1 / 10

Reducibility

Giorgi Japaridze Theory of Computability. Reducibility. Episode 3. 3.1.a. Giorgi Japaridze Theory of Computability. The undecidability of the halting problem. Let HALT TM = {<M,w> | M is a TM and M halts on input w } HALT TM is called the halting problem.

nike
Download Presentation

Reducibility

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. Giorgi Japaridze Theory of Computability Reducibility Episode 3

  2. 3.1.a Giorgi JaparidzeTheory of Computability The undecidability of the halting problem Let HALTTM = {<M,w> | M is a TM and M halts on input w} HALTTM is called the halting problem. Theorem 3.1:HALTTM is undecidable. Proof idea: Assume, for a contradiction, that HALTTMis decidable. I.e. there is a TM R that decides HALTTM. Construct the following TM S: S = “On input <M,w>,an encoding of a TM M and a string w: 1. Run R on input <M,w>. 2. If R rejects, reject. 3. If R accepts, simulate M on w until it halts. 4. If M has accepted, accept; if M has rejected, reject.” • If M works forever on w, what will S do on <M,w>? Expicitly reject • If M accepts w, what will S do on input <M,w>? Accept • If M explicitly rejects w, what will S do on <M,w>? Expicitly reject Thus, S decides the problem ATM. But this is impossible (Theorem 2.2)

  3. 3.3.a Giorgi JaparidzeTheory of Computability Definition of mapping reducibility Let A and B be sets of strings over an alphabet . We say that A is mapping reducible to B, written AmB, if there is a computable function f: ** such that, for every w*, wA ifff(w)B. The function f is called a mappingreduction(映射归约)of A to B. * * A B f f

  4. 3.3.a Giorgi JaparidzeTheory of Computability Definition of mapping reducibility Let A and B be sets of strings over an alphabet . We say that A is mapping reducible to B, written AmB, if there is a computable function f: ** such that, for every w*, wA ifff(w)B. The function f is called a mappingreduction(映射归约)of A to B. * * A B f f

  5. 3.3.a Giorgi JaparidzeTheory of Computability Definition of mapping reducibility Let A and B be sets of strings over an alphabet . We say that A is mapping reducible to B, written AmB, if there is a computable function f: ** such that, for every w*, wA ifff(w)B. The function f is called a mappingreduction(映射归约)of A to B. * * A B f f

  6. 3.3.b Giorgi JaparidzeTheory of Computability Exercise on mapping reducibility In each case below, find (precisely define) a particular function that is a mapping reduction of A toB. Both A and B are sets of strings over the alphabet{0,1}. A = {w | the length of w is even},    B = {w | the length of w is odd} A = B = {w | the length of w is even} A={0,1}*,   B={00,1,101}

  7. 3.3.c Giorgi JaparidzeTheory of Computability Using mapping reducibility for proving decidability/undecidability Theorem 3.2: If AmB andBis decidable, thenAis decidable. Proof: Let DB be a decider for B and f be a mapping reduction of A to B. We describe a decider DA for A as follows. DA= “On input w: 1. Compute f(w). 2. Run DB on input f(w)and do whateverDBdoes.” Corollary 3.3: If AmB andAis undecidable, thenBis undecidable. Theorem 3.2 remains valid with “recognizable” instead of “decidable”. So does Corollary 3.3.

  8. 3.3.d Giorgi JaparidzeTheory of Computability For every TM M, let M*be the following TM: M*= “On input x: 1. Run M on x. 2. If M accepts, accept. 3. If M rejects, enter an infinite loop.” A mapping reduction of ATM to HALTTM Thus, • If M accepts input x, then M* • If M explicitly rejects x, then M* • If M never halts on x, then M* • To summarize, M accepts x iff M* accepts x never halts on x never halts on x halts on x Let then f be the function defined by f(<M,w>)=<M*,w>. Is f computable? Yes! Obviously <M,w>ATMiff f(<M,w>) i.e. f is a HALTTM mapping reduction of ATMto HALTTM So, sinceATMis undecidable, HALTTMis undecidable as well.

  9. 3.3.e Giorgi JaparidzeTheory of Computability Turing reducibility An oracle (谕示) for a set B is an external device that is capable of reporting whether any string w is a member of B. An oracle Turing machine (OTM) is a modified Turing machine that has the additional capability of querying an oracle. Example: Construct an OTM O such that, as long as the oracle of O is for the acceptance problem ATM, O decides the non-acceptance problem ATM. O = “On input <M,w>,where M is a TM and w is a string: 1. Query the oracle to determine whether <M,w>ATM. 2. If the oracle answers NO, accept; if YES, reject.” A set A is Turing reducible (图灵可归约) to set B, written ATB, iff there is an OTM M such that, as long as the oracle of M is for B, M decides A.

  10. 3.3.f Giorgi JaparidzeTheory of Computability Using Turing reducibility Theorem 3.4: a) If ATBand B is decidable, then A is decidable. Consequently, b) If ATBand A is undecidable, then B is undecidable. Proof (a):AssumeMisanOTMthatdecidesAaslongastheoracle ofMisforB. If B is decidable, then we may replace the oracle for B byan actual procedure that decides B. Thus we may replace Mby an ordinary TM that decides A. Exercise:Showthatthe acceptanceproblem(ATM) isTuring reducibletothehaltingproblem(HALTTM).

More Related