Download presentation

1
**Cook-Levin Theorem Proof and Illustration**

WSAC2010 Talk 11st, January, 2010 Cook-Levin Theorem Proof and Illustration Kwak, Nam-ju Applied Algorithm Laboratory KAIST Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

2
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

Contents NP NP-complete SAT Problem A Characteristic of NP-complete Cook-Levin Theorem Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem Illustration Corollary: 3SAT∈NPC Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

3
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

NP Definition NP is the class of languages that have polynomial time verifiers. Definition (informal) A verifier V for a language A is an algorithm which accepts a given input w to A if a corresponding certificate or a proof c exists. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

4
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

NP Theorem A language is in NP iff it is decided by some nondeterministic polynomial time Turing machine. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

5
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

NP-complete Definition A language B is NP-complete if B∈NP, and ∀A∈NP, A≤PB. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

6
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

NP-complete Examples SAT, 3SAT, CLIQUE, VERTEX-COVER, HAMPATH, SUBSET-SUM, and etc. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

7
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

SAT Problem Definition Boolean variables: variables that can take on the values TRUE and FALSE Boolean operations: AND, OR, and NOT Boolean formula: an expression involving Boolean variable and operations Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

8
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

SAT Problem Definition satisfiable: if some assignment of 0s and 1s to the variables make the formula evaluate to 1 Example of a satisfiable Boolean formula φ=(¬x∧y)∨(x∧¬z) x=0, y=1, and z=0 Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

9
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

SAT Problem Definition (SAT Problem) SAT = {<φ>|φ is a satisfiable Boolean formula}. Given a Boolean formula, is it satisfiable? Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

10
**A Characteristic of NP-complete**

Theorem If B∈NPC and B≤PC for C∈NP, then C∈NPC. Is there a fundamental problem for the chain of polynomial time reducibility? P1≤PP2≤P … ≤PPn≤P(?) Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

11
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

Cook-Levin Theorem Cook-Levin Theorem SAT∈NPC P1≤PP2≤P … ≤PPn≤PSAT Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

12
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

What to prove is … SAT∈NP (very clear, not treated here) ∀A∈NP, A≤PSAT We would show that for each language A∈NP with a given input w to it, it is possible to produce a Boolean formula which is satisfiable if w∈A. Definition A≤PB if ∃f such that w∈A⇔f(w)∈B and f is polynomial time computable. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

13
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

Input Boolean formula φ NP input w Let’s construct this Boolean formula!! Pick one. A SAT w∈A or not? φ∈SAT or not? Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

14
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

Proof idea For each language A in NP, with a given input w for A, produce a Boolean formula φ that simulates the deciding NP Turing machine for A on input w. Check if the Boolean formula is satisfiable. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

15
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

w∈A? A w NP Turing machine given Focus on this step. transformation Boolean formula φ SAT problem If satisfiable, w∈A; otherwise, w∉A. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

16
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

Proof idea (cont.) If w∈A, there exists a series of configurations that results in the accept state, given w as the input of the Turing machine. We would construct a Boolean formula which is satisfiable if the Turing machine accepts with the input w. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

17
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

FYI: Turing machine notation example δ(q0,0)={(q1,x,R)}, δ(q1,1)={(q1,y,R)}, δ(q1, ⊔)={(qaccept, ⊔,L)} This Turing machine accepts {01+} With 0111 as an input, q00111⊔ xq1111⊔ xyq111⊔ xyyq11⊔ xyyyq1⊔ xyyyqa⊔ Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

18
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

w: input A: language N: NP Turing machine that decides A Assume that N decides whether w∈A in nk steps, for some constant k. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

19
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

Proof (cont.) “nk×nk-cell”tableau for N on input w # q0 w1 w2 … wn ⊔ start configuration second configuration nk nk th configuration nk Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

20
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

Proof (cont.) A variable could be represented as xi,j,s. xi,j,s: true if cell[i,j] is s; otherwise, false. cell[i,j]: the cell located on the ith row and the jth column. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

21
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

# q0 w1 w2 … wn ⊔ x q1 # q0q1 w1 w2 … wn ⊔ # q0 w1 w2 … wn ⊔ x q1 # x w1 q3 … wn ⊔ Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem Proof (cont.) The tableau, without any restriction, can contain many invalid series of configurations. e.g. cells containing multiple symbols, not starting with the input w and start state q0, neighbor configurations not corresponding the transition rules, not resulting in the accept state, and etc. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

22
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

Proof (cont.) Produce a Boolean formula which forces the tableau to be valid and result in the accept state. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

23
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

Proof (cont.) One cell can contain exactly one symbol among a state, a tape alphabet, and a #. (φcell) The first configuration should be corresponding to input w and the start state q0. (φstart) A configuration is derivable from the immediately previous configuration according to the transition rule of the Turing machine. (φmove) There should exist a cell containing the accept state. (φaccept) φ=φcell∧φstart∧φmove∧φaccept Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

24
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

Proof (cont.) φ=φcell∧φstart∧φmove∧φaccept Each cell contain at least one symbol. Each cell contain no more than one different symbol. Here, C=Q∪Γ∪{#} where Q and Γ are the state set and tape alphabet of the Turing machine N. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

25
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

Proof (cont.) φ=φcell∧φstart∧φmove∧φaccept Each cell of the first row has a symbol corresponding to the start configuration where the input is w. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

26
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

Proof (cont.) φ=φcell∧φstart∧φmove∧φaccept At least one cell is the accept state. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

