DOCSLIB.ORG

Theory of Computation CS3102 – Spring 2014 a Tale of Computers, Math, Problem Solving, Life, Love and Tragic Death

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Theory of Computation CS3102 – Spring 2014 a Tale of Computers, Math, Problem Solving, Life, Love and Tragic Death Theory of Computation CS3102 – Spring 2014 A tale of computers, math, problem solving, life, love and tragic death Nathan Brunelle Department of Computer Science University of Virginia www.cs.virginia.edu/~njb2b/theory I’ll be Absent Next Week (But you shouldn’t be) Tuesday: Jack Wadden Thursday: Robbie Hott Micron Automata Processor P and NP Oracles • Originated in Turing’s Ph.D. thesis • Named after the “Oracle of Apollo” at Delphi, ancient Greece • Black-box subroutine / language • Can compute arbitrary functions • Instant computations “for free” • Can greatly increase computation power of basic TMs E.g., oracle for halting problem Turing Machines with Oracles • A special case of “hyper-computation” • Allows “what if” analysis: assumes certain undecidable languages can be recognized • An oracle can profoundly impact the decidability & tractability of a language • Any language / problem can be “relativized” WRT an arbitrary oracle • Undecidability / intractability exists even for oracle machines! Theorem [Turing]: Some problems are still not computable, even by Turing machines with an oracle for the halting problem! Reaching a Contradiction * Assume there exists some TM H that decides ATM*. O is a ATM “Oracle” M* is Relativized to O * * H* is Relativized to O Define D (<M>) = Construct a TM that: D* is Relativized to O Outputs the opposite of the result of simulating H *on input (M,* <M>)* If M accepts its own description <M>* , D*(< M>)* rejects. If M rejects its own description <M>* , D(<M>)* accepts. What happens if we run D* on its own description, <D>* ? If D* accepts its own description <D*> , D(<* D*>) rejects. substituting If D* rejects its own description <D>* , D*(< D*>) accepts. D for M… Students of Turing Degrees Alonzo Church: • Turing (1937); studied by Post (1944) and Kleene (1954) • Quantifies the non-computability (i.e., algorithmic unsolvability) of (decision) problems and languages • Some problems are “more unsolvable” than others! Alan Turing 1912-1954 H* Georg Cantor 1845-1918 Emil Post • Defines computation 1897-1954 “relative” to an oracle. • “Relativized computation” H - an infinite hierarchy! H • A “relativity theory of computation”! Ø Stephen Kleene Turing degree 2 Turing degree 1 Turing degree 0 1909-1994 Students of Turing Degrees Alonzo Church: • Turing degree of a set X is the set of all Turing-equivalent (i.e., mutually-reducible) sets: an equivalence class [X] • Turing degrees form a partial order / join-semilattice Alan Turing • [0]: the unique Turing degree containing all computable sets 1912-1954 • For set X, the “Turing jump” operator X’ is the set of indices of oracle TMs which halt when using X as an oracle • [0’]: Turing degree of the halting problem H; [0’’]: Turing degree of the halting problem H* for TMs with oracle H. Emil Post 1897-1954 Turing jump Turing Stephen Kleene jump 1909-1994 Students of Turing Degrees Alonzo Church: • Each Turing degree is countably infinite (has exactly 0 sets) • There are uncountably many (20) Turing degrees • A Turing degree X is strictly smaller than its Turing jump X’ Alan Turing • For a Turing degree X, the set of degrees smaller than X is 1912-1954 countable; set of degrees larger than X is uncountable (20) • For every Turing degree X there is an incomparable degree (i.e., neither X Y nor Y X holds). • There are 20 pairwise incomparable Turing degrees Emil Post • For every degree X, there is a degree D strictly between X 1897-1954 and X’ so that X < D < X’ (there are actually 0 of them) The structure of the Turing degrees Turing semilattice is extremely complex! jump Turing Stephen Kleene jump 1909-1994 The Extended Chomsky Hierarchy S 2 * Decidable Presburger arithmetic EXPSPACE ? H EXPTIME H* H PSPACE Turing Context sensitive LBA degrees =RE Go NP QBF P anbncn SAT R Context-free ww n n complete complete Det. CF a b - complete complete complete complete - - Regular a* complete - Finite {a,b} NP PSPACE EXPSPACE EXPTIME Recognizable Recognizable Not Recognizable Recognizable Not Not finitely describable finitely Not Complexity Classes • 9*9=81 • 99*99*99= 970299 • 999*999*999*999= 996005996001 =1012 • Number of particles in the universe: about a googol (10100) • After just 10 iterations: 10110 • The scientists owe Ali G an apology Today - End Undecidable Decidable Tractable: “Decidable in a reasonable amount of time and space” Computability Complexity Undecidable Intractable Decidable Tractable 1960s – 2150? ~1800s – 1960s 1960s: Hartmanis and 1900: Hilbert’s Problems Stearns: Complexity class 1936: Turing’s Computable Numbers 1971: Cook/Levin, Karp: P=NP? 1957: Chomsky’s Syntactic Structures 1976: Knuth’s O, Ω, Θ (Mostly) “Dead” field Very Open and Alive Complexity Classes • Computability Classes: sets of problems (languages) that can be solved (decided/recognized) by a given machine • Complexity Classes: sets of problems (languages) that can be solved (decided) by a given machine (usually a TM) within a limited amount of time or space How many complexity classes are there? Infinitely many! “Languages that can be decided by some TM using less than 37 steps” is a complexity class Order Notation • O( f ), ( f ), o( f ), ( f ) • These notations define sets of functions – Generally: functions from positive integer to real • We are interested in how the size of the outputs relates to the size of the inputs Big O • Intuition: the set O(f) is the set of functions that grow no faster than f – More formal definition coming soon • Asymptotic growth rate – As input to f approaches infinity, how fast does value of f increase – Hence, only the fastest-growing term in f matters: O(12n2 + n) O(n3) O(n) O(63n + log n – 423) Formal Definition f O (g) means: There are positive constants c and n0 such that f(n) cg(n) for all values n n0. O Examples f (n) O (g (n)) means: there are positive constants c and n0 such that f(n) cg(n) for all values n n0. 2 x O (x )? Yes, c = 1, n0=2 works fine. Yes, c = 11, n =2 works fine. 10x O (x)? 0 No, no matter what c and n 2 0 x O (x)? we pick, cx2 > x for big enough x Lower Bound: (Omega) f(n) is (g (n)) means: There are positive constants c and n0 such that f (n) cg(n) for all n n0. Difference from O , this was Theta (“Order of”) • Intuition: the set (f ) is the set of functions that grow as fast as f • Definition: f (n) (g (n)) if and only if both: 1. 푓 (푛) ϵ 푂 (푔 (푛)) and 2. 푓 (푛) ϵ 훺(푔 (푛)) (품(풏)) = 푶(품(풏)) ∩ 휴(품 풏 ) – Note: we do not have to pick the same c and n0 values for 1 and 2 • When we say, “f is order g” that means f (n) (g (n)) Summary • Big-O: there exist c, n0 > 0 such that f(n) cg(n) for all n n0. • Omega (): there exist c, n0 > 0 s.t. f(n) cg(n) for all n n0. • Theta (): both O and are true When you were encouraged to use Big-O in cs201/cs216 to analyze the running time of algorithms, what should you have been using? Resource-Bounded Computation Previously: can something be done? Now: how efficiently can it be done? Goal: conserve computational resources: Time, space, other resources? Resource-Bounded Computation Def: L is decidable within time O(t(n)) if some TM M that decides L always halts on all w* within O(t(|w|)) steps / time. Def: L is decidable within space O(s(n)) if some TM M that decides L always halts on all w* while never using more than O(s(|w|)) space / tape cells. Complexity Classes Def: DTIME(t(n))={L | L is decidable within time O(t(n)) by some deterministic TM} Def: NTIME(t(n))={L | L is decidable within time O(t(n)) by some non-deterministic TM} Def: DSPACE(s(n))={L | L decidable within space O(s(n)) by some deterministic TM} Def: NSPACE(s(n))={L | L decidable within space O(s(n)) by some non-deterministic TM} Examples of Space & Time Usage n n Let L1={0 1 | n>0}: For 1-tape TM’s: 2 L1 DTIME(n ) L1 DSPACE(n) L1 DTIME(n log n) For 2-tape TM’s: L1 DTIME(n) L1 DSPACE(log n) Examples of Space & Time Usage Let L2=S* L2 DTIME(n) Theorem: every regular language is in DTIME(n) L2 DSPACE(1) Theorem: every regular language is in DSPACE(1) L2 DTIME(1) Let L3={w$w | w in S*} 2 L3 DTIME(n ) L3 DSPACE(n) L3 DSPACE(log n) .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Global Properties of the Turing Degrees and the Turing Jump
    Global Properties of the Turing Degrees and the Turing Jump Theodore A. Slaman¤ Department of Mathematics University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-3840, USA [email protected] Abstract We present a summary of the lectures delivered to the Institute for Mathematical Sci- ences, Singapore, during the 2005 Summer School in Mathematical Logic. The lectures covered topics on the global structure of the Turing degrees D, the countability of its automorphism group, and the definability of the Turing jump within D. 1 Introduction This note summarizes the tutorial delivered to the Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Singapore, during the 2005 Summer School in Mathematical Logic on the structure of the Turing degrees. The tutorial gave a survey on the global structure of the Turing degrees D, the countability of its automorphism group, and the definability of the Turing jump within D. There is a glaring open problem in this area: Is there a nontrivial automorphism of the Turing degrees? Though such an automorphism was announced in Cooper (1999), the construction given in that paper is yet to be independently verified. In this pa- per, we regard the problem as not yet solved. The Slaman-Woodin Bi-interpretability Conjecture 5.10, which still seems plausible, is that there is no such automorphism. Interestingly, we can assemble a considerable amount of information about Aut(D), the automorphism group of D, without knowing whether it is trivial. For example, we can prove that it is countable and every element is arithmetically definable. Further, restrictions on Aut(D) lead us to interesting conclusions concerning definability in D.
    [Show full text]
  • Annals of Pure and Applied Logic Extending and Interpreting
