivalent.

The notion of an algorithm is model-independent!

We don’t really care about Turing machines per se.

We do care about understanding computation, and

because of their simplicity, Turing machines are a good

model to use.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 18

Church-Turing Thesis

λ-calculus of Alonzo Church

Turing machines of Alan Turing

Recursive functions of Godel and Kleene

Counter machines of Minsky

Normal algorithms of Markov

Unrestricted grammars

Two stack automata

Random access machines (RAMs)

..

These definitions look very different, but are provably

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 19

Church-Turing Thesis

equivalent.

“The intuitive notion of reasonable models of

computation equals Turing machine algorithms”.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 20

Church-Turing Thesis

is not well defined.

This year (2009), Nachum Dershowitz (TAU), Udi Boker

(a former TA in this course), and Yu. Gurevitch (MSFT)

gave an axiomatization of this notion.

This axiomatization seems to “reasonably capture” what

a reasonable model of computing is.

Under this axiomatization, DBG gave a proof of the

Church-Turing thesis.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 21

Wild Models

c

Consider MUntel’s ℵ-AXP9 processor (to be released

Labor Day 2009).

Takes first step in 1 second.

Takes second step in 1/2 second.

Takes i-th step in 2−i seconds . . .

c

After 2 seconds, the ℵ-AXP decides any enumerable

language!

c

Question: Does the ℵ-AXP invalidate the Church-Turing

Thesis?

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 22

Hilbert’s 10th Problem

the International Congress of Mathematicians in Paris,

France.

Presented 23 central mathematical problems

challenge for the next (20th) century

the 10th problem directly concerned algorithms

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 23

Hilbert’s Tenth Problem

multivariate polynomial has an integral root.

Actually, what he said (translated from German) was

“to devise a process according to which it can be

determined by a finite number of operations”.

Note that

Hilbert explicitly asks that algorithm be “devised”

apparently Hilbert assumes that such an algorithm must

exist, and someone “only” need find it.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 24

Hilbert’s Tenth Problem

Mathematicians of 1900 could not have proved this,

because they didn’t have a formal notion of an

algorithm.

Intuitive notions work fine for constructing algorithms

(we know one when we see it).

Formal notions are required to show that no algorithm

exists.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 25

Hilbert’s Tenth Problem

Martin Davis, Hilary Putnam, and Julia Robinson, proved

that no algorithm exists for testing whether a multivariate

polynomial has integral roots (a survey of the proof)

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 26

Reformulating Hilbert’s Tenth Problem

D = {p | p is a multivariate polynomial

with an integral root}

decidable.

(why?). By Matijasevic̆ theorem, it is not decidable, so it

is in RE \ R.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 27

Univariate Polynomials

On input p,

evaluate p with x set successively to 0, 1, −1, 2, −2, . . ..

if p evaluates to zero, accept.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 28

Univariate Polynomials (2)

Note that

If not, M1 loops.

M1 is an acceptor, but not a decider.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 29

Univariate Polynomials (3)

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 30

Univariate Polynomials (4)

In fact, D1 is decidable.

Can show that all real roots of p[x] lie inside interval

is high-order coefficient.

real roots cannot be computed for multivariable

polynomials.

Furthermore, it was shown that the problem is undecidable

even when restricted to polynomials of degree ≤ 4 in just

nine variables.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 31

Encoding

But we want algorithms that work on graphs, matrices,

polynomials, Turing machines, etc.

Need to choose an encoding for objects.

Can often be done in many reasonable ways.

Sometimes it is helpful to distinguish between X , the

object, and hXi, its encoding.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 32

Encoding

any other node by traveling along edges.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 33

High-Level Description

Select first node of G and mark it.

Repeat until no new nodes marked:

For each unmarked node in G, mark it if attached by an

edge to a node already marked.

Scan nodes of G to determine whether they are all

marked. If so, accept, otherwise reject.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 34

Technical Details

4 vertexes edges

1

(1,2,3,4)((1,2),(2,3),(3,1),(1,4))

3 2

G <G>

edges.

(Note: Other encodings are also possible and feasible)

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 35

More Details

consisting of:

two lists

first is list of numbers ("nodes")

second is list of pairs ("edges")

every node in second list appears in first

first list contains no duplicates (element distinctness

subroutine)

second list contains no duplicates (element distinctness

subroutine)

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 36

Detailed Algorithm

1. M dots first node.

2. loop:

M scans list and “underlines” first undotted node n1 .

