Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byShania Rau Modified over 2 years ago

1
Martin Ziegler 1 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity Physically-Relativized Church-Turing Hypotheses Martin Ziegler Theoretical Computer Science University of Paderborn 33095 GERMANY

2
Martin Ziegler 2 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity „Does there exist a physical system of computational power strictly exceeding that of a Turing machine?“ for example able to solve the Halting problem? NPor in polynomial time some NP -complete problem? Answer has tremendous effects on our conception of nature (universe as a computer?, cf. eg. Seth Lloyd) Turing machines : universal model of computation –in computer science (WHILE-programs, λ-calculus) –in mathematics (μ-recursive function class) –and in physics? engineering actual computing devices (Intel, AMD)

3
Martin Ziegler 3 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity „Does there exist a physical system of computational power strictly exceeding that of a Turing machine?“ (Physical/strong) Church-Turing Hypothesis: No! Audience Poll: Do you believe in this hypothesis? Proof? What is a physical system, anyway?

4
Martin Ziegler 4 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity Feynman, Shor, Deutsch, Grover Adamyan, Calude, Dinneen, Pavlov, Kieu

5
Martin Ziegler 5 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity Malament, Hogarth, Nemeti …

6
Martin Ziegler 6 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity A.C.-C.Yao, W.D.Smith, K.Svozil …

7
Martin Ziegler 7 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity Reif & Tate & Yoshida (1994), Oltean (2006ff), Woods

8
Martin Ziegler 8 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity Beggs&Tucker (2007): „[…] we should […] use a physical theory to define precisely the class of physical systems under investigation“ So, what is a Physical System? Celestial Mechanics, Newtonian Mechanics, Continuum Mechanics, Magneto- statics, Electrostatics, Ray Optics, Gaussian Optics, Electrodynamics, Special Relativity, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field Theory Ludwig: „Die Grundstrukturen einer physikalischen Theorie“, Springer (1990) Schröter: „Zur Meta-Theorie der Physik“, de Gruyter (1996) „Reality“ described/covered by a patchwork of physical theories A physical theory Φ consists of 3 parts: a mathematical theory MT a part WB of nature it aims to describe a correspondence AP from WB to MT WB 2 WB 1 WB 3

9
Martin Ziegler 9 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity „Does there exist in Φ a physical system of compu- tational power exceeding that of a Turing machine?“ „Does there exist in Φ a physical system of compu- tational power exceeding that of a Turing machine?“ Church-Turing Hypothesis relative to a Physical Theory Principle 2.2 in Beggs&Tucker (2007): “Classifying computers in a physical theory.” Principle 2.3 in Beggs&Tucker (2007): Mapping the border between computer and hyper-computer in physical theory. → Research Programme: For various physical theories Φ, investigate CTH Φ. That is, fix a physical theory Φ and consider validity of the Church-Turing Hypothesis (CTH) relative to Φ.

10
Martin Ziegler 10 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity Research Programme Ontological commitment; again Beggs&Tucker (2007): “It does not matter whether we think of the theory Φ as true, or roughly applicable, or know it to be false” For various physical theories Φ, investigate CTH Φ. For a fixed Φ, does there exist in Φ a system able to solve the Halting problem? NP or in polynomial time some NP -complete problem? PNP Compare Baker&Gill&Solovay (1975): „Relativizations of the P =? NP Question”: PNP For one oracle A, provably P A = NP A ; PNP for another oracle B, provably P B ≠ NP B.

11
Martin Ziegler 11 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity Ontological Commitment Is there a theory which is not „false“ somehow? Grand Unified Theory/ Theory of Everything → Grand Unified Theory/ Theory of Everything → dream, not science Pragmatic: each Φ describes some part of reality more or less accurately It does not matter whether we think of the theory Φ as true, or roughly applicable, or know it to be false. „Reality“ described/covered by a patchwork of physical theories WB 2 WB 1 WB 3 GUT/ToE GUT/ ToE

12
Martin Ziegler 12 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity Ontological Commitment II Pragmatic: each Φ describes some part of reality more or less accurately Models of ComputationCompare Models of Computation in Theoretical Computer Science: –Is a ZX81 more appropriately described by a TM or by a DFA? Even ‘small‘ WB (=area of applica- bility) may have ‘large‘ applications! –Ohm‘s Law & CM vs. QED It does not matter whether we think of the theory Φ as true, or roughly applicable, or know it to be false.