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 161 (2010) 775–788 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Annals of Pure and Applied Logic journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apal Extending and interpreting Post's programmeI S. Barry Cooper Department of Pure Mathematics, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK article info a b s t r a c t Article history: Computability theory concerns information with a causal – typically algorithmic – Available online 3 July 2009 structure. As such, it provides a schematic analysis of many naturally occurring situations. Emil Post was the first to focus on the close relationship between information, coded as MSC: real numbers, and its algorithmic infrastructure. Having characterised the close connection 03-02 between the quantifier type of a real and the Turing jump operation, he looked for more 03A05 03D25 subtle ways in which information entails a particular causal context. Specifically, he wanted 03D80 to find simple relations on reals which produced richness of local computability-theoretic structure. To this extent, he was not just interested in causal structure as an abstraction, Keywords: but in the way in which this structure emerges in natural contexts. Post's programme was Computability the genesis of a more far reaching research project. Post's programme In this article we will firstly review the history of Post's programme, and look at two Ershov hierarchy Randomness interesting developments of Post's approach. The first of these developments concerns Turing invariance the extension of the core programme, initially restricted to the Turing structure of the computably enumerable sets of natural numbers, to the Ershov hierarchy of sets.
    [Show full text]
  • THERE IS NO DEGREE INVARIANT HALF-JUMP a Striking
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 125, Number 10, October 1997, Pages 3033{3037 S 0002-9939(97)03915-4 THERE IS NO DEGREE INVARIANT HALF-JUMP RODNEY G. DOWNEY AND RICHARD A. SHORE (Communicated by Andreas R. Blass) Abstract. We prove that there is no degree invariant solution to Post's prob- lem that always gives an intermediate degree. In fact, assuming definable de- terminacy, if W is any definable operator on degrees such that a <W (a) < a0 on a cone then W is low2 or high2 on a cone of degrees, i.e., there is a degree c such that W (a)00 = a for every a c or W (a)00 = a for every a c. 00 ≥ 000 ≥ A striking phenomenon in the early days of computability theory was that every decision problem for axiomatizable theories turned out to be either decidable or of the same Turing degree as the halting problem (00,thecomplete computably enumerable set). Perhaps the most influential problem in computability theory over the past fifty years has been Post’s problem [10] of finding an exception to this rule, i.e. a noncomputable incomplete computably enumerable degree. The problem has been solved many times in various settings and disguises but the so- lutions always involve specific constructions of strange sets, usually by the priority method that was first developed (Friedberg [2] and Muchnik [9]) to solve this prob- lem. No natural decision problems or sets of any kind have been found that are neither computable nor complete. The question then becomes how to define what characterizes the natural computably enumerable degrees and show that none of them can supply a solution to Post’s problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Martin's Conjecture, Locally
    Uniform Martin's conjecture, locally Vittorio Bard July 23, 2019 Abstract We show that part I of uniform Martin's conjecture follows from a local phenomenon, namely that if a non-constant Turing invariant func- tion goes from the Turing degree x to the Turing degree y, then x ≤T y. Besides improving our knowledge about part I of uniform Martin's con- jecture (which turns out to be equivalent to Turing determinacy), the discovery of such local phenomenon also leads to new results that did not look strictly related to Martin's conjecture before. In particular, we get that computable reducibility ≤c on equivalence relations on N has a very complicated structure, as ≤T is Borel reducible to it. We conclude rais- ing the question Is part II of uniform Martin's conjecture implied by local phenomena, too? and briefly indicating a possible direction. 1 Introduction to Martin's conjecture Providing evidence for the intricacy of the structure (D; ≤T ) of Turing degrees has been arguably one of the main concerns of computability theory since the mid '50s, when the celebrated priority method was discovered. However, some have pointed out that if we restrict our attention to those Turing degrees that correspond to relevant problems occurring in mathematical practice, we see a much simpler structure: such \natural" Turing degrees appear to be well- ordered by ≤T , and there seems to be no \natural" Turing degree strictly be- tween a \natural" Turing degree and its Turing jump. Martin's conjecture is a long-standing open problem whose aim was to provide a precise mathemat- ical formalization of the previous insight.
