Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 18 views

    Hein 731

    Uploaded by

    nastronomical
    This document discusses Turing machines and how nondeterminism does not provide more computational power for Turing machines like it does for pushdown automata and finite automata. It states that if a nondeterministic Turing machine accepts a language, there is a deterministic Turing machine that also accepts the same language. It provides an informal proof by describing how a deterministic Turing machine can simulate a nondeterministic Turing machine in an exhaustive manner.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Hein 731

    Uploaded by

    nastronomical
    18 views1 page
    This document discusses Turing machines and how nondeterminism does not provide more computational power for Turing machines like it does for pushdown automata and finite automata. It states that if a nondeterministic Turing machine accepts a language, there is a deterministic Turing machine that also accepts the same language. It provides an informal proof by describing how a deterministic Turing machine can simulate a nondeterministic Turing machine in an exhaustive manner.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    42113___hein 731

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses Turing machines and how nondeterminism does not provide more computational power for Turing machines like it does for pushdown automata and finite automata. It states that if a nondeterministic Turing machine accepts a language, there is a deterministic Turing machine that also accepts the same language. It provides an informal proof by describing how a deterministic Turing machine can simulate a nondeterministic Turing machine in an exhaustive manner.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    18 views1 page

    Hein 731

    Uploaded by

    nastronomical
    This document discusses Turing machines and how nondeterminism does not provide more computational power for Turing machines like it does for pushdown automata and finite automata. It states that if a nondeterministic Turing machine accepts a language, there is a deterministic Turing machine that also accepts the same language. It provides an informal proof by describing how a deterministic Turing machine can simulate a nondeterministic Turing machine in an exhaustive manner.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    13.

    1 Turing Machines 707

    powerful than determinism for pushdown automata. But we've also seen that
    the two ideas are equal in power for finite automata.
    For Turing machines we don't get any more power by allowing nondeter-
    minism. In other words, we have the following result:

    If a nondeterministic Turing machine accepts a language L, then (13.1)


    there is a deterministic Turing machine that also accepts L.

    We'll give an informal idea of the proof. Suppose N is a nondeterministic


    Turing machine that accepts language L. We define a deterministic Turing
    machine D that simulates the execution of N by exhaustively executing all
    possible paths caused by A^s nondeterminism. But since N might very well
    have an input that leads to an infinite computation, we must be careful in the
    way D simulates the actions of AT. First D simulates all possible computations
    of AT that take one step. Next D simulates all possible computations of AT that
    take two steps. This process continues, with three steps, four steps, and so on.
    If during this process D simulates the action of AT entering the Halt state, then
    D enters its Halt state. So N halts on an input string if and only if D halts on
    the same input string.
    The problem is to write D so that it does all these wonderful things in a
    deterministic manner. The usual approach is to define D as a three-tape
    machine. One tape holds a permanent copy of the input string for N. The
    second tape keeps track of the next computation sequence and the number of
    steps of AT that must be simulated by D. The third tape is used repeatedly by
    D to simulate the computation sequences for N that are specified on the
    second tape.
    The computation sequences on the second tape are the interesting part of
    D. Since N is nondeterministic, there may be more than one instruction of the
    form (state, input, ?, ?, ?>. Let m be the maximum number of instructions for
    any (state, input) pair. For purposes of illustration, suppose m = 3. Then for
    any (state, input) pair there are no more than three instructions of the form
    (state, input, ?, ?, ?>, and we can number them 1, 2, and 3. If some (state,
    input) pair doesn't have three nondeterministic instructions, then we'll
    simply write down extra copies of one instruction to make the total three. This
    gives us exactly three choices for each (state, input) pair. For convenience
    we'll use the letters a, b, and c rather than 1,2, and 3.
    Each simulation by D will be guided by a string over {a, b,c} that is sitting
    on the second tape. For example, the string ccab tells D to simulate four steps
    of AT because length(cca&) = 4. For the first simulation step we pick the third
    of the possible instructions because ccab starts with c. For the second
    simulation step we also pick the third of the possible instructions because the
    second letter of ccab is c. The third letter of ccab is a, which says that the third
    simulation step should choose the first of the possible instructions. And the

    You might also like