You are on page 1of 33

MELJUN P.

CORTES, MBA,MPA,BSCS,ACS
CSC 3130: Automata theory and formal languages

Undecidable Languages

Andrej Bogdanov
http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~andrejb/csc3130

Are Turing Machines computers?
input data instructions (program)

computer

output data

A Turing Machine does not take the program as part of its input. ... but it can!

The Universal Turing Machine
input x program 〈M 〉

U

M on input x

The universal TM U takes as inputs a program M and a string x and simulates M on x The program M itself is specified as a TM!

Turing Machines as strings
☐/☐R
q0 qrej qacc

M

• This Turing Machine can be described by the string
〈M〉 = ((q0, qacc, qrej), ((q0, q0, ☐/☐R), (q0, qacc, 0/0R), (q0, qrej, 1/1R)))

The universal Turing Machine

001

input x

U

((q0, qacc, qrej), ((q0, q0, ☐/☐R), program 〈M


q0

state

U on input (〈M〉, x) will simulate M on input x

Languages about automata
• A TM can take another TM (or DFA, CFG) as input
ADFA = {(〈D〉, w): D is a DFA that accepts input w} APDA = {(〈P〉, w): P is a PDA that accepts w}

ATM = {(〈M〉, w): M is a TM that accepts w}

Which of these is decidable?

Languages about automata
ATM = {(〈M〉, w): M is a TM that accepts w} • Idea: Simulate M on input w • Simulation is correct:
– If M accepts w, we accept – If M rejects w, we reject – If M loops on w, we loop

• This TM recognizes but does not decide ATM

Recognizing versus deciding
The language recognized by a TM is the set of all inputs that make it reach qacc A TM decides language L if it recognizes L and does not loop on any input

– This kind of TM is called a decider

• The textbook uses different terminology:
recognizable = recursively enumerable (r. e.) decidable = recursive

Undecidability
• Turing’s Theorem: The language ATM is undecidable.

• Before we prove this, let’s observe one thing: A Turing Machine M can be given its own description 〈M〉 as an input!

Proof of undecidability
• Proof by contradiction: Suppose ATM is decidable.
Then there is a TM H that decides ATM:
〈M〉, 〈 w M〉

H

accept if M accepts 〈M〉 w

reject if M rejects w 〈M〉 or M loops on 〈M w 〉

What happens when w = 〈M〉?

Proof of undecidability
〈M〉, 〈M 〉

H

accept if M accepts 〈M〉 reject if M rejects 〈M〉 or M loops on 〈M〉

Let H’ be a TM that does the opposite of H
acc

H’

acc rej

H

rej

Proof of undecidability
〈M〉, 〈M〉

H

accept if M accepts 〈M〉 reject if M rejects 〈M〉 or M loops on 〈M〉

〈M〉, 〈M 〉

H’

accept

if M rejects 〈M〉 or M loops on 〈M〉

reject if M accepts 〈M〉

Proof of undecidability
〈M〉, 〈M〉

H’

accept

if M rejects 〈M〉 or M loops on 〈M〉

reject if M accepts 〈M〉

Let D be the following TM:
〈M〉 〈M〉, 〈M〉

copy

H’

Proof of undecidability
〈D 〈M 〉 〉 accept if M rejects 〈D〉 D 〈M〉 or M loops on 〈D〉 D 〈M reject 〉 M accepts 〈D〉 if D 〈

D

M〉

What happens when M = D?
If D accepts 〈D〉 then D rejects 〈D〉

If D rejects 〈D〉 then D accepts 〈D〉

so D does not exist!

Proof of undecidability: conclusion
• Proof by contradiction
– We assumed ATM was decidable – Then we had Turing Machines H, H’, D – But D does not exist!

• Conclusion The language ATM is undecidable.