    [Show full text]
  • Independence Results on the Global Structure of the Turing Degrees by Marcia J
    TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume INDEPENDENCE RESULTS ON THE GLOBAL STRUCTURE OF THE TURING DEGREES BY MARCIA J. GROSZEK AND THEODORE A. SLAMAN1 " For nothing worthy proving can be proven, Nor yet disproven." _Tennyson Abstract. From CON(ZFC) we obtain: 1. CON(ZFC + 2" is arbitrarily large + there is a locally finite upper semilattice of size u2 which cannot be embedded into the Turing degrees as an upper semilattice). 2. CON(ZFC + 2" is arbitrarily large + there is a maximal independent set of Turing degrees of size w,). Introduction. Let ^ denote the set of Turing degrees ordered under the usual Turing reducibility, viewed as a partial order ( 6Î),< ) or an upper semilattice (fy, <,V> depending on context. A partial order (A,<) [upper semilattice (A, < , V>] is embeddable into fy (denoted A -* fy) if there is an embedding /: A -» <$so that a < ft if and only if/(a) </(ft) [and/(a) V /(ft) = /(a V ft)]. The structure of ty was first investigted in the germinal paper of Kleene and Post [2] where A -» ty for any countable partial order A was shown. Sacks [9] proved that A -» öDfor any partial order A which is locally finite (any point of A has only finitely many predecessors) and of size at most 2", or locally countable and of size at most u,. Say X C fy is an independent set of Turing degrees if, whenever x0, xx,...,xn E X and x0 < x, V x2 V • • • Vjcn, there is an / between 1 and n so that x0 = x¡; X is maximal if no proper extension of X is independent.
    [Show full text]
  • Sets of Reals with an Application to Minimal Covers Author(S): Leo A
    A Basis Result for ∑0 3 Sets of Reals with an Application to Minimal Covers Author(s): Leo A. Harrington and Alexander S. Kechris Source: Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Dec., 1975), pp. 445- 448 Published by: American Mathematical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2040033 . Accessed: 22/05/2013 17:17 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Mathematical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 131.215.71.79 on Wed, 22 May 2013 17:17:43 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 53, Number 2, December 1975 A BASIS RESULT FOR E3 SETS OF REALS WITH AN APPLICATION TO MINIMALCOVERS LEO A. HARRINGTON AND ALEXANDER S. KECHRIS ABSTRACT. It is shown that every Y3 set of reals which contains reals of arbitrarily high Turing degree in the hyperarithmetic hierarchy contains reals of every Turing degree above the degree of Kleene's 0. As an application it is shown that every Turing degrec above the Turing degree of Kleene's 0 is a minimal cover.