M rescans and “underlines” first dotted node n2 .

M scans edges.

M tests each edge if it equals (n1 , n2 ).

If so, dot n1 , remove underlines, goto Step 2.

If not, check next edge. When no more edges, move

underline from n2 to next dotted node, naming this new n2 .

When exhausting all dotted vertices, move underlines: new

n1 is next dotted node and new n2 is first undotted node.

Repeat Step 2. When no more undotted nodes, go to Step

3.

3. M scans list of nodes. If all are dotted, accept, else reject.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 37

Standard Encoding of Turing Machines

Blocks of 0’s will be used as delimiters.

A set Q with m states will be indicated by m in unary.

By conventions states will be 1 through m.

By convention, q0 is indicated by state 1.

Indicate the accept and the reject states i and j (& delimiters!).

Indicate the sizes of Σ, ℓ, and of Γ, k, (again in unary, plus

delimiters). ℓ < k. Letters in Σ encoded by 1 . . . ℓ (in unary),

while letters in Γ encoded by ℓ + 1 . . . k (in unary). By

convention, blank is encoded by k.

Finally, the transition function δ is encoded as a list of 5-tuples

with correct size and no duplications in q, γ entries.

Important and Easy: An algorithm (TM) can check that a given

string is legal encoding of a TM.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 38

Univeral Turing Machine

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 39

Univeral Turing Machines

On input hM, wi, where M is a TM and w a string

followed by a string from Σ∗ .

2. Simulates M on input w (HOW???)

3. If M on input w enters its accept state, U accept, and if

M on input w ever enters its reject state, U reject.

infinite loop, so does U on input hM, wi.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 40

Universal Turing Machines (2)

of states (100 should do) .

Despite this, it can simulate machines M with many

more states.

Universal machines inspired the development of

stored-program computers in the 40s and 50s.

Most of you have seen a universal machine, and have

even used one!

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 41

Universal Turing Machines (3)

Scheme machine.

program (corresponding to hM i), and “below the line”

the input to run it on (corresponding to w).

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 42

The Halting Problem

theory of computation.

Computers (and computation) are not omnipotent – they

are limited in a very fundamental way.

Many common problems are unsolvable, e.g.

Note that this problem is well defined: Both program

and specification are precise mathematical objects.

Hey, proving program ∼ = specification should be just like

proving that triangle 1 ∼

= triangle 2 . . .

Well, this is not the case!

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 43

CFG, NFA, DFA Reminders

We saw that ECFG is a decidable language.

ACFG = {hM, wi | M is a PDA accepting the string w}.

Saw that the language ACFG is decidable.

ANFA = {hM, wi | M is an NFA accepting the string w}.

ADFA = {hM, wi | M is a DFA , accepting the string w}.

Saw both ANFA and ADFA are also decidable.

What would happen with Turing Machines?

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 44

Acceptance Problem

DFAs, NFAs, and CFGs, namely

ADFA , ANFA , and ACFG , are decidable.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 45

The Acceptance Problem

prove

Proof: The universal machine accepts ATM . ♣

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 46

Acceptance, Again

ATM .

On input hM, wi, where M is a TM and w is a string, H halts

and accepts if and only if M accepts w. Furthermore, H

halts and rejects if M fails to accept w.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 47

Acceptance (2)

and accepts if and only if M accepts w. Furthermore, H

halts and rejects if M fails to accept w.

(

accept if M accepts w

H(hM, wi) =

reject if M does not accept w

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 48

Acceptance (3)

D does the following

Calls H to determine what TM, M , does when the input

to M is its own description, hM i.

When D determines this, it does the opposite.

So D rejects if M accepts hM i, and accepts if M does

not accept hM i.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 49

Acceptance (4)

Output the opposite of what H outputs:

If H accepts, reject, and

If H rejects, accept.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 50

Self Reference (4)

own description!

Actually, you should get used to it.

diverse areas.

Read “Gödel, Escher, Bach, an Eternal Golden Braid”,

by Douglas Hofstadter.

This notion of self-reference is the basic idea behind

Gödel’s revolutionary result.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 51

The Punch Line

So far we have,

(

reject if M accepts hM i

D(hM i) =

accept if M does not accept hM i

(

reject if D accepts hDi

D(hDi) =

accept if D does not accept hDi

Oh, oh...

Or, more accurately, a contradiction (to what?) ♣

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 52

Once Again

Then use H to build a TM, D, that when given hM i,

accepts exactly when M does not accept.

