[PDF] Homework 10 Solutions However ETM is Turing-recognizable (





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 10 Solutions

1. If AmBandBis a regular language, does that imply thatAis a regular language? Answer:No. For example, dene the languagesA=f0n1njn0gandB=f1g, both over the alphabet =f0;1g. Dene the functionf: !as f(w) =n1ifw2A;

0ifw62A:

Observe thatAis a context-free language, so it is also Turing-decidable. Thus,fis a computable function. Also,w2Aif and only iff(w) = 1, which is true if and only iff(w)2B. Hence,AmB. LanguageAis nonregular, butBis regular since it is nite. 2. Sho wthat ATMis not mapping reducible toETM. In other words, show that no computable function reducesATMtoETM. (Hint: Use a proof by contradiction, and facts you already know aboutATMandETM.) Answer:Suppose for a contradiction thatATMmETMvia reductionf. This means thatw2ATMif and only iff(w)2ETM, which is equivalent to sayingw62ATM if and only iff(w)62ETM. Therefore, using the same reduction functionf, we have thatA TMmE

TM. However,E

TMis Turing-recognizable (HW 8, problem 4) andA

TMis not Turing-recognizable (Corollary 4.23), contradicting Theorem 5.22. 3.

Con siderthe language

A"

TM=fhMi jMis a TM that accepts"g:

Show thatA"TMis undecidable.

Answer:We will show thatATMreduces toA"TM. Suppose for contradiction that A" TMis decidable, and letRbe a TM that decidesA"TM. We construct another TM Swith inputhM;withat does the following. It rst usesMandwto construct a new TMM2, which takes inputx. Ifx6=", thenM2accepts; otherwise,M2runsM on inputwandM2accepts ifMacceptsw. Note thatM2recognizes the language f"gifMdoes not acceptw; otherwise,M2recognizes the language. In other words,M2accepts"if and only ifMacceptsw. So our TMSdecidesATM, which is a contradiction since we knowATMis undecidable. 1

Here are the details of our TMS:

S=\On inputhM;wi, whereMis a TM andwis a string:

0.Check ifhM;wiis a valid encoding of a TMMand stringw.

If not,reject.

1.Construct the following TMM2fromMandw:

M

2=\On inputx:

1.Ifx6=",accept.

2.Ifx=", then runMon inputw

andacceptifMacceptsw."

2.RunRon inputhM2i.

3.IfRaccepts,accept; ifRrejects,reject."

4. A useless statein a Turing machine is one that is never entered on any input string. Consider the problem of determining whether a state in a Turing machine is useless. Formulate this problem as a language and show it is undecidable. Answer:We dene the decision problem with the language

USELESS

TM=fhM;qijqis a useless state in TMMg:

We show thatUSELESSTMis undecidable by reducingETMtoUSELESSTM, where E TM=fhMijMis a TM andL(M) =;g. We knowETMis undecidable by The- orem 5.2. Suppose thatUSELESSTMis decidable and that TMRdecides it. Note that for any Turing machineMwith accept stateqaccept,qacceptis useless if and only ifL(M) =;. Thus, because TMRsolvesUSELESSTM, we can useRto check ifqacceptis a useless state to decideETM. Specically, below is a TMSthat decidesETMby using the deciderRforUSELESSTMas a subroutine:

S=\On inputhMi, whereMis a TM:

1.Run TMRon inputhM;qaccepti, whereqacceptis

the accept state ofM.

2.IfRaccepts,accept. IfRrejects,reject."

However, because we knownETMis undecidable, there cannot exist a TM that decides

USELESS

TM. 2quotesdbs_dbs14.pdfusesText_20
[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