54+Slides--More+on+Reductions

# 54+Slides--More+on+Reductions - CS103 HO#54 Slides-More on...

This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

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: CS103 HO#54 Slides--More on Reductions 5/27/11 1 CS103 Mathematical Foundations of Computing 5/27/11 FINAL EXAM: Monday, June 6, 12:15 – 3:15 Braun Auditorium NOHALT TM = { M, w | Turing machine M does not halt on w } HALT TM = { M, w | Turing machine M halts on w } We know from PS8 that NOHALT TM is not Turing-recognizable . Problems that are not Turing-recognizable generally involve infinite search, or knowing that a TM will loop infinitely, or both. To solve NOHALT TM by simulation, we would have to run M forever. To solve { M | L(M) = * } by simulation, we would have to try all strings in *. To solve { M | there is no string on which M halts } by simulation, we would have to try all strings in * and show that M always fails to halt. We know from PS8 that NOHALT TM is not Turing-recognizable. Problems that are not Turing-recognizable generally involve infinite search, or knowing that a TM will loop infinitely, or both. To solve NOHALT TM by simulation, we would have to run M forever. To solve { M | L(M) = * } by simulation, we would have to try all strings in *. To solve { M | there is no string on which M halts } by simulation, we would have to try all strings in * and show that M always fails to halt. We most often show a language to be not Turing-recognizable by • reduction from NOHALT TM , or by • using Theorem 4.22: a language is decidable if and only if it is Turing-recognizable and co-Turing-recognizable. Theorem 4.22 : A language is decidable if and only if it is Turing-recognizable and co-Turing-recognizable. Suppose we know that: At least one of L or ¬L is not decidable. ¬L is recognizable We can conclude that L is not recognizable. Example . Show that H ¬ANY = { M | there is no string on which TM M halts } is not recognizable. ¬H ¬ANY = H ANY . So we know from PS8 that ¬H ¬ANY is recognizable and undecidable. So H ¬ANY is not recognizable, because if it were, H ANY would be decidable. Example: Reduction Proof to show a language is not recognizable. Show that H ¬ANY = { M | there is no string on which TM M halts } is not recognizable. The reduction has to start with a language we know is not recognizable, and we hypothesize the existence of a recognizer rather than a decider. NOHALT TM is not recognizable and is often a good place to start. Here we show that NOHALT TM m H ¬ANY . Suppose that HNA recognizes H ¬ANY . Map the input M, w for NOHALT TM to M' that operates as follows: M' = "On input x: 1. Run M on w. 2. Accept." M' halts on everything if M halts on w, or nothing if M does not halt on W. So HNA accepts M' if M, w NOHALT TM , and does not accept if M, w NOHALT TM This would give us a recognizer for NOHALT TM , so HNA must not exist. CS103 HO#54 Slides--More on Reductions 5/27/11 2 Problem 6(d). A Al Even = { M | M accepts all even length strings } Problem 6(d). A Al Even = {...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

### Page1 / 12

54+Slides--More+on+Reductions - CS103 HO#54 Slides-More on...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document
Ask a homework question - tutors are online