Run D on its own description.

D does:

H accepts hM, wi when M accepts w .

D rejects hM i exactly when M accepts hM i.

D rejects hDi exactly when D accepts hDi.

Last step leads to contradiction.

Therefore neither TM D nor H can exist.

So ATM is undecidable!

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 53

A Non-enumerable Language

Can we do better (i.e., worse)?

Mais, oui!

We now display a language that isn’t even recursively

enumerable . . . .

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 54

A Non-enumerable Language

Earlier we saw

decidable.

Corollary:

enumerable.

Definition:

complement of an enumerable language.

and only if it is both enumerable and co-enumerable.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 55

ATM is not Enumerable

decidable.

On the other hand, we saw that the universal TM, U ,

accepts ATM .

Therefore ATM is enumerable.

If ATM were also enumerable, then by theorem ATM

was decidable.

Therefore ATM is not enumerable. ♣

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 56

Languages

???

A TM A DFA A TM

?

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 57

The Acceptance Problem (again)

We saw

diagonalization proof.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 58

Comparing Sizes of Sets

their sizes.

If both A and B are finite, we can count how many elements

each of them has, and compare the numbers.

This method does not generalize to infinite sets.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 59

Comparing Sizes of Sets (2)

pair perfectly, they have equal sizes.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 60

Correspondence

the same size?

Answered by Georg Cantor in 1873: Pair them off.

A map f : A → B is a correspondence if f satisfies

f one-to-one: if a1 6= a2 then f (a1 ) 6= f (a2 ).

f onto: for every b ∈ B , there is an a ∈ A such that

f (a) = b.

the same size?

Answer: Aand B are the same size if there is a

correspondence from A to B .

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 61

Correspondence (2)

more people than chairs, or more chairs than people?

down.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 62

Correspondence

same size as the set E of even numbers

yet they are the same size!

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 63

Countable Sets

either A is finite, or

A has the same size as N , the natural numbers.

A countable set is sometimes said to have size ℵ0 .

Claim: The set Z of integers is countable.

Proof: Define f : N → Z by

(

i/2 if i is even

f (i) =

−(⌊i/2⌋ + 1) if i is odd

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 64

Pop Quiz

rooms.

Researchers holds a 3-day convention that books every

room in the hotel.

and angrily demanding a room.

put the newcomer in room 1.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 65

Pop Quiz #2

demanding rooms. (What a noise!)

the newcomers in the odd-numbered rooms.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 66

Rational Numbers

Let nm o

Q= | m, n ∈ N

n

Theorem: Q is countable.

This claim may seem counterintuitive.

Idea

begin counting with the first row . . .

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 67

Rational Numbers (2)

skipping duplicates.

Does this mean that every infinite set is countable?

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 68

The Real Numbers

√

For example, π = 3.1415926 . . ., 2 = 1.4142136 . . ., and

0 = 0.0000000 . . ..

Let R be the set of real numbers.

Theorem: R is uncountable.

R is sometimes said to have size ℵ1 .

introduced the diagonalization method.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 69

The Real Numbers

Write it down:

n f (n)

1 3.14159. . .

2 55.55555. . .

3 40.18642. . .

4 15.20601. . .

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 70

Diagonalization

Will ensure x 6= f (n) for all n.

n f (n)

1 3.14159. . .

2 55.55555. . .

3 40.18643. . .

4 15.20607. . .

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 71

Diagonalization n f (n)

1 3.14159. . .

2 55.55555. . .

3 40.18643. . .

4 15.20607. . .

digit of x to be something else (say, 2).

Second fractional digit of f (2) is 5, so pick second

fractional digit of x to be something else (say, 6).

and so on . . .

x = 0.2691 . . .

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 72

Diagonalization

enumerable.

the set of languages is uncountable!

Ergo,

there exist languages that are not enumerable

(why?)

indeed, “most” languages are not enumerable

(explain)

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 73

∃ Countably Many Turing Machines

on. This exhausts all of Σ∗ .

The union of countably many finite sets is countable.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 74

∃ Countably Many Turing Machines (2)

Therefore there is a one-to-one mapping from the set of all

TMs into (but not onto) Σ∗ .

Since Σ∗ is countable, so is the set of all TMs.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 75

The Set of All Languages is Uncountable

Claim B is uncountable.

proof that R is uncountable.

(additional helpful clue: think of binary sequence as binary

expansion!)

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 76

The Set of Languages is Uncountable (2)

Recall B is the set of of infinite binary sequences.

