The document discusses unsolvable problems in computability theory. It introduces the diagonalization language LD, which is the set of Turing machine descriptions that do not accept their own description. It proves that LD is not recognizable by constructing a contradiction: if there was a Turing machine that recognized LD, it could be used to construct a machine whose behavior does not match the definition of LD. This demonstrates the existence of inherently unrecognizable languages. The document then provides examples of classifying different languages as regular, context-free, recognizable, or unrecognizable.
The document discusses unsolvable problems in computability theory. It introduces the diagonalization language LD, which is the set of Turing machine descriptions that do not accept their own description. It proves that LD is not recognizable by constructing a contradiction: if there was a Turing machine that recognized LD, it could be used to construct a machine whose behavior does not match the definition of LD. This demonstrates the existence of inherently unrecognizable languages. The document then provides examples of classifying different languages as regular, context-free, recognizable, or unrecognizable.
The document discusses unsolvable problems in computability theory. It introduces the diagonalization language LD, which is the set of Turing machine descriptions that do not accept their own description. It proves that LD is not recognizable by constructing a contradiction: if there was a Turing machine that recognized LD, it could be used to construct a machine whose behavior does not match the definition of LD. This demonstrates the existence of inherently unrecognizable languages. The document then provides examples of classifying different languages as regular, context-free, recognizable, or unrecognizable.
The document discusses unsolvable problems in computability theory. It introduces the diagonalization language LD, which is the set of Turing machine descriptions that do not accept their own description. It proves that LD is not recognizable by constructing a contradiction: if there was a Turing machine that recognized LD, it could be used to construct a machine whose behavior does not match the definition of LD. This demonstrates the existence of inherently unrecognizable languages. The document then provides examples of classifying different languages as regular, context-free, recognizable, or unrecognizable.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
LECTURE 26: 6/2 Unsolvable Problems Part II
Unsolvable Problems Outside even recognizable languages = Finding Non-RE Languages Let’s jump right into proving that there exists a language that is not recognizable Opening thought question: let’s list off all TMs and look at how they behave when they are fed other TM codes (as strings) as input o Expand the definition of code and TMs beyond the understanding that only some machines take TMs as input. The alphabet of a TM isn’t that important since we can always convert to other alphabets (eg: binary code). Bottom line, just accept that every TM that exists can in some sense take other TM source code as input. Start mechanically listing down TMs starting with all possible single lines of code, then 2 lines, etc… --- infinite list. Then observe what the behavior would be when fed other TMs (accept vs no). o Here’s an example of how this table could look… o Check in question: What is L(M0)? {⟨M0⟩, ⟨M3⟩, ⟨M4⟩, ... } o L(M1) and L(M2) are potentially Σ* if pattern continues o Aside: even if M1 and M2 accept every TM code, doesn’t necessarily mean their language is Σ* if there are strings that they also accept but that are not the code of TMs. We don’t need to worry about the existence of any of these strings but could include union of {w | w is a string that isn’t a TM’s code and M accepts w) in the language of M. o Pollev: How many TMs don’t accept their own source code? 2: M3 and M5 o Throwback to Cantor’s theorem: we’re going to take a collection of the diagonal and flip – is there any TM that can accept that language (set of acc and no for TMs). o No possible TM can have the language in light blue at the bottom! We cannot recognize this language; L = {⟨M⟩| M is a TM and M ∉ L(M)}
Diagonalization Language The language we saw in proof above is called diagonalization language. LD = {⟨M⟩| M is a TM and M ∉ L(M)} This is our first unrecognizable language (note: there’s actually an infinite number of unrecognizable language) (Note 2: LD is a special name that we should recognize, just like A TM)
Theorem: LD ∉ RE Proof: By contradiction; assume that LD ∈ RE. Then there must be some recognizer R such that L(R) = LD. Let M be an arbitrary TM. Since L(R) = LD, we know that: ⟨M⟩ ∈ LD iff ⟨M⟩ ∈ L(R). -- (1) From the definition of LD, we see that ⟨M⟩ ∈ LD iff ⟨M⟩ ∉ L(M). Combining this with statement (1) tells us that ⟨M⟩ ∉ L(M) iff ⟨M⟩ ∈ L(R). -- (2) Since our choice of M was arbitrary, we see that statement (2) holds for any TM M. In particular, this means that statement (2) holds for the TM R, which tells us that ⟨R⟩ ∉ L(R) iff ⟨R⟩ ∈ L(R). -- (3) This is clearly impossible. We have reached a contradiction, so our assumption must have been wrong. Thus LD ∉ RE. ■ This result can be formalized as Gödel’s incompleteness theorem
What This Means
There are inherent limits about what mathematics can teach us Side note for last pset: looking at big picture, sometimes will be helpful to ask if we can find a verifier for a given language to determine whether it can be recognized Up to this point, we were questioning whether we can solve this problem (computability theory). Now we must consider whether the time/resources required are practical even if we can solve (complexity theory).
Classifying Given Languages: Examples from PS9
Σ*: Regular //can write a DFA/NFA/Regex for this! LD: Non-recognizable {an| n ∈ N}: Regular //DFA/NFA/Regex {an| n ∈ N and multiple of 137}: Regular //Regex: (a137)* {1m + 1n = 1m+n| m, n ∈ N}: CFL //can’t be regular because have to remember how many seen o How to be sure? Can you build an infinite distinguishing set = not regular. Can you build a CFG? If so at least CFL (can also be regular!) {⟨M⟩| M is a TM and M is a recognizer for a language other than ∅}: o Any time a language is code of TM, odds are it’s not decidable since ATM fits this template. There are a few exceptions! But presumed RE unless proved otherwise. o This language here says M accepts at least one string. Could you design a TM that asks a hypothetical decider for this and then does the opposite? Bottom line: this is a pretty classic example of an undecidable language. o So now between recognizable and unrecognizable – best way is to ask if you could build a verifier for this? In this case – yes! Just give the string that it accepts and give a step count. M with w for at most c steps – if accepts, true else false == this is a verifier for this language! Therefore final answer: RECOGNIZEABLE (RE) {⟨M⟩| M is a TM and M is a recognizer for ∅}: o Can we build a verifier? o Pollev: discussion of answers: String w and step count c: must always reject – problems with that, can’t prove that string w is particularly rejected because it could be the step count c at fault. Also, just because one string is rejected doesn’t mean all are. Are we going to be able to provide a finite c that explains behavior for every single string? (need to prove that M rejects/infinite loops on an infinite # of strings) The language given itself is not empty, it’s the source code of any TM whose language is empty! We can’t use this to prove that this language isn’t recognizable, but since we aren’t able to think of a verifier for this, final answer: NOT RECOGNIZEABLE
Decidable vs Recognizable {⟨M⟩|…} is generally assumed not decidable but not always. There’s a great theorem that formalizes that: Rice’s theorem: Any language that consists of certain TMs but not others and claims to make any distinguishing based on the language of the TM (i.e. distinguishes based on their language/ behavior) is not decidable. o However, if the claim about the behavior is true about every TM or no TM, then this theorem does not apply o Eg: L = {⟨M⟩| M is a TM and ε ∈ L(M) or ε ∉ L(M)}: initially looks like Rice’s applies, but actually this is true for everything (ε always either in or out) --- this language is not only decideable, but it’s actually regular! o Similarly L = {⟨M⟩| M is a TM and ⟨M⟩ is odd} has nothing to do with L(M) so Rice’s does not apply! (again regular language land)
Download Complete Reachability Problems 15th International Conference RP 2021 Liverpool UK October 25 27 2021 Proceedings Paul C. Bell (Editor) PDF for All Chapters
