Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1
1 Introduction to Computability Theory Lecture12: Reductions Prof. Amos Israeli

2
The rest of the course deals with an important tool in Computability and Complexity theories, namely: Reductions. The reduction technique enables us to use the undecidability of to prove many other languages undecidable. Introduction 2

3
A reduction always involves two computational problems. Generally speaking, the idea is to show that a solution for some problem A induces a solution for problem B. If we know that B does not have a solution, we may deduce that A is also insolvable. In this case we say that B is reducible to A. Introduction 3

4
In the context of undecidability: If we want to prove that a certain language L is undecidable. We assume by way of contradiction that L is decidable, and show that a decider for L, can be used to devise a decider for. Since is undecidable, so is the language L. Introduction 4

5
Using a decider for L to construct a decider for, is called reducing L to. Note: Once we prove that a certain language L is undecidable, we can prove that some other language, say L’, is undecidable, by reducing L’ to L. Introduction 5

6
1.We know that A is undecidable. 2.We want to prove B is undecidable. 3.We assume that B is decidable and use this assumption to prove that A is decidable. 4.We conclude that B is undecidable. Note: The reduction is from A to B. Schematic of a Reduction 6

7
1.We know that A is undecidable. The only undecidable language we know, so far, is whose undecidability was proven directly. (In the discussion you also proved directly that is undecidable). So we pick to play the role of A. 2.We want to prove B is undecidable. Demonstration 7

8
2.We want to prove B is undecidable. We pick to play the role of B that is: We want to prove that is undecidable. 3.We assume that B is decidable and use this assumption to prove that A is decidable. Demonstration 8

9
3.We assume that B is decidable and use this assumption to prove that A is decidable. In the following slides we assume (towards a contradiction) that is decidable and use this assumption to prove that is decidable. 4.We conclude that B is undecidable. Demonstration 9

10
Consider Theorem is undecidable. Proof By reducing to. The “Real” Halting Problem 10

11
Assume by way of contradiction that is decidable. Recall that a decidable set has a decider R : A TM that halts on every input and either accepts or rejects, but never loops!. We will use the assumed decider of to devise a decider for. Discussion 11

12
Recall the definition of : Why is it impossible to decide ? Because as long as M runs, we cannot determine whether it will eventually halt. Well, now we can, using the decider R for. Discussion 12

13
Assume by way of contradiction that is decidable and let R be a TM deciding it. In the next slide we present TM S that uses R as a subroutine and decides. Since is undecidable this constitutes a contradiction, so R does not exist. Proof 13

14
S= “On input where M is a TM: 1. Run R on input until it halts. 2. If R rejects, (i.e. M loops on w ) - reject. (At this stage we know that R accepts, and we conclude that M halts on input w.) 3. Simulate M on w until it halts. 4. If M accepts - accept, otherwise - reject. “ Proof (cont.) 14

15
In the discussion, you saw how Diagonalization can be used to prove that is not decidable. We can use this result to prove by reduction that is not decidable. Another Example 15

16
Note: Since we already know that both and are undecidable, this new proof does not add any new information. We bring it here only for the the sake of demonstration. Another Example 16

17
1.We know that A is undecidable. Now we pick to play the role of A. 2.We want to prove B is undecidable. We pick to play the role of B, that is: We want to prove that is undecidable. 3.We assume that B is decidable and use this assumption to prove that A is decidable. Demonstration 17

18
3.We assume that B is decidable and use this assumption to prove that A is decidable. In the following slides we assume that is decidable and use this assumption to prove that is decidable. 4.We conclude that B is undecidable. Demonstration 18

19
Let R be a decider for. Given an input for, R can be run with this input : If R accepts, it means that. This means that M accepts on input w. In particular, M stops on input w. Therefore, a decider for must accept too. Discussion 19

20
If however R rejects on input, a decider for cannot safely reject: M may be halting on w to reject it. So if M rejects w, a decider for must accept. Discussion 20

21
How can we use our decider for ? The answer here is more difficult. The new decider should first modify the input TM, M, so the modified TM,, accepts, whenever TM M halts. Since M is a part of the input, the modification must be a part of the computation. Discussion 21

22
Faithful to our principal “ If it ain’t broken don’t fix it”, the modified TM keeps M as a subroutine, and the idea is quite simple: Let and be the accepting and rejecting states of TM M, respectively. In the modified TM,, and are kept as ordinary states. Discussion 22

23
We continue the modification of M by adding a new accepting sate. Then we add two new transitions: A transition from to, and another transition from to. This completes the description of. It is not hard to verify that accepts iff M halts. Discussion 23

24
Discussion 24

25
The final description of a decider S for is: S= “On input where M is a TM: 1. Modify M as described to get. 2. Run R, the decider of with input. 3. If R accepts - accept, otherwise - reject. ” Discussion 25

26
It should be noted that modifying TM M to get, is part of TM S, the new decider for, and can be carried out by it. It is not hard to see that S decides. Since is undecidable, we conclude that is undecidable too. Discussion 26

27
We continue to demonstrate reductions by showing that the language, defined by is undecidable. Theorem is undecidable. The TM Emptiness Problem 27

28
The proof is by reduction from : 1.We know that is undecidable. 2.We want to prove is undecidable. 3.We assume toward a contradiction that is decidable and devise a decider for. 4.We conclude that is undecidable. Proof Outline 28

29
Assume by way of contradiction that is decidable and let R be a TM deciding it. In the next slides we devise TM S that uses R as a subroutine and decides. Proof 29

30
Given an instance for,, we may try to run R on this instance. If R accepts, we know that. In particular, M does not accept w so a decider for must reject. Proof 30