We give a correspondence

χ:L→B

Each language L ∈ L is associated with a unique

sequence χ(L) ∈ B:

the i-th bit of χ(L) is 1 if and only if si ∈ L.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 77

The Set of Languages is Uncountable (3)

the i-th bit of χ(L) is 1 if and only if si ∈ L.

Example: A { 0, 00, 01, 000 . . .}

χ(A) {0, 1, 0 1, 1, 0, 0, 1 . . .}

The map χ : L → B

is one-to-one and onto (why?),

and is hence a correspondence.

It follows that L is uncountable.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 78

TMs vs. Languages

We saw that the set L of all languages over alphabet Σ is

uncountable.

Therefore there are languages that are not accepted by any

TM.

This is an existential proof – it does not explicitly show any

such language.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 79

Reflections on Diagonalization

actually diagonalization in transparent disguise.

To unveil this, let’s start by making a table.

M1 accept accept

M2 accept accept accept accept

M3

M4 accept accept

..

.

blank if Mi rejects or loops on hMj i.

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 80

Diagonalization (2)

M1 accept accept

M2 accept accept accept accept

M3

M4 accept accept

.

.

.

entry (i, j) states whether H accepts hMi , hMj ii.

hM1 i hM2 i hM3 i hM4 i . . .

M1 accept reject accept reject

M2 accept accept accept accept

M3 reject reject reject reject

M4 accept accept reject reject

.. .. .. ..

. . . .

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 81

Diagonalization (3)

By assumption, H is a TM, and therefore so is D.

D occurs on the list M1 , M2 , . . . of all TMs.

D computes the opposite of the diagonal entries.

At diagonal entry, D computes its own opposite!

M1 accept reject accept

M2 accept accept accept

M3 reject reject reject

M4 accept accept reject

.. .. ...

. .

D reject reject accept ???

.. ..

. . ...

♣

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 82

Halting vs Acceptance Problem

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 83

Undecidable Problems

Proof idea:

Again, proof by diagonalization.

Will do this on the blackboard.

Next time (Friday!!) will prove this differently, by a

reduction from ATM .

Slides modified by Benny Chor, based on original slides by Maurice Herlihy, Brown Univ. – p. 84

- Zeroth Review 1Uploaded byviveknk
- GE8151 NotesUploaded byriya
- Reducing Lookup Table Size Used for Bit-counting AlgorithmUploaded byOsvaldo Navarro
- 4.pdfUploaded byUmar Ismail
- Fault Diagnosis Algorithm for Analog Electronic Circuits based on Node-Frequency ApproachUploaded byijcsis
- CSUploaded byAnique Tahir
- 6 Complexity of algorithms.pptxUploaded bysupreet
- Counterexamples to Vaught’s ConjectureUploaded byDragan Rukavina
- CEO: Different Reviews on PhD in Artificial IntelligenceUploaded byGlobal Journal Of advanced Research
- Online JudgeUploaded byvinodhewards
- Syllabus EE599 SWforEE Spring18 Jan261Uploaded bySid Zr
- Application Oriented Line Differential Device Testing Paper IPTS 2009 Albert ENUUploaded byburkinafasoglu
- final[1]Uploaded byGobara Dhan
- samplePaper(alteracao)Uploaded byThiago Pradi
- Soumya Ganguly SOPUploaded bySoumya Ganguly
- 3 ASD Analisis Algoritma.pdfUploaded byMEi Cuiet Luph-LuPh
- 131591015318733999Uploaded byhamza abbas
- Big o Complexty ExamplesUploaded byAdnan Khan
- scimakelatex.30173.misionUploaded byLK
- scimakelatex.26647.pablo+neruda.william+shakespeare.edgar+allan+poeUploaded byDavid Zolorzano
- shift-and ỏUploaded byCong Binh Phuong
- Fast Algorithms for Projected Clustering PDFUploaded byGeorge
- Helsgaun2Uploaded byhernan73
- AlgoUploaded bySmmy Mma
- iitb-es-15.pdfUploaded bysoumava palit
- Semantic Annotation and Composition of Business Processes With MaestroUploaded byAbcbatata666
- 10.1109@NRC.2004.1316399.pdfUploaded bymadox_3m
- Realization of Cutter Radius Compensation Using Embedded System in CNC MachineUploaded bySEP-Publisher
- scimakelatex.5616.One+Ay.Two+Bee.Three+Cey.Four+Dea.Five+EyeUploaded byfillipik
- jea2005Uploaded bypisal

