15-453

FORMAL LANGUAGES,
AUTOMATA, AND
COMPUTABILITY
* Read chapter 4 of the book for next time *

Lecture9x.ppt
REVIEW
A Turing Machine is represented by a 7-tuple T
= (Q, Σ, Γ, , q0, qaccept, qreject):

Q is a finite set of states

Σ is the input alphabet, where   Σ
Γ is the tape alphabet, a superset of Σ;   Γ
 : Q  Γ → Q  Γ  {L, R} is the transition func
q0  Q is the start state
qaccept  Q is the accept state
qreject  Q is the reject state, and qreject  qaccept
CONFIGURATION: (1) tape contents,
(2) current state, (3) location of read/write head.

q7

1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0

11010q700110
A TM recognizes a language iff it accepts all
and only those strings in the language.

A language L is called Turing-recognizable

or recursively enumerable
iff some TM recognizes L.

A TM decides a language L iff it accepts all

strings in L and rejects all strings not in L.

A language L is called decidable or recursive

iff some TM decides L.
A language is called Turing-recognizable or
recursively enumerable (r.e.) if some TM
recognizes it.
A language is called decidable or recursive
if some TM decides it.

r.e. recursive
languages languages
Theorem: If A and A are r.e. then A is decidable.

Given:
a Turing Machine TMA that recognizes A and
a Turing Machine TMR that recognizes A,
we can build a new machine that decides A.
How can we prove this?
• Run TMA and TMR in parallel.
(Or more precisely, interleave them.)
• One of them will eventually recognize the
input string.
• If TMA recognizes it, then accept.
• If TMR recognizes it, then reject.
 2n
A TM that decides { 0 | n ≥ 0 }
We want to accept iff:
• the input string consists entirely of zeros, and
• the number of zeros is a power of 2.
High-Level Idea.
• Repeatedly divide the number of zeros in half
until it becomes an odd number.
• If we are left with a single zero, then accept.
• Otherwise, reject.
 2n
A TM that decides { 0 | n ≥ 0 }
PSEUDOCODE:

1. Sweep from left to right, cross out every other 0.

(Divides number in half.)
2. If in step 1, the tape had only one 0, accept.
3. Else if the tape had an odd number of 0’s, reject.
4. Move the head back to the first input symbol.
5. Go to step 1.
 C = {aibjck | k = i×j, and i, j, k ≥ 1}
Example

aaabbbbcccccccccccc
3 4 3×4 = 12
 C = {aibjck | k = i×j, and i, j, k ≥ 1}
High-Level Idea.
For each occurrence of a: {
For each occurrence of b: {
Delete an occurrence of c.
}
}
 C = {aibjck | k = i×j, and i, j, k ≥ 1}
PSEUDOCODE:
1. If the input doesn’t match a*b*c*, reject.
2. Move the head back to the leftmost symbol.
3. Cross off an a, scan to the right until b.
Sweep between b’s and c’s, crossing out one of
each until all b’s are out. If too few c’s, reject.
4. Uncross all the b’s.
If there’s another a left, then repeat stage 3.
If all a’s are crossed out,
Check if all c’s are crossed off.
If yes, then accept, else reject.
C = {aibjck | k = i×j, and i, j, k ≥ 1}

aabbbcccccc
xabbbcccccc
xayyyzzzccc
xabbbzzzccc
xxyyyzzzzzz
 TURING-MACHINE VARIANTS
Turing machines can be extended in various ways,
but so long as a new TM only reads and writes a
finite number of symbols in each step,
an old TM can still simulate it!

Example: Turing machines with multiple tapes.

Input comes in on one tape, and
other tapes are used for scratch work.
MULTITAPE TURING MACHINES

FINITE
STATE
CONTROL

 : Q  Γk → Q  Γk  {L,R}k
Theorem: Every Multitape Turing Machine can be
transformed into a single tape Turing Machine

1 0 0

FINITE
STATE
CONTROL

FINITE
STATE . . .
1 0 0 # # #
CONTROL
Theorem: Every Multitape Turing Machine can be
transformed into a single tape Turing Machine

1 0 0

FINITE
STATE
CONTROL

FINITE
STATE . . .
1 0 0 # # #
CONTROL
THE CHURCH-TURING THESIS
Anything that can be computed
by algorithm (in our intuitive
sense of the term “algorithm”)
can be computed by a Turing
Machine.
We can encode a TM as a string of 0s and 1s
start reject
n states state state

0n 10m 10k 10s 10t 10r 10u 1…

m tape symbols blank

(first k are input accept
symbol
symbols) state

( (p, a), (q, b, L) ) = 0p10a10q10b10

( (p, a), (q, b, R) ) = 0p10a10q10b11
 Similarly, we can encode DFAs, NFAs,
CFGs, etc. into strings of 0s and 1s

So we can define the following languages:

ADFA = { (B, w) | B is a DFA that accepts string w }

ANFA = { (B, w) | B is an NFA that accepts string w }

ACFG = { (G, w) | G is a CFG that generates string w }

ADFA = { (B, w) | B is a DFA that accepts string w }
Theorem: ADFA is decidable
Proof Idea: Simulate B on w

