1 / 20

Finite Model Theory Lecture 5

Finite Model Theory Lecture 5. Turing Machines and Finite Models. Outline. Trakhtenbrot’s theorem (Chapter 9.1) Fagin’s theorem (Chapter 9.2). Trachtenbrot’s Theorem. Definition . f is finitely satisfiable if there exists a finite model A s.t. A ² f

margienixon
Download Presentation

Finite Model Theory Lecture 5

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Finite Model TheoryLecture 5 Turing Machines and Finite Models

  2. Outline • Trakhtenbrot’s theorem (Chapter 9.1) • Fagin’s theorem (Chapter 9.2)

  3. Trachtenbrot’s Theorem Definition. f is finitely satisfiable if there exists a finite model A s.t. A²f Theorem [Trakhtenbrot] Suppose s has at least one relation symbol of arity ¸ 2. Then it is undecidable whether a sentence f is finitely satisfiable.

  4. Consequence 1 Corollary. There is no recursive function f such that if f has a finite model then it has a finite model of size at most f(|f|).

  5. Consequence 2 Definition. A sentence f is finitely valid, ²finf, if for all finite models A, A²f Question: is there a complete proof system `, i.e. such that `f iff ²finf ? Answer: NO ! [why ?]

  6. Proof of Trakhtenbrot’s Theorem By reduction from the halting problem: given a Turing machine M, does it halt on the empty tape ? Given M, construct fM s.t. M halts iff fM has a finite model

  7. Proof of Trakhtenbrot’s Theorem M halts: 9 C. (C is a halting computation of M) 9 A. A²fM fM has a finite model: Hence a model A should stand for a computation of M

  8. Proof of Trakhtenbrot’s Theorem Details: • M = (Q, D, d, q0, Qa) • states Q, initial state q02 Q, accepting states Qaµ Q • D = {0, 1} = tape alphabet • d = transitions • What is a computation C of M ?

  9. Proof of Trakhtenbrot’s Theorem s = {<, T0(¢,¢), T1(¢, ¢), (Hq(¢, ¢))q 2 Q} The formula fM will say the following: • < is a linear order • T0(p, t) = the tape holds 0 at position p and time t • T1(p, t) = similar • Hq(p, t) = the machine is in state q at time t, and the head is over position p of the tape [write fM in class] A²fM iff A represents a valid computation of M

  10. Fagin’s Theorem • Recall Second Order Logic, SO: • May have formulas of the form 9 R.f or 8 R. f, where R is a relation symbol • Every SO formula can be written in prenex form like this:where each Qi is either 9 or 8, and f is in FO[WHY ???] Q1 R1 … Qm Rm. f

  11. Fagin’s Theorem • Define 9 SO to be formulas of the form: • Define 8 SO to be formulas of the form: 9 R1 … 9 Rm. f 8 R1 … 8 Rm. f

  12. Examples • Let s = {R}, i.e. a single binary relation. Finite models are graphs. • Express the following in SO • The graph is connected[what 2nd order quantifiers did we need ?] • The graph is 3-colorable • The graph has a Hamiltonean path

  13. Examples 3-colorability:f = 8 x.(A(x) Ç B(x) Ç C(x))yA = 8 x.8 y.(R(x,y) ): (A(x) Æ A(y)))yB = 8 x.8 y.(R(x,y) ): (B(x) Æ B(y)))yC = 8 x.8 y.(R(x,y) ): (C(x) Æ C(y))) 9 A.9 B.9 C.(fÆyAÆyBÆyC)

  14. Examples Hamiltonean path:f = says that < is a total linear ordery = says that if x<y are consecutive, then R(x,y) Little dirty secret of SO (actually 9 SO): we don’t need order, because we can express it ! 9 <. (fÆy)

  15. Fagin’s Theorem Theorem [Fagin] 9SO captures precisely NP More precisely: • For every f29SO, the problem of checking whether A ²f is in NP • For any property of models, P, s.t. checking A 2 P is in NP, there exists a formula f29SO s.t. A ²f iff A 2 P

  16. Fagin’s Theorem Need encodings of finite structures: Let A = (A, R1A, …, RpA)where A = {a1, …, an} Fix an order a1 < a2 < … < an where each enc(RiA) is a string of length nk in {0,1}* [what meaning ? See book pp. 88] enc(A) = 0n¢ 1 ¢ enc(R1A) ¢¢¢ enc(RpA)

  17. Proof • 9SO µ NP is obvious [why ?] • NP µ9SO requires us to model a Turing Machine M running in NP with a formula fM: like in Trakhtenbrot’s theorem, with some additional complications 9 <. 9 T0. 9 T19 Hq1 … 9 Hqm. fM [what are the arities of T0, T1, (Hq)q 2 Q ?

  18. Discussion • This is a characterization that does not mention computational resources ! • Later, other complexity classes were captured by logics, but for all lower classes Logic need help from order. Descriptive complexity

  19. Fagin’s Theorem and P¹ NP • We have NP = 9 SO, coNP = 8 SO • If we prove 9 SO ¹8 SO then P ¹ NP Definition. MSO = Monadic SO(restrict quantifiers to unary relations) Definition. Monadic NP = 9MSO; Monadic coNP = 8MSO [give examples of NP-complete problems in monadic NP]

  20. Fagin’s Theorem and P¹ NP Theorem Monadic NP ¹ Monadic coNP Proof. Step 1: Graph connectivity is in 8 MSO Step 2: Graph connectivity is not in 9 MSO

More Related