- Facebook Gistfile1.JavaUploaded byRonildo Oliveira
- License.pdfUploaded byRonildo Oliveira
- Image RecognitiionUploaded byLuicia Sotres
- Update%20remote%20repo.txtUploaded byRonildo Oliveira
- Session Horns Manual EnglishUploaded byEzra Savadious
- Basic ML In Python.pdfUploaded bymahendra.lal71373
- Distributed Incremental Fingerprint Accepted2Uploaded byRonildo Oliveira
- Computer graphicsUploaded byRonildo Oliveira
- NI Kontakt Studio Drummer Manual EnglishUploaded byrocciye
- Agent or Program.pdfUploaded byRonildo Oliveira
- A Two-stage Otsu’s Thresholding Based Method on a 2D Histogram puthipong_ICCP2011Uploaded byRonildo Oliveira
- diff2Uploaded byMarko Markovic
- Appendixes Sd04Uploaded byRonildo Oliveira
- Accordions 2 Manual.pdfUploaded byRonildo Oliveira
- Android - Read and Write to FileUploaded byPatricio Cisternas
- Statistics Machine Learning Python DraftUploaded byRonildo Oliveira
- The Garage Kit - Default Mapping.pdfUploaded byRonildo Oliveira
- The Session Kit - Default Mapping.pdfUploaded byRonildo Oliveira
- The Stadium Kit - Default MappingUploaded byRonildo Oliveira
- ReadMe.pdfUploaded byLuepoke
- Getting Started with Neuroph 2.7.pdfUploaded byMarco Alberto Benjumeda Barquita
- _974fa7509d583eabb592839f9716fe25_Lecture1.pdfUploaded byRonildo Oliveira
- 1497565654578Uploaded byRonildo Oliveira
- Electri6ity_ManualUploaded byHarrison Deutsch
- 01 - Awesome - 16x9 - Main Color - LightUploaded byRonildo Oliveira
- SlidePro Help FileUploaded byRonildo Oliveira
- Evolution n SearchUploaded byRonildo Oliveira

- eleni ikoniadouUploaded byHerbert Baioco Vasconcelos
- Moral Compromise and Personal Integrity - Exploring the Ethical Issues of Deciding TogetherUploaded byDaniel Santibáñez Guerrero
- Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory Curs 3 (Standpoints and Argumentation)Uploaded bynegrutzzz
- emmanuel smith new storyUploaded byapi-301792142
- Airborne Instruction TechniqueUploaded bywok8791
- Book, Hermann Cohen 0, Cohen's and Neokantism Im ContextUploaded byhectorarrese62
- J NeurolinguisticsUploaded byLuiz Carlos Rusilo
- Mission Statement Example AssignmentUploaded bydaangryjew
- Podcasting, An Effctive Tool for PronunciationUploaded byIris Adriana
- SMU-MBA- SOLVED ASSIGNMENT- MANAGEMENT PROCESS & OB- MB0022Uploaded byLns Aditya Kompella
- literature reviewUploaded byapi-432839239
- Despret - From Secret Agents to InteragencyUploaded byRubén Jiménez
- RP ENGLISH Sauer_Phonus_6.pdfUploaded byxpedro_jose
- spring 2016 cuin 4375 syllabusUploaded byapi-357727805
- Spiritual ebook NonDual - Adyashanti - Actually One BeingUploaded byapi-26215296
- Baars Global Workspace TheoryUploaded byferents90
- Conditional Sentences in NT Greek Ruben VideiraUploaded byruviso
- Two Factor ThoeryUploaded byluandavid
- PAINUploaded bysvk_chatterjee
- 2 Ways of Doing PhilosophyUploaded byfelize padlla
- EDU 5170 Lesson PlanUploaded bymetalmanntb001
- Generative design: a paradigm for design researchUploaded byM. Y. Hassan
- Johri WindowUploaded byKapil Sharma
- Sarah F. Taub - Language From the BodyUploaded byhlbbr
- sped pgp reflective essayUploaded byapi-314247266
- 1119_KrajcovicovaatalUploaded byJanry Simanungkalit
- Norenzayan 2016 TheodiversityUploaded byDre Lockhart
- Adolescent Challenges iUploaded byEli Inocando
- C-Peladan-mémoire-publicUploaded byEtablissement d'Enseignement Supérieur Occitan APRENE
- Neo- Classical School Report - GROUP 2Uploaded byDrew B Mrtnz