31
What happens if R rejects? The only conclusion we can draw is that. What we need to know though is whether. In order to use our decider R for, we once again modify the input machine M to obtain TM : Proof 31

32
We start with a TM satisfying. Description of___ 32

33
Now we add a filter to divert all inputs but w. Description of___ 33 filter no yes

34
TM has a filter that rejects all inputs excepts w, so the only input reaching M, is w. Therefore, satisfies: Proof 34

35
Here is a formal description of : “On input x : 1. If - reject. 2. If - run M on w and accept if M accepts. ” Note: M accepts w if and only if. Proof 35

36
This way, if R accepts, S “can be sure” that and accept. Note that S gets the pair as input, thus before S runs R, it should compute an encoding of. This encoding is not too hard to compute using S ’s input. Proof 36

37
S= “On input where M is a TM: 1. Compute an encoding of TM. 2. Run R on input. 3. If R rejects - accept, otherwise - reject. Proof 37

38
Recall that R is a decider for. If R rejects the modified machine,, hence by the specification of,, and a decider for must accept. If however R accepts, it means that, hence, and S must reject. QED Proof 38

39
We continue to demonstrate reductions by showing that the language : is undecidable. Theorem is undecidable. _______ is undecidable 39

40
The proof is by reduction from : 1.We know that is undecidable. 2.We want to prove is undecidable. 3.We assume that is decidable and devise a decider for. 4.We conclude that is undecidable. Proof Outline 40

41
Consider an instance of A TM. Once again, the idea is to transform TM M to another TM,, such that is regular if and only if. Once we have such a machine we can run a decider for with as input, and accept, if the decider accepts. Proof 41

42
Here the idea is to devise a TM that satisfy:. Description of___ 42

43
TM M 2 is obtained as follows: 1.Start with M. 2.Add a filter in front of M such that for every input x : 2.1 If x is of the form 0 n 1 n - accept. 2.2 Send w to M – If M accepts - accept. Description of___ 43

44
We start with a TM satisfying. Description of___ 44

45
Add a filter to accept all inputs of form. Description of___ 45 filter no yes

46
“On input x : 1. If x has the form, accept. 2. If x does not have this form, run M on w and accept if M accepts w. ” Note: If M accept w then. If M does not accepts w then. Proof 46

47
Now consider S : “On input : 1. Construct as described using. 2. Run R on. 3. If R accepts (Meaning ) - accept, otherwise ( ) - reject.” Proof 47

48
Consider Theorem is undecidable. TM Equivalence is Undecidable 48

49
The proof is by reduction from. We have to show that if is decidable, so is. The idea is very intuitive: In order to check that a language of TM M is empty, as required by, we will check whether M is equivalent to a TM that rejects all its inputs. Proof 49

50
S= “On input, where M is a TM: 1. Run R on input where is a TM that rejects all its inputs. 2. If R accepts – accept, otherwise – reject. If R decides, S decides. Since is undecidable, so is. QED Proof 50

51
Mapping Reductions are the most common reductions in Computer Science. In this lecture we define mapping reductions and demonstrate the way in which they are used. Mapping Reductions 51

52
The idea of a mapping reduction is very simple: If the instances (candidate elements) of one language, say A, are mapped to the instances of another language, say B, by a computable mapping M in a way that iff, then a decider for B can be used to devise a decider for A. Mapping Reductions 52

53
Let A and B be two languages over. A function is a computable function if there exists a TM M such that for every, if M computes with input w it halts with on its tape. Computable Functions 53

54
1. Let m and n be natural numbers, let be a string encoding both m and n, and let be the string representing their sum. The function,, is computable. 2. The function is a computable function. Can you devise TM-s to compute f and g ? Examples of Computable Functions 54

55
3. Let be an encoding of TM M and let be an encoding of another TM M’ satisfying: 1.. 2. TM M’ never makes two steps in the same head direction. The function t defined below is computable: Examples of Computable Functions 55

56
Let A and B be two languages over. A computable function is a mapping reduction from A to B if for every it holds that follows: For each it holds that iff. The function f is called reduction of A to B. The arguments of the reduction are often called instances. Mapping Reductions 56

57
If there exists a mapping reduction from A to B, We say that A is mapping reducible to B and denote it by. If language A is mapping reducible to language B, then a solution for B, can be used to derive a solution for A. This fact is made formal in the following theorem: Mapping Reductions 57

58
If and B is decidable, then A is decidable. Theorem 58

59
Let M be a decider for B and let f be the reduction from A to B. Consider TM N : N= “On input w : 1. Compute. 2. Run M on and output whatever M outputs. “ Clearly N accepts iff. QED Proof 59

60
If and A is undecidable, then B is undecidable. Corollary 60

61
The previous corollary is our main tool for proving undecidability. Notice that in order to prove B undecidable we reduce from A which is known to be undecidable to B. The reduction direction is often a source of errors. A similar tool is used in Complexity theory. Discussion 61

62
At the beginning of this lecture we looked at and proved that it is undecidable. Now, we prove this theorem once more by demonstrating a mapping reduction from to. The Halting Problem Revisited 62

63
The mapping reduction is presented by TM F : F= “On input : 1. Construct TM M’. M’= “On input x : 1. Run M on x. 2. if M accepts accept. 3. If M rejects, enter a loop. “ 2. Output. “ The Halting Problem Revisited 63

64
What happens if the input does not contain a valid description of a TM? By the specification of we know that in this case. Therefore in this case TM F should output any string s satisfying. The Halting Problem Revisited 64

Similar presentations

© 2021 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