DOCSLIB.ORG

18-Turing.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
18-Turing.Pdf COMPUTER SCIENCE SEDGEWICK/WAYNE Computer Science Computer 18. Turing Machines Science An Interdisciplinary Approach R O B E R T S E D G E W I C K Section 7.4 KEVIN WAYNE http://introcs.cs.princeton.edu Universality and computability Fundamental questions • What is a general-purpose computer? • Are there limits on the power of digital computers? • Are there limits on the power of machines we can build? Pioneering work at Princeton in the 1930s. David Hilbert Kurt Gödel Alsonzo Church Alan Turing 1862−1943 1906−1978 1903−1995 1912−1954 Asked the questions Solved the math Solved the decision Provided THE answers problem problem 2 Context: Mathematics and logic Principia Mathematics Mathematics. Any formal system powerful enough to express arithmetic. Peano arithmetic Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory . Complete. Can prove truth or falsity of any arithmetic statement. Consistent. Cannot prove contradictions like 2 + 2 = 5. Decidable. An algorithm exists to determine truth of every statement. Q. (Hilbert, 1900) Is mathematics complete and consistent? A. (Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, 1931) NO (!!!) Q. (Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem) Is mathematics decidable? A. (Church 1936, Turing 1936) NO (!!) 3 COMPUTER SCIENCE SEDGEWICK/WAYNE 18. Turing Machines •A simple model of computation •Universality •Computability •Implications CS.18.A.Turing.Machine Starting point Goals • Develop a model of computation that encompasses all known computational processes. • Make the model as simple as possible. Example: A familiar computational process. 1 0 1 0 3 1 4 2 Characteristics 7 1 8 2 • Discrete. 1 0 3 2 4 • Local. • States. 5 Previous lecture: DFAs A DFA is an abstract machine that solves a pattern matching problem. • A string is specified on an input tape (no limit on its length). • The DFA reads each character on input tape once, moving left to right. • The DFA lights "YES" if it recognizes the string, "NO" otherwise. Each DFA defines a set of strings (all the strings that it recognizes). NO YES b b a a b b a b b 6 This lecture: Turing machines A Turing machine (TM) is an abstract model of computation. • A string is specified on a tape (no limit on its length). • The TM reads and writes characters on the tape, moving left or right. • The TM lights "YES" if it recognizes the string, "NO" otherwise. • The TM may halt, leaving the result of the computation on the tape. NO HALT YES . 7 Previous lecture: DFA details and example A DFA is an abstract machine with a finite number of states, each labelled Y or N and transitions between states, each labelled with a symbol. One state is the start state. • Begin in the start state. • Read an input symbol and move to the indicated state. • Repeat until the last input symbol has been read. • Turn on the "YES" or "NO" light according to the label on the current state. NO a a a Does this DFA recognize Y b N b N this string? b YES b b a a b b a b b 8 This lecture: Turing Machine details and example A Turing Machine is an abstract machine with a finite number of states, each labelled Y, N, H, L, or R and transitions between states, each labelled with a read/write pair of symbols. • Begin in the designated start state. • Read an input symbol, move to the indicated state and write the indicated output. • Move tape head left if new state is labelled L, right if it is labelled R. • Repeat until entering a state labelled Y, N, or H ( and turn on associated light). NO 1:0 #:1 R #:# L H HALT 0:1 YES # # # 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 # # # 9 DFAs vs TMs Similarities • Simple model of computation. • Input on tape is a finite string with symbols from a finite alphabet. • Finite number of states. • State transitions determined by current state and input symbol. Differences DFAs TMs • Can read input symbols from the tape. • Can read from or write onto the tape. • Can only move tape head to the right. • Can move tape head either direction. • Tape is finite (a string). • Tape does not end (either direction). • One state transition per input symbol. • No limit on number of transitions. • Can recognize (turn on "YES" or "NO"). • Can also compute (with output on tape). 10 TM example 1: Binary decrementer NO 0:1 R #:# L 1:0 H HALT YES # # # 01 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 # # # Input 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Output 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 11 TM example 1: Binary decrementer Q. What happens when we try to decrement 0? NO 0:1 #:# R #:# L 1:0 H HALT YES # # # 1# # # # # 0 0 0 0 # # # A. Doesn't halt! TMs can have bugs, too. Fix to avoid infinite loop. Check for #. 