[PDF] Homework 8 Solutions Consider the emptiness problem for





Previous PDF Next PDF



Note on ETM

Skip ahead to section 2.2 or 2.3 and show that ETM is not recognizable. Then by the theorem that. “a language is decidable iff it is both recognizable and 



Reductions

This in turn implies that ETM is undecidable. At least one of them must be not recognizable. ETM is recognizable. ETM is not recognizable.



Homework 8 Solutions

Consider the emptiness problem for Turing machines: ETM = { ?M?



Homework 10 Solutions

However ETM is Turing-recognizable (HW 8



Tutorial 5

If both L and L are recognizable then L is decidable. As we know that ATM HALTTM



5.4 No. For example consider A = {0 1

But ¬ETM is Turing recognizable and ¬ATM is not



10 Reducibility

HALTTM is Turing-recognizable since it can be recognized by TM U. HALTTM is not Turing-decidable. ETM = {< M >



CS 341: Foundations of CS II Marvin K. Nakayama Computer

Since ETM is undecidable (Theorem 5.2) EQTM must be undecidable. • We'll see later that EQTM is not Turing-recognizable not co-Turing-recognizable 



Problem 1 Problem 2

Show that the language ETM = {?M?



COMPSCI 501: Formal Language Theory Reducibility so far

4 Mar 2019 But ETM is Turing-recognizable (why?) which would mean ATM recognizable (false). ? Mapping reductions may not exist!



[PDF] Note on ETM

Skip ahead to section 2 2 or 2 3 and show that ETM is not recognizable Then by the theorem that “a language is decidable iff it is both recognizable and 



[PDF] Homework 10 Solutions

However ETM is Turing-recognizable (HW 8 problem 4) and ATM is not Turing-recognizable (Corollary 4 23) contradicting Theorem 5 22 3 Consider the language



[PDF] CS 341: Foundations of CS II Marvin K Nakayama Computer

Rice's Theorem: any nontrivial property of the language of a TM is undecidable • ETM is not Turing-recognizable • EQTM is neither Turing-recognizable nor co- 



[PDF] Problem 1 - JHU CS

Show that the language ETM = {?M?M is a Turing machines and L(M) = ? } is not Turing-recognizable Proof: We provide two different proofs Proof 1: We 



[PDF] Tutorial 5

As we know that ATM HALTTM ETM are recognizable their complements cannot be rec- ognizable because then the languages would be decidable and we know that 



[PDF] 10 Reducibility

HALTTM is Turing-recognizable since it can be recognized by TM U HALTTM is not Turing-decidable Proof: We will reduce ATM to HALTTM Assume TM R decides 



[PDF] 1 Reducability

HALTTM = {?Mw? M is a TM that halts on input w} is undecidable If A ?m B and B is recognizable then A is recognizable Corollary 5 23



[PDF] Reducibility Decidable vs Undecidable vs Recognizable ?

26 oct 2020 · Theorem: Every nontrivial property about recognizable languages (of Turing machines) is undecidable • The proof is a generalization of the 



[PDF] reducibility

29 juil 2013 · We mentioned that ETM is co-TM recognizable We will prove next that ETM is undecidable Intuition: You cannot solve this problem UNLESS



[PDF] Reductions

HALTTM is undecidable since ATM is undecidable This in turn implies that ETM is undecidable At least one of them must be not recognizable

Skip ahead to section 2.2 or 2.3 and show that ETM is not recognizable. Then by the theorem that. “a language is decidable iff it is both recognizable and 
  • Is ETM Turing-recognizable?

    ETM is not Turing-recognizable. Rice's Theorem: Every nontrivial property of the Turing-recognizable languages is undecidable.
  • Is ETM undecidable proof?

    Note that ?M1? ? ETM ?? L(M1) = ? ?? M accepts w ?? ?M, w? ? ATM. But then TM S decides ATM, which is undecidable. Therefore, TM R cannot exist, so ETM is undecidable.
  • Is EQTM Turing-recognizable?

    EQTM is not recognizable.
  • ATM = {?M,w?M is a Turing machine and M accepts w} However, unlike ADFA and ACFG, ATM is not decidable. But ATM is Turing-recognizable.

CS 341: Foundations of Computer Science II

Prof. Marvin Nakayama

Homework 8 Solutions

1. Consider the decision problem of testing whether a DFA and a regular expression are

equivalent. Express this problem as a language and show that it is decidable.

Answer:Define the language as

C={?M,R? |Mis a DFA andRis a regular expression withL(M) =L(R)}. Recall that the proof of Theorem 4.5 defines a Turing machineFthat decides the languageEQDFA={?A,B? |AandBare DFAs andL(A) =L(B)}. Then the following Turing machineTdecidesC: T="On input?M,R?, whereMis a DFA andRis a regular expression:

1.ConvertRinto a DFADRusing the algorithm in the

proof of Kleene"s Theorem.

2.Run TM deciderFfrom Theorem 4.5 on input?M,DR?.

3.IfFaccepts,accept. IfFrejects,reject."

2. Consider the decision problem of testing whether a CFG generates the empty string.

Express this problem as a language and show that it is decidable.

Answer:The language of the decision problem is

CFG={?G? |Gis a CFG that generatesε}.

