# 5.24pg40 - CS324-W8 – (1) RW324: Formal Languages,...

This preview shows pages 1–6. Sign up to view the full content.

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: CS324-W8 – (1) RW324: Formal Languages, Automata Theory, Computability and Complexity, 2010 Week 8 L. van Zijl Department of Computer Science University of Stellenbosch 2010 RW324: Formal Languages, Automata Theory, Computability and Complexity, 2010 Week 8 University of Stellenbosch CS324-W8 – (2) Reducibility Sipser p 191 I Now know that some problems are not solvable. I But, how do we prove for a given problem that it is unsolvable? I Method: reducibility – convert one problem into another in such a way that a solution to 2nd problem can be used to solve 1st problem. I Thus, if problem A is undecidable and reducible to problem B , then B is undecidable. I Known undecidable problems??? A TM RW324: Formal Languages, Automata Theory, Computability and Complexity, 2010 Week 8 University of Stellenbosch CS324-W8 – (3) Reducibility Sipser p 192 HALT TM = { < M , w > | M is a TM and M halts on input w } Theorem 5.1: HALT TM is undecidable – proof idea I By contradiction: Assume is decidable, use that assumption to show then A TM must be decidable. I Assume is decidable, and TM R is decider. Now use R to construct TM S which decides A TM . I Given input < M , w > , build S which accepts if M accepts w , and rejects if M either rejects or loops. I But now S is not decider, so use R to decide if M halts on w . I (This is possible, because we assumed R is decider.) I If M doesn’t halt, then let S reject. I Therefore, if R exists, then A TM is decidable – contradiction. RW324: Formal Languages, Automata Theory, Computability and Complexity, 2010 Week 8 University of Stellenbosch CS324-W8 – (4) Reducibility Sipser p 192 HALT TM = { < M , w > | M is a TM and M halts on input w } Theorem 5.1: HALT TM is undecidable – formal proof I Assume TM R decides HALT TM . Construct TM S to decide A TM as follows: I On input < M , w > : 1. Run TM R on input < M , w > 2. If R rejects, reject. 3. If R accepts, simulate M on w until it halts. 4. If M has accepted, accept; if M has rejected, reject. I Therefore, if R decides HALT TM , then S decides A TM . But A TM undecidable, therefore HALT TM undecidable. RW324: Formal Languages, Automata Theory, Computability and Complexity, 2010 Week 8 University of Stellenbosch CS324-W8 – (5) Reducibility Sipser p 193 E TM = { < M > | M is a TM and L ( M ) = ∅} Theorem 5.2: E TM is undecidable – proof idea I Assume E TM is decidable – show that this implies A TM is decidable – contradiction. I Let R be TM that decides E TM and construct S using R . I Let S run R on modification of < M > : let < M 1 > reject all strings except w . I Use R to determine whether < M 1 > recognizes empty language. I Language will be nonempty iff it accepts w ....
View Full Document

## This note was uploaded on 04/13/2010 for the course CS 235 taught by Professor Sabnis during the Spring '10 term at Punjab Engineering College.

### Page1 / 42

5.24pg40 - CS324-W8 – (1) RW324: Formal Languages,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 6. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document
Ask a homework question - tutors are online