CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University CS310 Decidability Section 4.1/4.2 November 10, 2006.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Measuring Time Complexity
Advertisements

Applied Computer Science II Chapter 4: Decidability Prof. Dr. Luc De Raedt Institut für Informatik Albert-Ludwigs Universität Freiburg Germany.
INHERENT LIMITATIONS OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS CSci 4011.
CSE 311 Foundations of Computing I
1 1 CDT314 FABER Formal Languages, Automata and Models of Computation Lecture 3 School of Innovation, Design and Engineering Mälardalen University 2012.
1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture12: Decidable Languages Prof. Amos Israeli.
Reducibility Sipser 5.1 (pages ). CS 311 Fall Reducibility.
Reducibility Sipser 5.1 (pages ).
1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture7: PushDown Automata (Part 1) Prof. Amos Israeli.
Decidable languages Sipser 4.1 (pages ). CS 311 Mount Holyoke College 2 Hierarchy of languages All languages Turing-recognizable Turing-decidable.
CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University CS310 Converting NFA to DFA Sections:1.2 Page 54 September 15, 2006.
Decidability. Why study un-solvability? When a problem is algorithmically unsolvable, we realize that the problem must be simplified or altered before.
CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University CS310 Pushdown Automata Sections: 2.2 page 109 October 9, 2006.
Decidable and undecidable problems deciding regular languages and CFL’s Undecidable problems.
CS Master – Introduction to the Theory of Computation Jan Maluszynski - HT Lecture 4 Context-free grammars Jan Maluszynski, IDA, 2007
Fall 2004COMP 3351 Reducibility. Fall 2004COMP 3352 Problem is reduced to problem If we can solve problem then we can solve problem.
CS Master – Introduction to the Theory of Computation Jan Maluszynski - HT Lecture 6 Decidability Jan Maluszynski, IDA, 2007
Foundations of (Theoretical) Computer Science Chapter 4 Lecture Notes (Section 4.1: Decidable Languages) David Martin With modifications.
Lecture 3 Goals: Formal definition of NFA, acceptance of a string by an NFA, computation tree associated with a string. Algorithm to convert an NFA to.
Fall 2006Costas Busch - RPI1 Non-Deterministic Finite Automata.
CS5371 Theory of Computation Lecture 4: Automata Theory II (DFA = NFA, Regular Language)
CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University CS310 The Halting Problem Section 4.2 November 15, 2006.
1 Non-Deterministic Automata Regular Expressions.
CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University CS310 Variants of Turing Machines Section 3.2 November 8, 2006.
Fall 2004COMP 3351 Another NFA Example. Fall 2004COMP 3352 Language accepted (redundant state)
Costas Busch - LSU1 Non-Deterministic Finite Automata.
CS21 Decidability and Tractability
CS5371 Theory of Computation Lecture 12: Computability III (Decidable Languages relating to DFA, NFA, and CFG)
REGULAR LANGUAGES.
Computer Language Theory
Computability Construct TMs. Decidability. Preview: next class: diagonalization and Halting theorem.
Prof. Busch - LSU1 NFAs accept the Regular Languages.
1 CD5560 FABER Formal Languages, Automata and Models of Computation Lecture 3 Mälardalen University 2010.
Decidable languages Section 4.1 CSC 4170 Theory of Computation.
CS 208: Computing Theory Assoc. Prof. Dr. Brahim Hnich Faculty of Computer Sciences Izmir University of Economics.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing October 12, 2005.
 2005 SDU Lecture13 Reducibility — A methodology for proving un- decidability.
1Computer Sciences Department. Book: INTRODUCTION TO THE THEORY OF COMPUTATION, SECOND EDITION, by: MICHAEL SIPSER Reference 3Computer Sciences Department.
D E C I D A B I L I T Y 1. 2 Objectives To investigate the power of algorithms to solve problems. To explore the limits of algorithmic solvability. To.
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing October 13, 2005.
1 Chapter Constructing Efficient Finite Automata.
Donghyun (David) Kim Department of Mathematics and Computer Science North Carolina Central University 1 Chapter 4 Decidability Some slides are in courtesy.
 2005 SDU Lecture11 Decidability.  2005 SDU 2 Topics Discuss the power of algorithms to solve problems. Demonstrate that some problems can be solved.
CSCI 3130: Formal languages and automata theory Andrej Bogdanov The Chinese University of Hong Kong Decidable.
FORMAL LANGUAGES, AUTOMATA, AND COMPUTABILITY * Read chapter 4 of the book for next time * Lecture9x.ppt.
Reductions Costas Busch - LSU.
CSE 105 theory of computation
BCS 2143 Theory of Computer Science
CSE 105 theory of computation
CSE 2001: Introduction to Theory of Computation Fall 2013
CSCI 2670 Introduction to Theory of Computing
CSE 105 theory of computation
Undecidable Problems (unsolvable problems)
Intro to Theory of Computation
Non-Deterministic Finite Automata
Non-Deterministic Finite Automata
Decidable Languages Costas Busch - LSU.
CSC 4170 Theory of Computation Decidable languages Section 4.1.
Decidable and undecidable languages
CS21 Decidability and Tractability
CS21 Decidability and Tractability
CSE 105 theory of computation
Chapter 1 Regular Language
Theory of Computability
CSE 105 theory of computation
Automata, Grammars and Languages
Intro to Theory of Computation
CSE 105 theory of computation
CSE 105 theory of computation
Presentation transcript:

CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University CS310 Decidability Section 4.1/4.2 November 10, 2006

CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University Decidability “the power of algorithms to solve problems.” p 165 What are the limits of algorithmic solvability? How can we tell if two Regular Expressions define the same language? –or, can we? A language is decidable if some TM decides it (always either accepts or rejects, always halts)

CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University Decidability Acceptance Problem (DFA): Does a given DFA, B, accept a given string w? In terms of languages (because we have defined computation as accept/reject a language): –A DFA = { | B is a DFA that accepts w } –For ALL input pairs can a single TM be constructed that will decide  A DFA can we build one TM that will work for all DFAs? is there an algorithmic way to solve this problem?

CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University Theorem A DFA is decidable –given we can decide if  A DFA or  A DFA Proof Idea: –Use a TM, M, to simulate B with input w –Keep track of current state and current position on the input string –Update according to the DFA’s 

CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University Also… A NFA and A Regular Expression are also decidable –why?

CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University Emptiness testing Does a finite automata accept any strings at all? –E DFA = { | A is a DFA and L(A) =  } Theorem: E DFA is decidable Proof Idea: –is it possible to reach an accept state from q 0 ? –mark the start state of A –repeat until no new states get marked: Mark any unmarked state that has an incoming transition from a marked state –if no accept state is marked, accept; else reject

CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University Equivalence testing Do two DFAs recognize the same language? –EQ DFA = { | A and B are DFAs and L(A) = L(B)} Theorem: EQ DFA is decidable –Proof: construct new DFA, C, that accepts only strings accepted by either A or B but not both (XOR) L(C)=(L(A)  L’(B)) U (L’(A)  L(B) ) –complement and  are closed over regular languages L(C)=  if and only if L(A) = L(B)

CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University Question Can we tell if two Regular Expressions define the same language? –why or why not?

CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University CFGs A CFG = { | G is a CFG that generates w} A CFG is decidable Could enumerate all strings produced by G: could be infinite, though Proof Idea –Put G in CNF –How deep is the parse tree for string w? –Check only derivations of this length possibly large, but definitely finite

CS 310 – Fall 2006 Pacific University Equivalence of CFGs EQ CFG = { | G and H are CFL and L(G) = L(H)} –not decidable –CFGs are not closed under complement or  –see chapter 5 for more information