If a CFGG= (V,Σ,R,S)includes the ruleS→ε, then clearlyGcan generate ε. ButGcould still generateεeven if it doesn"t include the ruleS→ε. For example, ifGhas rulesS→XY,X→aY|ε, andY→baX|ε, then the derivation S?XY?εY?εε=εshows thatε?L(G), even thoughGdoesn"t include the ruleS→ε. So it"s not sufficient to simply check ifGincludes the ruleS→εto determine ifε?L(G). But if we have a CFGG?= (V?,Σ,R?,S?)that is in Chomsky normal form, thenG? generatesεif and only ifS?→εis a rule inG?. Thus, we first convert the CFGG into an equivalent CFGG?= (V?,Σ,R?,S?)in Chomsky normal form. IfS?→εis a rule inG?, then clearlyG?generatesε, soGalso generatesεsinceL(G) =L(G?). SinceG?is in Chomsky normal form, the only possibleε-rule inG?isS?→ε, so the only way we can haveε?L(G?)is ifG?includes the ruleS?→εinR. Hence, if 1 G?does not include the ruleS?→ε, thenε??L(G?). Thus, a Turing machine that decidesAεCFGis as follows:

M="On input?G?, whereGis a CFG:

1.ConvertGinto an equivalent CFGG?= (V?,Σ,R?,S?)

in Chomsky normal form.

2.IfG?includes the ruleS?→ε,accept. Otherwise,reject."

3. LetΣ ={0,1}, and consider the decision problem of testing whether a regular

expression with alphabetΣgenerates at least one stringwthat has111as a substring. Express this problem as a language and show that it is decidable.

Answer:The language of the decision problem is

A={ ?R? |Ris a regular expression describing a language overΣcontaining at least one stringwthat has111as a substring (i.e.,w=x111yfor somexandy)}. Define the languageC={w?Σ?|whas111as a substring}. Note thatCis a regular language with regular expression(0?1)?111(0?1)?and is recognized by the following DFADC: 1234
0 1 0 1 0 1 0,1 Now consider any regular expressionRwith alphabetΣ. IfL(R)∩C?=∅, thenR generates a string having111as a substring, so?R? ?A. Also, ifL(R)∩C=∅, thenRdoes not generate any string having111as a substring, so?R? ??A. By Kleene"s Theorem, sinceL(R)is described by regular expressionR,L(R)must be a regular language. SinceCandL(R)are regular languages,C∩L(R)is regular since the class of regular languages is closed under intersection, as was shown in an earlier homework. Thus,C∩L(R)has some DFADC∩L(R). Theorem 4.4 shows thatEDFA= {?B? |Bis a DFA withL(B) =∅}is decidable, so there is a Turing machineHthat decidesEDFA. We apply TMHto?DC∩L(R)?to determine ifC∩L(R) =∅. Putting this all together gives us the following Turing machineTto decideA:

T="On input?R?, whereRis a regular expression:

1.ConvertRinto a DFADRusing the algorithm in the

proof of Kleene"s Theorem.

2.Construct a DFADC∩L(R)for languageC∩L(R)

from the DFAsDCandDR.

3.Run TMHthat decidesEDFAon input?DC∩L(R)?.

4.IfHaccepts,reject. IfHrejects,accept."

2

4. Consider the emptiness problem for Turing machines:

E

TM={?M? |Mis a Turing machine withL(M) =∅}.

Show thatETMis co-Turing-recognizable. (A languageLis co-Turing-recognizable if its complement Lis Turing-recognizable.) Note that the complement ofETMis

ETM={?M? |Mis a Turing machine withL(M)?=∅}.

(Actually, ETMalso contains all?M?such that?M?is not a valid Turing-machine encoding, but we will ignore this technicality.) Answer:We need to show there is a Turing machine that recognizes

ETM, the com-

plement ofETM. Lets1,s2,s3,...be a list of all strings inΣ?. For a given Turing machineM, we want to determine if any of the stringss1,s2,s3,...is accepted by M. IfMaccepts at least one stringsi, thenL(M)?=∅, so?M? ?

ETM; ifM

accepts none of the strings, thenL(M) =∅, so?M? ??

ETM. However, we cannot

just runMsequentially on the stringss1,s2,s3,.... For example, supposeMaccepts s

2but loops ons1. SinceMacceptss2, we have that?M? ?

ETM. But if we runM

sequentially ons1,s2,s3,..., we never get past the first string. The following Turing machine avoids this problem and recognizes ETM:

R="On input?M?, whereMis a Turing machine:

1.Repeat the following fori= 1,2,3,....

2.RunMforisteps on each inputs1,s2,...,si.

3.If any computation accepts,accept.

3quotesdbs_dbs21.pdfusesText_27
[PDF] is expedia good for car rentals

[PDF] is fog a colloid

[PDF] is form 8332 necessary

[PDF] is france constitution written or unwritten

[PDF] is full fat milk homogeneous or heterogeneous

[PDF] is glucose a crystalloid

[PDF] is green a primary color

[PDF] is hamburg a rich city

[PDF] is hand sanitizer dangerous goods

[PDF] is handset leasing profitable for telecom companies

[PDF] is high alkalinity in drinking water bad

[PDF] is interest income taxable in singapore

[PDF] is iphone packaging recyclable

[PDF] is iron a pure substance

[PDF] is iron filings a mixture