12 TM example 2: Binary incrementer Note: This adds a 1 at the left as the last step when incrementing 111...1 NO 1:0 #:1 R #:# L H HALT 0:1 YES # # # 10 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 # # # Input 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 Output 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 TM example 3: Binary adder (method) To compute x + y • Move right to right end of y. ... # # 1 0 1 1 + 1 0 1 0 # # ... • Decrement y. ... # # 1 0 1 1 + 1 0 0 1 # # ... • Move left to right end of x (left of +) . ... # # 1 0 1 1 + 1 0 0 1 # # ... • Increment x. ... # # 1 1 0 0 + 1 0 0 1 # # ... • Continue until y = 0 is decremented. ... # 1 0 1 0 1 + 1 1 1 1 # # ... Found + when seeking 1? Just decremented 0. • Clean up by erasing + and 1s. ... # 1 0 1 0 1 # # # # # # # ... Clean up 14 TM example 3: Binary adder # 1 0 1 1 + 1 0 1 0 # NO 0:1 Find + 1:0 # 1 0 1 1 + 1 0 0 1 # Decrement y L L HALT +:# +:+ 1:# Halt # 1 0 1 1 + 1 0 0 1 # YES R #:# H # 1 1 0 0 + 1 0 0 1 # Clean Up #:# 0:1 ... Find right end R L Increment x #:1 1 0 1 0 1 + 1 1 1 1 # 1:0 1 0 1 0 1 # # # # # # # # # 1 0 1 1 + 1 0 1 0 # # # 15 Simulating an infinite tape with two stacks Q. How can we simulate a tape that is infinite on both ends? A. Use two stacks, one for each end. private Stack<Character> left; private Stack<Character> right; private char read() # # # 1 0 1 1 + 1 0 1 0 # # # { if (right.isEmpty()) return '#'; return right.pop(); "tape head" is top of right stack } assumes write just 1 private char write(char c) after each { right.push(c); } read 1 move 1 right private void moveRight() + + { 1 1 char c = '#'; move if (!right.isEmpty()) c = right.pop(); 0 1 0 left left.push(c); 0 0 0 1 } 1 1 1 0 private void moveLeft() { # # # # char c = '#'; empty? assume # is there if (!left.isEmpty()) c = left.pop(); right.push(c); } 16 Simulating the operation of a Turing machine public class TM fixes bug { 0:1 #:# private int state; R #:# L 1:0 H private int start; 0 1 2 private String[] action; private ST<Character, Integer>[] next; private ST<Character, Character>[] out; action[] next[] out[] /* Stack code from previous slide */ 0 1 # 0 1 # public TM(In in) { /* Fill in data structures */ } 0 R 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 # public String simulate(String input) 1 L 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 # { state = start; 2 H 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 # for (int i = input.length()-1; i >= 0; i--) entries in gray are implicit in graphical representation right.push(input.charAt(i); while (action(state).equals("L") || action(state).equals("R")) % more dec.txt { 3 01# 0 char c = read(); R 0 0 1 0 1 # state = next[state].get(c); L 1 2 2 1 0 # write(out[state].get(c)); if (action[state].equals("R") moveRight(); H 2 2 2 0 1 # if (action[state].equals("L") moveLeft(); % java TM dec.txt } 000111 return action[state]; 000110 } 010000 public static void main(String[] args) 001111 { /* Similar to DFA's main() */ } 000000 } 111111 17 COMPUTER SCIENCE SEDGEWICK/WAYNE 18. Turing Machines •A simple model of computation •Universality •Computability •Implications CS.18.B.Turing.Universality Representing a Turing machine Turing's key insight. A TM is nothing more than a finite sequence of symbols. dec.txt decrementer TM 0:1 #:# 3 01# 0 R 0 0 1 0 1 # R #:# L 1:0 H L 1 2 2 1 0 # 0 1 2 H 2 2 2 0 1 # Implication. Can put a TM and its input on a TM tape. 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 # 0 R 0 0 1 0 1 # L 1 2 1 1 0 # H 2 2 2 0 1 # Profound implication. We can use a TM to simulate the operation of any TM. 19 Universal Turing machine (UTM) Universal Turing machine. A TM that takes as input NO HALT any TM and input for that TM on a TM tape. UTM YES . # # # 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 # 0 R 0 0 1 0 1 $ L 1 2 1 1 0 $ H 2 2 2 0 1 $ / input to decrementer TM decrementer TM Result. Whatever would happen if that TM were to NO run with that input (could loop or end in Y, N or H).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mathematical Foundations of CS Dr. S. Rodger Section: Decidability (Handout)