    [Show full text]
  • Algebraic Aspects of the Computably Enumerable Degrees
    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 92, pp. 617-621, January 1995 Mathematics Algebraic aspects of the computably enumerable degrees (computability theory/recursive function theory/computably enumerable sets/Turing computability/degrees of unsolvability) THEODORE A. SLAMAN AND ROBERT I. SOARE Department of Mathematics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637 Communicated by Robert M. Solovay, University of California, Berkeley, CA, July 19, 1994 ABSTRACT A set A of nonnegative integers is computably equivalently represented by the set of Diophantine equations enumerable (c.e.), also called recursively enumerable (r.e.), if with integer coefficients and integer solutions, the word there is a computable method to list its elements. The class of problem for finitely presented groups, and a variety of other sets B which contain the same information as A under Turing unsolvable problems in mathematics and computer science. computability (<T) is the (Turing) degree ofA, and a degree is Friedberg (5) and independently Mucnik (6) solved Post's c.e. if it contains a c.e. set. The extension ofembedding problem problem by producing a noncomputable incomplete c.e. set. for the c.e. degrees Qk = (R, <, 0, 0') asks, given finite partially Their method is now known as the finite injury priority ordered sets P C Q with least and greatest elements, whether method. Restated now for c.e. degrees, the Friedberg-Mucnik every embedding ofP into Rk can be extended to an embedding theorem is the first and easiest extension of embedding result of Q into Rt. Many of the most significant theorems giving an for the well-known partial ordering of the c.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Turing Degrees of Nonabelian Groups
    TURING DEGREES OF NONABELIAN GROUPS MALGORZATA DABKOWSKA, MIECZYSLAW DABKOWSKI, VALENTINA S. HARIZANOV, AND ADAM S. SIKORA Abstract. For a countable structure , the (Turing) degree spec- trum of is the set of all Turing degreesA of its isomorphic copies. If the degreeA spectrum of has the least degree d,thenwesay that d is the (Turing) degreeA of the isomorphism type of .Sofar, degrees of the isomorphism types have been studied for abelianA and metabelian groups. Here, we focus on highly nonabelian groups. We show that there are various centerless groups whose isomor- phism types have arbitrary Turing degrees. We also show that there are various centerless groups whose isomorphism types do not have Turing degrees. 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification : 03C57, 03D45 Key words: computable, Turing degree, degree spectrum, isomor- phism, group 1. Introduction, preliminaries, and notation One of the goals of computable algebra is to use the tools and meth- ods of computability theory to measure the complexity of algebraic notions and constructions. While in algebra we identify two isomor- phic structures, from the point of view of computable algebra, they can have very different computability theoretic properties. In particular, two countable isomorphic structures can have distinct Turing degrees. Since the Turing degree of a structure is not invariant under isomor- phism, Jockusch and Richter (see [27]) introduced the following com- plexity measure of the isomorphism type of a structure. To a countable structure , they assigned the least Turing degree among all Turing degrees ofA the isomorphic copies of , and called it the degree of the isomorphism type of . A We will now give exactA definitions and specify notation.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Computability Theory
    AN INTRODUCTION TO COMPUTABILITY THEORY CINDY CHUNG Abstract. This paper will give an introduction to the fundamentals of com- putability theory. Based on Robert Soare's textbook, The Art of Turing Computability: Theory and Applications, we examine concepts including the Halting problem, properties of Turing jumps and degrees, and Post's Theo- rem.1 In the paper, we will assume the reader has a conceptual understanding of computer programs. Contents 1. Basic Computability 1 2. The Halting Problem 2 3. Post's Theorem: Jumps and Quantifiers 3 3.1. Arithmetical Hierarchy 3 3.2. Degrees and Jumps 4 3.3. The Zero-Jump, 00 5 3.4. Post's Theorem 5 Acknowledgments 8 References 8 1. Basic Computability Definition 1.1. An algorithm is a procedure capable of being carried out by a computer program. It accepts various forms of numerical inputs including numbers and finite strings of numbers. Computability theory is a branch of mathematical logic that focuses on algo- rithms, formally known in this area as computable functions, and studies the degree, or level of computability that can be attributed to various sets (these concepts will be formally defined and elaborated upon below). This field was founded in the 1930s by many mathematicians including the logicians: Alan Turing, Stephen Kleene, Alonzo Church, and Emil Post. Turing first pioneered computability theory when he introduced the fundamental concept of the a-machine which is now known as the Turing machine (this concept will be intuitively defined below) in his 1936 pa- per, On computable numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem[7].