27
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

Proof (cont.) φ=φcell∧φstart∧φmove∧φaccept φmove checks whether every 2×3 window is legal according to the transition rule of the Turing machine. # … # q0 x y z q1 Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

28
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

Proof (cont.) φ=φcell∧φstart∧φmove∧φaccept For example, δ(q1,a)={(q1,b,R)}, δ(q1,b)={(q2,c,L), (q2,a,R)} a q1 b q2 c a q1 b # b a some examples of legal 2×3 windows a b a q1 b b q1 q2 some examples of illegal 2×3 windows Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

29
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

Proof (cont.) φ=φcell∧φstart∧φmove∧φaccept When Si,j is the set of legal (i, j)-windows and Ui,j is the set of all the (i, j)-windows, Si,j⊆Ui,j, |Ui,j|=|C|6 → |Si,j|≤|C|6 |S|=|ΣSi,j|≤n2k|C|6 That is, the set of legal windows is finite. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

30
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

Proof (cont.) φ=φcell∧φstart∧φmove∧φaccept That is, for all legal (i, j)-windows, which is represented as … a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 a6 Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

31
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

Proof (cont.) φ=φcell∧φstart∧φmove∧φaccept Now, we get φ as we wished. If φ is satisfiable, w∈A. That is, to see if w∈A, we just need to check whether φ is satisfiable or not. It is just a SAT problem. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

32
**Proof of Cook-Levin Theorem**

What to prove is … (restated) SAT∈NP (very clear, not treated here) ∀A∈NP, A≤PSAT Definition (restated) A≤PB if ∃f such that w∈A⇔f(w)∈B and f is polynomial time computable. What we’ve shown is … w, A, and w∈A f(w)=φ, B=SAT, and φ=f(w)∈B=SAT w∈A⇔φ∈SAT ∴A≤PSAT Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

33
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

Illustration N=(Q, Σ, Γ, δ, q0, qaccept) Q={q0, q1, qaccept} Σ={0, 1}, Γ={0, 1, ⊔} δ(q0,0)={(q1,0,R)} δ(q1,1)={(q1,1,R)} δ(q1, ⊔)={(qaccept, ⊔,L)} A=L(N)={01+}={01, 011, 0111, 01111, …} w=0111 Then, w∈A? Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

34
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

Illustration N can decide in n2 steps where n=|w|. Therefore n2 is 16. C={q0, q1, qaccept, 0, 1, ⊔, #} # q0 1 ⊔ … 16×16 tableau Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

35
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

Illustration Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

36
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

Illustration Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

37
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

Illustration Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

38
**Illustration For φmove, find out all the legal windows. # q0 q1 q0 q1**

q1 q0 q1 q0 1 q1 … q1 1 1 q1 q1 1 q1 1 … … 1 q1 ⊔ 1 q1 ⊔ qacc q1 ⊔ qacc ⊔ qacc … … No more than n2k|C|6=42*246=410 legal windows exist. (finite) Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

39
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

Illustration Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

40
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

Illustration Now, we get φ=φcell∧φstart∧φmove∧φaccept. ∧ Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

41
**Illustration ∧ Solve a SAT problem with this Boolean formula, φ.**

If satisfiable, w=0111∈A={01+}. (Actually, it is right.) Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

42
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

Corollary: 3SAT∈NPC CNFs can be converted into CNFs with three literals per clause (as explained soon). At first, convert φcell, φstart, φmove, and φaccept into CNF. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

43
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

Corollary: 3SAT∈NPC φcell, φstart, and φaccept are already in CNF. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

44
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

Corollary: 3SAT∈NPC φmove is converted into CNF using the distributive laws. To CNFs have 3 literals per clause For each clause with less than 3 literals, do literal replication. For each clause with more than 3 literals, split it with new variables. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

45
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

Corollary: 3SAT∈NPC Examples (a1∨a2)≡(a1∨a2∨a2) (a1∨a2∨a3∨a4)≡(a1∨a2∨z)∧(¬z∨a3∨a4) (a1∨a2∨a3∨a4∨a5)≡ (a1∨a2∨z1)∧(¬z1∨a3∨z2)∧(¬z2∨a4∨a5 ) Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

46
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

Corollary: 3SAT∈NPC Hence, a SAT problem is able to converted into a equivalent 3SAT problem (in polynomial time). That is, SAT≤P3SAT. Since SAT∈NPC, considering the definition of NPC, 3SAT∈NPC, too. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

47
**Conclusion Theorem (restated)**

SAT∈NPC 3SAT∈NPC All the NP problems are polynomial time reducible into SAT. <Important NP-complete problems> Picture from Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

48
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

Q&A Please, ask questions, if any. Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

49
**Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST**

Thank you! Contents covered are based on Introduction to the Theory of Computation, 2nd ed. written by Michael Sipser. The slide theme and the background image are from Applied Algorithm Lab. KAIST

Similar presentations

OK

1 Decidability continued…. 2 Theorem: For a recursively enumerable language it is undecidable to determine whether is finite Proof: We will reduce the.

1 Decidability continued…. 2 Theorem: For a recursively enumerable language it is undecidable to determine whether is finite Proof: We will reduce the.

© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google

Ppt on preservation of public property record Ppt on intelligent manufacturing journal Ppt on swami vivekananda death Ppt on teamviewer free Ppt online form in mp Ppt on central limit theorem statistics Ppt on peak load pricing economics Ppt on rhs congruence Ppt on corporate social responsibility under companies act 2013 Ppt on conservation and management of soil