    CPS 140 - Mathematical Foundations of CS Dr. S. Rodger Section: Decidability (handout) Read Section 12.1. Computability A function f with domain D is computable if there exists some TM M such that M computes f for all values in its domain. Decidability A problem is decidable if there exists a TM that can answer yes or no to every statement in the domain of the problem. The Halting Problem Domain: set of all TMs and all strings w. Question: Given coding of M and w, does M halt on w? (yes or no) Theorem The halting problem is undecidable. Proof: (by contradiction) • Assume there is a TM H (or algorithm) that solves this problem. TM H has 2 final states, qy represents yes and qn represents no. TM H has input the coding of TM M (denoted wM ) and input string w and ends in state qy (yes) if M halts on w and ends in state qn (no) if M doesn’t halt on w. (yes) halts in qy if M halts on w H(wM ;w)= 0 (no) halts in qn if M doesn thaltonw TM H always halts in a final state. Construct TM H’ from H such that H’ halts if H ends in state qn and H’ doesn’t halt if H ends in state qy. 0 0 halts if M doesn thaltonw H (wM ;w)= doesn0t halt if M halts on w 1 Construct TM Hˆ from H’ such that Hˆ makes a copy of wM and then behaves like H’. (simulates TM M on the input string that is the encoding of TM M, applies Mw to Mw).
    [Show full text]
  • A Probabilistic Anytime Algorithm for the Halting Problem
    Computability 7 (2018) 259–271 259 DOI 10.3233/COM-170073 IOS Press A probabilistic anytime algorithm for the halting problem Cristian S. Calude Department of Computer Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand [email protected] www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~cristian Monica Dumitrescu Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Bucharest University, Romania [email protected] http://goo.gl/txsqpU The first author dedicates his contribution to this paper to the memory of his collaborator and friend S. Barry Cooper (1943–2015). Abstract. TheHaltingProblem,the most (in)famous undecidableproblem,has important applications in theoretical andapplied computer scienceand beyond, hencethe interest in its approximate solutions. Experimental results reportedonvarious models of computationsuggest that haltingprogramsare not uniformly distributed– running times play an important role.A reason is thataprogram whicheventually stopsbut does not halt “quickly”, stops ata timewhich is algorithmically compressible. In this paperweworkwith running times to defineaclass of computable probability distributions on theset of haltingprograms in ordertoconstructananytimealgorithmfor theHaltingproblem withaprobabilisticevaluationofthe errorofthe decision. Keywords: HaltingProblem,anytimealgorithm, running timedistribution 1. Introduction The Halting Problem asks to decide, from a description of an arbitrary program and an input, whether the computation of the program on that input will eventually stop or continue forever. In 1936 Alonzo Church, and independently Alan Turing, proved that (in Turing’s formulation) an algorithm to solve the Halting Problem for all possible program-input pairs does not exist; two equivalent models have been used to describe computa- tion by algorithms (an informal notion), the lambda calculus by Church and Turing machines by Turing. The Halting Problem is historically the first proved undecidable problem; it has many applications in mathematics, logic and theoretical as well as applied computer science, mathematics, physics, biology, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Referential Basis of Undecidable Dynamics: from the Liar Paradox and the Halting Problem to the Edge of Chaos
    Self-referential basis of undecidable dynamics: from The Liar Paradox and The Halting Problem to The Edge of Chaos Mikhail Prokopenko1, Michael Harre´1, Joseph Lizier1, Fabio Boschetti2, Pavlos Peppas3;4, Stuart Kauffman5 1Centre for Complex Systems, Faculty of Engineering and IT The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia 2CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Floreat, WA 6014, Australia 3Department of Business Administration, University of Patras, Patras 265 00, Greece 4University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA 5University of Pennsylvania, USA [email protected] Abstract In this paper we explore several fundamental relations between formal systems, algorithms, and dynamical sys- tems, focussing on the roles of undecidability, universality, diagonalization, and self-reference in each of these com- putational frameworks. Some of these interconnections are well-known, while some are clarified in this study as a result of a fine-grained comparison between recursive formal systems, Turing machines, and Cellular Automata (CAs). In particular, we elaborate on the diagonalization argument applied to distributed computation carried out by CAs, illustrating the key elements of Godel’s¨ proof for CAs. The comparative analysis emphasizes three factors which underlie the capacity to generate undecidable dynamics within the examined computational frameworks: (i) the program-data duality; (ii) the potential to access an infinite computational medium; and (iii) the ability to im- plement negation. The considered adaptations of Godel’s¨ proof distinguish between computational universality and undecidability, and show how the diagonalization argument exploits, on several levels, the self-referential basis of undecidability. 