What happened?
input w e Turing Machine
M1 M2 M3 …
acc rej rej

0
rej acc loop

1
rej loop rej

00
acc rej rej

We can write an infinite table for every pair (M, w)

What happened?
〈M1〉 〈M2〉 〈M3〉 〈M4〉 …
M1 M2 …
acc rej loop acc rej rej rej loop acc acc rej

M3 loop

Now let’s look only at those w that describe a TM M

What happened?
〈M1〉 〈M2〉 〈M3〉 〈M4〉 … M1 M2 …
acc
rej rej

loop
acc rej

rej
rej acc

acc
acc rej

D

If ATM is decidable, then TM D is in the table

What happened?
〈M1〉 〈M2〉 〈M3〉 〈M4〉 … M1 M2 …
acc
rej

loop
acc

rej
rej

acc
acc

D

rej

rej


acc

rej

D does the opposite of the diagonal entries
〈M〉

D

accept if M rejects or loops on 〈M〉 reject if M accepts 〈M〉

What happened?
〈M1〉 〈M2〉 〈M3〉 〈M4〉 … 〈D〉
loop

M1 M2

acc

loop

rej

acc

rej

acc

rej

acc

acc

D

rej

rej

acc

rej

?

We run into trouble when we look at (D, 〈D〉)!

Unrecognizable languages
The language ATM is recognizable but not decidable. • How about languages that are not recognizable?
ATM = {(〈M〉, w): M is a TM that does not accept w} = {(〈M〉, w): M rejects or loops on input w}

The language ATM is not recognizable.

Unrecognizable languages
• General Theorem If L and L are both recognizable, then L is decidable.
• We know ATM is recognizable, so if ATM were also, then ATM would be decidable • Impossible by Turing’s Theorem

Unrecognizable languages
If L and L are both recognizable, then L is decidable. • Proof idea
w

M

accept if w ∈ L rej/loop if w ∉ L

accept

w
w

M’

accept if w ∉ L rej/loop if w ∈ L

reject

Unrecognizable languages
If L and L are both recognizable, then L is decidable. • Proof attempt Problem: If M loops on w, we Let M = TM for L, M’ = TM for L will never get to step 2!
On input w,
① Simulate M on input w. If it accepts, accept. ② Simulate M’ on input w. If it accepts, reject.

Bounded simulation
If L and L are both recognizable, then L is decidable. • Proof
Let M = TM for L, M’ = TM for L
On input w, For k = 0 to infinity Simulate M on input w for k steps. If it accepts, accept. Simulate M’ on input w for k steps. If it accepts, reject.

Another undecidable language
HALTTM = {(〈M〉, w): M is a TM that halts on input w}

HALTTM is an undecidable language

• To prove this, we will show that
If HALTTM can be decided, so can ATM. … so by Turing’s Theorem it is undecidable.

Undecidability of halting
If HALTTM can be decided, so can ATM. • Suppose H decides HALTTM
〈M〉, w

H

accept if M halts on w reject if M loops on w

• We want to use H to design D for ATM
〈M〉, w

?

accept if M accepts w reject if M rejects or loops on w

Undecidability of halting
〈M〉, w

H

accept if M halts on w reject if M loops on w

acc 〈M〉, w

H
rej

simulate M on w rej

acc

D
accept if M accepts w

reject if M rejects or loops on w

More undecidable problems
L1 = {〈M〉: M is a TM that accepts input e} L2 = {〈M〉: M is a TM that accepts some input}

L3 = {〈M〉: M is a TM that accepts all inputs}
L4 = {〈M, M’〉: M and M’ accept the same inputs}

Which of these are recognizable?

Gödel’s incompleteness theorem
Some mathematical statements are true but not provable.

• Proof due to Turing:

If every true statement is provable, then ATM can be decided.

Proof sketch of Gödel’s theorem
• Suppose every true statement has a proof
• For every TM M and input w, one of the statements M accepts w M does not accept w or

is true, so it must have a proof

Proof sketch of Gödel’s theorem
• Consider this algorithm for ATM:
On input 〈M〉, w: For k = 0 to infinity For all possible proofs p of length k If p is a proof of “M accepts w”, accept. If p is a proof of “M does not accept w”, reject.

One of them is true, so it has a proof p Eventually, the algorithm will find this proof

Proof sketch of Godel’s theorem
• Consider this algorithm for ATM:
On input 〈M〉, w: For k = 0 to infinity For all possible proofs p of length k If p is a proof of “M accepts w”, accept. If p is a proof of “M does not accept w”, reject.

Recall that TMs can check if a proof p is correct