This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Speaker: Yu-Han Lyu December 1, 2006

Journal

•Journal of the ACM (JACM) •Theoretical Computer Science (TCS) •Electronic Colloquium on Computational Complexity (ECCC) •Theory of Computing (ToC)

Conference •ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) •ACM/SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) •IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS) •IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC) .

org/ . 2003 –ACM Transactions of Algorithms •http://theoryofcomputing.Jeff Ullman •Knuth sent letter to Journal of Algorithms On October 25. -.Theory of Computing •Publishers of scientific journals today actually impede the flow of information rather than enable it.

compiler want to do extreme optimization If program has redundant computation. then the result must be –L: goto L.Optimization is Impossible! •Given a program and input. •It decides HALTTM . then compiler must eliminate it •If program has infinite loop.

then A is Turing reducible to B •There are still some problem are not decidable by TATM .Oracle Turing Machine •An oracle Turing machine is a modified Turing machine that has the additional capability of querying an oracle •TA to describe an oracle Turing machine that has an oracle for language A. •If TA can decide B.

•What is the difference? .Reducibility •Mapping Reducibility –Many-one reducibility –A≦m B •Turing Reducibility –Oracle Turing Machine –A≦T B •Mapping reducibility is special case of Turing reducibility.

Turing vs Many-one Reducibility A≦X B B is decidable B is recognizable Turing A is decidable X Many-one A is decidable A is recognizable A is undecidable B is undecidable B is undecidable A is not recognizable X B is not recognizable .

34).a.34. accepts.34.Self-Reproduce Program •main(a){printf(a="main(a){printf(a=%c%s% c.” . rejects. Otherwise.}".w> –H accept.34).} •Quine •We can get <M> in M •Assume H is decider for ATM •B=“ input w: On –Obtain <B>.a. via the recursion theorem –Run H on input <B.

reject}∪Q •Any string with the same function are indistinguishable .HW3 –Problem 1 •Show that single-tape TMs that cannot write on the portion of the tape containing the input string recognize only regular languages. we can find a function –fx({start}∪Q)→{accept. •Myhill-Nerode Theorem –L is regular if and only if it has finite index •For any string x.

Run <Mi> on input w. •D=” input w: On 1. 3. Let i be the index of Σ*. accept.HW3 –Problem 2 •Decider is not recognizable •Suppose a enumerator E that enumerate all decider <M1>. If Mi accepts. that is si = w.” . Otherwise. 2. <M2>…. reject.

If B is empty. accept. Test whether B is empty. Show that PALDFA is decidable •Let CFL A={x | x has more 1s than 0s} •T=” input <M> where M is a DFA: On 1.” .HW3 –Problem 3 •Let PALDFA={<M>| M is a DFA that accepts some string with more 1s than 0s}. reject. Otherwise. 3. so B is CFL. 2. Let B = A∩L(M).

HW3 –Problem 4 •Let C be a language. Prove that C is Turing-recognizable if and only if a decidable language D exists such that C={x|∃y(<x. and testing whether <x.y>|M accepts x within |y| steps} .y>∈D)} •If D exists –search each possible string y.y>∈D •If C is recognizable –D={<x.

December 15. 2006 (before class) .Homework 4 •Due –3:20 pm.

consider all k-state TMs that halt when started with a blank tape. –For each value of k.Problem 1 •Define the busy beaver function BB: N→N as follows. –Let BB(k) be the maximum number of 1s that remain on the tape among all of these machines.HW4 . –Show that busy beaver function is not a computable function. •Proof by contradiction .

Problem 2 •Show that AMBIGCFG is undecidable •PCP Problem •PCP ≦m AMBIGCFG .HW4 .

bidirectional heads •Show that A2DFA is decidable •Show that E2DFA is not decidable •Computation History .Problem 3 •Two-headed finite automaton (2DFA) –two read-only.HW4 .

HW4 .Problem 4 •Let J = {w | either w = 0x for some x ATM. or w = 1y for some y ATM} •Show that neither J nor the complement of J is Turing-recognizable •Mapping Reducibility .

Problem 5 •Rice’theorem s •Prove that the problem of determining whether a given Turing machine’language has property P s is undecidable. P is a property of the TM’language – s whenever L(M1)=L(M2). we have <M1>∈P iff <M2>∈P. .HW4 . •Let P be a language consisting of Turing machine descriptions where P fulfills two conditions. but not all. –Second. M1 and M2 are any TMs. Here. TM descriptions. –P is nontrivial –it contains some.

show that {<G>| G is a CFG over {0. In other words.Problem 5 •Show that the problem of determining whether a CFG generates all string in 1* is decidable. •Closure Property? •Grammar? •PDA? •Parse tree? .HW3 .1} and 1*⊆L(G)} is a decidable language.

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- 19Turing-2x2
- Assessment Test (2)
- IGNOU MCA MCS-031 Solved Assignment 2010
- [Tarski_Alfred]_Undecidable_Statements_and_the_Con(Bookos.org).pdf
- Flat Course File 1
- computabilityS
- Newell. Physical Symbol Systems
- 070902-1
- L134ALG
- Solution Manual Crafting a Compiler 1st Edition Charles N. Fischer Ron K. Cytron Richard J. LeBlanc Jr.
- Midterm a Full COMP375 Answers
- Theory of Computation Tutorial V

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.