13
Martin Ziegler 13 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity Computational Physics Simulating of a (class of) physical systems Φ

14
Martin Ziegler 14 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity Computational Physics Computational complexity of simulating a (class of) physical systems Φ: –complete if, in Φ, there exist systems implementing, e.g., Boolean circuit evaluation Travelling sales tour search Universal Turing computation Principle 2.2 in Beggs&Tucker (2007): “Classifying computers in a physical theory.” → CTH Φ as approach to dis-/prove optimality of algorithms in computational physics! P, NP, PSPACE, REC P, NP, PSPACE, REC

15
Martin Ziegler 15 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity Research Programme Principle 2.3 in Beggs&Tucker (2007): Mapping the border between computer and hyper-computer in physical theory. For various physical theories Φ, investigate CTH Φ. Start with ‘simplest‘ theories! It does not matter whether we think of the theory Φ as true, or roughly applicable, or know it to be false.

16
Martin Ziegler 16 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity Example: Celestial Mechanics Various physical theories: full relativistic effects Newton gravitation Kepler ellipses around center of gravity, w/o interaction Copernican heliocentrism Ptolemaic geocentrism planar, circular rotation Research Programme: For various physical theories Φ, investigate CTH Φ. It does not matter whether we think of the theory Φ as true, or roughly applicable, or know it to be false.

17
Martin Ziegler 17 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity Example: Celestial Mechanics Various physical theories Newton gravitation: PSPACE PSPACE -complete [Reif&Tate‘93] undecidable [W.D.Smith’06, K.Svozil‘07] planar, circular rotation NC#P NC 1 … #P -compl.

18
Martin Ziegler 18 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity 1H1H 2H2H 3,4 H Example: Classical Mechanics An ideal solid can encode the Halting problem and may then be used to solve it by probing: „Does there exist in CM a physical system of compu- tational power exceeding that of a Turing machine?“

19
Martin Ziegler 19 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity Existence in Physical Theories What makes CM unrealistic with respect to computability? When is a mathematical object considered to exist? a)If one can actually construct this object. („Constructivism“) b)If its non-existence raises a contradiction. (indirect proof, e.g. Markov‘s Principle) c)If the hypothesis of its existence does not raise a contradiction.(e.g. Zorn‘s Lemma is consistent with ZF ) 1) Real bodies are not infinitely divisible. But even if so (ontological commitment!): 2) In order to solve the Halting problem, does there exist a solid with it encoded? CM should support only solids which can be ‚constructed‘ (e.g. cut/carved) from few basic ones (e.g. cuboid)

20
Martin Ziegler 20 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity Conclusion Current hot disputes on validity of Church-Turing hypothesis mostly due to vagueness of the underlying notion of „nature“: –‚counterexamples‘ (=physical systems ‘solving‘ the Halting problem) exploit some physical theory Φ to its limits Better always speak of the CTH relative to a specific Φ. –independent of whether (and where) Φ is ‘realistic‘ or not. Investigate, for various Φ, the computational power of Φ → Lower complexity bounds in computational physics Realistic physical theory Φ=(MT,AB,WB) should make the Church-Turing hypothesis a theorem (meta-principle, like gauge-invariance or energy conservation) and employ some sort of constructivism in WB.

21
Martin Ziegler 21 HEINZ NIXDORF INSTITUTE University of Paderborn Algorithms and Complexity Heinz Nixdorf Institute & Dept of Computer Science University of Paderborn Fürstenallee 11 33095 Paderborn, Germany Tel.: +49 (0) 52 51/60 30 67 Fax: +49 (0) 52 51/62 64 82 E-Mail: ziegler@upb.de http://www.upb.de/cs/ziegler.html Thanks for your attention!

Similar presentations

OK

CPSC 411, Fall 2008: Set 12 1 CPSC 411 Design and Analysis of Algorithms Set 12: Undecidability Prof. Jennifer Welch Fall 2008.

CPSC 411, Fall 2008: Set 12 1 CPSC 411 Design and Analysis of Algorithms Set 12: Undecidability Prof. Jennifer Welch Fall 2008.

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google