ANFA = { (B, w) | B is an NFA that accepts string w }

Theorem: ANFA is decidable

ACFG = { (G, w) | G is a CFG that generates string w }

Theorem: ACFG is decidable
Proof Idea: Transform G into Chomsky Normal
Form. Try all derivations of length 2|w|-1
UNDECIDABLE PROBLEMS
 w  Σ* w  Σ*

TM wL? TM wL?

yes no yes no

accept reject accept reject or no output

L is decidable L is semi-decidable
(recursive) (recursively enumerable,
Turing-recognizable)
Theorem: L is decidable if both L and L
are recursively enumerable
 There are languages over {0,1}
that are not decidable.
If we believe the Church-Turing Thesis, this is
major: it means there are things that formal
computational models inherently cannot do.

We can prove this using a counting argument.

We will show there is no function from the set
of all Turing Machines onto the set of all
languages over {0,1}. (Works for any Σ.)

Then we will prove something stronger:

There are semi-decidable (r.e.) languages that
are NOT decidable.
 Languages
over {0,1}

Turing
Machines
 Cantor’s Theorem
Let L be any set and 2L be the power set of L
Theorem: There is no map from L onto 2L
Proof: Assume, for a contradiction, that
there is an onto map f : L  2L

Let S = { x  L | x  f(x) }

We constructed S so that, for every elem x in L,

the set S differs from f(x):
S ≠ f(x) because x  S iff x  f(x)
Theorem: There is no onto function from the
positive integers to the real numbers in (0, 1)

Proof: Suppose f is such a function:

1 2
0.28347279…
2 8
0.88388384…
3 6
0.77635284…
4 1
0.11111111…
5 5
0.12345678…
: :
1 if [ nth digit of f(n) ]  1
[ nth digit of r ] =
0 otherwise
f(n)  r for all n ( Here, r = 0.11101... )
 Sidenote
Let Z+ = {1,2,3,4…}. There exists a bijection
between Z+ and Z+  Z+ (or Q+)

(1,1) (1,2) (1,3) (1,4) (1,5) …

(2,1) (2,2) (2,3) (2,4) (2,5) …

(3,1) (3,2) (3,3) (3,4) (3,5) …

(4,1) (4,2) (4,3) (4,4) (4,5) …

(5,1) (5,2) (5,3) (5,4) (5,5) …

: : : : : ∙.
 THE MORAL:
For any set L,
2L always has ‘more’ elements than L
 Not all languages over {0,1} are decidable, in fact:
not all languages over {0,1} are semi-decidable
{decidable languages over {0,1}}
{semi-decidable langs over {0,1}}
{Languages over {0,1}}
{Turing Machines}

{Strings of 0s and 1s} {Sets of strings

of 0s and 1s}

Set L Powerset of L: 2 L
 THE ACCEPTANCE PROBLEM
ATM = { (M, w) | M is a TM that accepts string w }

Theorem: ATM is semi-decidable (r.e.)

but NOT decidable
ATM is r.e. :
Define a TM U as follows: U is a universal TM
On input (M, w), U runs M on w. If M ever
accepts, accept. If M ever rejects, reject.
Therefore,
U accepts (M,w)  M accepts w  (M,w)  ATM
Therefore, U recognizes ATM
ATM = { (M,w) | M is a TM that accepts string w }
ATM is undecidable: (proof by contradiction)
Assume machine H decides ATM
Accept if M accepts w
H( (M,w) ) =
Reject if M does not accept w

Construct a new TM D as follows: on input M,

run H on (M,M) and output the opposite of H

Reject if M
D accepts M
D
D( M
D)= Contradiction!
Accept if M
D does not accept M
D
Theorem: ATM is r.e. but NOT decidable

Theorem: ATM is not even r.e.!

The Halting Problem is Not Decidable

We have shown:
Given any presumed machine H for ATM,
we can effectively construct a TM D such that
(D,D)  ATM but H fails to tell us that.

In other words,
For any machine H that recognizes ATM
we can effectively give an instance
where H fails to decide ATM

In other words,
Given any good candidate for deciding the
Halting Problem, we can effectively construct
an instance where the machine fails.
 THE HALTING PROBLEM
HALTTM = { (M,w) | M is a TM that halts on string w }
Theorem: HALTTM is undecidable
Proof: Assume, for a contradiction, that TM H
decides HALTTM
We use H to construct a TM D that decides ATM

On input (M,w), D runs H on (M,w)

If H rejects then reject
If H accepts, run M on w until it halts:
Accept if M accepts and
Reject if M rejects
 In many cases, one can show that a
language L is undecidable by showing
that if it is decidable, then so is ATM

We reduce deciding ATM to deciding

the language in question
ATM ≤ L

We just showed: ATM ≤ HaltTM

Is HaltTM ≤ ATM ?
Read chapter 4 of the book for next time