    [Show full text]
  • Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. ML-Randomness 3 2.1. Turing Degrees 3 3. K-Triviality and Combinatorial Properties 4 3.1. Traceability 5 4
    RANDOMNESS AND COMPUTABILITY: OPEN QUESTIONS JOSEPH S. MILLER AND ANDRE´ NIES Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. ML-randomness 3 2.1. Turing degrees 3 3. K-triviality and combinatorial properties 4 3.1. Traceability 5 4. K-triviality, ML-randomness and Turing reducibility 5 4.1. Definability, exact pairs and bounds 5 4.2. Having a ML-random set above 6 4.3. Cupping above ! with a ML-random set 7 4.4. Almost deep degrees∅ 7 5. Notions weaker than ML-randomness 7 5.1. Lowness and bases 8 6. KL-randomness 9 7. Notions stronger than ML-randomness 11 7.1. Strong Chaitin randomness 11 7.2. Weak 2-randomness 12 7.3. Effective descriptive set theory 12 8. Chaitin’s halting probability 13 8.1. Low for Ω and weakly low for K 13 8.2. Relativizing Chaitin’s halting probability 14 8.3. Further questions 15 9. Degrees of Randomness 16 9.1. Coherence with natural randomness classes 16 9.2. The K-degrees 17 9.3. The C-degrees 18 9.4. The vL and LR-degrees 18 10. Effective dimension 19 1. Introduction. It is time for a new paper about open questions in the§ currently very active area of randomness and computability. Ambos- Spies and Kuˇcera presented such a paper in 1999 [1]. All the question 1 2 JOSEPH S. MILLER AND ANDRE´ NIES in it have been solved, except for one: is KL-randomness different from Martin-L¨of randomness? This question is discussed in Section 6. Not all the questions are necessarily hard—some simply have not been tried seriously.
    [Show full text]
  • Emil Post By: Henry Ouellette Introduction
    I study Mathematics as a product of the human mind and not as absolute. – Emil Leon Post Emil Post By: Henry Ouellette Introduction • Emil Leon Post was born on February 11 1897 in the Russian Empire, now called Poland • Post passed away on April 21, 1954 at the age of 57 • Post was born to a Polish-Jewish family, and emigrated from Poland to New York City in 1904. • Post lost his left arm in an accident at the age of 12. This lead him onto the path of mathematics. • Post attended and graduated from Townsend Harris High School, and continued on to the City College of New York, where he graduated in 1917 with a B.S. in Mathematics. • Post would continue on to Columbia University, where he would get his PhD in Mathematics. He did post-doctorate work at Princeton from 1920 to 1921. What did he do? • Emil Post is responsible for the phenomena we study in class! He is the founding father of the Propositional Calculus. • Post also devised truth tables before they were called truth tables! • Post also produced the first Post production system, a system similar to Alan Turing’s Turing Machine. Wrap-Up • Emil Post created the systems that computability experts use daily. He is the third horseman of Computability Theory, along with Alonzo Church and Alan Turing. • Post also helped pioneer recursion theory with his “Post Problem” • This problem entailed that there may exist a recursively enumerable set that cannot be computed. This differs from the Halting Problem because the Turing Degree of the set is less than that of the Halting Problem..
    [Show full text]
  • Constructive Dimension and Turing Degrees
    Constructive Dimension and Turing Degrees Laurent Bienvenu∗ David Dotyy Frank Stephanz Universit´ede Provence Iowa State University National University of Singapore Abstract This paper examines the constructive Hausdorff and packing dimensions of Turing degrees. The main result is that every infinite sequence S with constructive Hausdorff dimension dimH(S) and constructive packing dimension dimP(S) is Turing equivalent to a sequence R with dimH(R) ≥ (dimH(S)=dimP(S)) − , for arbitrary > 0. Furthermore, if dimP(S) > 0, then dimP(R) ≥ 1 − . The reduction thus serves as a randomness extractor that increases the algorithmic randomness of S, as measured by constructive dimension. A number of applications of this result shed new light on the constructive dimen- sions of Turing degrees. A lower bound of dimH(S)=dimP(S) is shown to hold for the Turing degree of any sequence S. A new proof is given of a previously-known zero-one law for the constructive packing dimension of Turing degrees. It is also shown that, for any regular sequence S (that is, dimH(S) = dimP(S)) such that dimH(S) > 0, the Turing degree of S has constructive Hausdorff and packing dimension equal to 1. Finally, it is shown that no single Turing reduction can be a universal constructive Hausdorff dimension extractor, and that bounded Turing reductions cannot extract constructive Hausdorff dimension. We also exhibit sequences on which weak truth- table and bounded Turing reductions differ in their ability to extract dimension. 1 Introduction Hausdorff [8] initiated the study of dimension as a general framework to define the size of subsets of metric spaces.
    [Show full text]