1 Introduction It is well-known that there are deep connections between dynamical systems, algorithms, and formal systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes on Unprovable Statements
    Stanford University | CS154: Automata and Complexity Handout 4 Luca Trevisan and Ryan Williams 2/9/2012 Notes on Unprovable Statements We prove that in any \interesting" formalization of mathematics: • There are true statements that cannot be proved. • The consistency of the formalism cannot be proved within the system. • The problem of checking whether a given statement has a proof is undecidable. The first part and second parts were proved by G¨odelin 1931, the third part was proved by Church and Turing in 1936. The Church-Turing result also gives a different way of proving G¨odel'sresults, and we will present these proofs instead of G¨odel'soriginal ones. By \formalization of mathematics" we mean the description of a formal language to write mathematical statements, a precise definition of what it means for a statement to be true, and a precise definition of what is a valid proof for a given statement. A formal system is consistent, or sound, if no false statement has a valid proof. We will only consider consistent formal systems. A formal system is complete if every true statement has a valid proof; we will argue that no interesting formal system can be consistent and complete. We say that a (consistent) formalization of mathematics is \interesting" if it has the following properties: 1. Mathematical statements that can be precisely described in English should be expressible in the system. In particular, we will assume that, given a Turing machine M and an input w, it is possible to construct a statement SM;w in the system that means \the Turing machine M accepts the input w".
    [Show full text]
  • Certified Undecidability of Intuitionistic Linear Logic Via Binary Stack Machines and Minsky Machines Yannick Forster, Dominique Larchey-Wendling
    Certified Undecidability of Intuitionistic Linear Logic via Binary Stack Machines and Minsky Machines Yannick Forster, Dominique Larchey-Wendling To cite this version: Yannick Forster, Dominique Larchey-Wendling. Certified Undecidability of Intuitionistic Linear Logic via Binary Stack Machines and Minsky Machines. The 8th ACM SIGPLAN International Con- ference on Certified Programs and Proofs, CPP 2019, Jan 2019, Cascais, Portugal. pp.104-117, 10.1145/3293880.3294096. hal-02333390 HAL Id: hal-02333390 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02333390 Submitted on 9 Nov 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Certified Undecidability of Intuitionistic Linear Logic via Binary Stack Machines and Minsky Machines Yannick Forster Dominique Larchey-Wendling Saarland University Université de Lorraine, CNRS, LORIA Saarbrücken, Germany Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France [email protected] [email protected] Abstract machines (BSM), Minsky machines (MM) and (elementary) We formally prove the undecidability of entailment in intu- intuitionistic linear logic (both eILL and ILL): itionistic linear logic in Coq. We reduce the Post correspond- PCP ⪯ BPCP ⪯ iBPCP ⪯ BSM ⪯ MM ⪯ eILL ⪯ ILL ence problem (PCP) via binary stack machines and Minsky machines to intuitionistic linear logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to the Theory of Computation Computability, Complexity, and the Lambda Calculus Some Notes for CIS262
    Introduction to the Theory of Computation Computability, Complexity, And the Lambda Calculus Some Notes for CIS262 Jean Gallier and Jocelyn Quaintance Department of Computer and Information Science University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA e-mail: [email protected] c Jean Gallier Please, do not reproduce without permission of the author April 28, 2020 2 Contents Contents 3 1 RAM Programs, Turing Machines 7 1.1 Partial Functions and RAM Programs . 10 1.2 Definition of a Turing Machine . 15 1.3 Computations of Turing Machines . 17 1.4 Equivalence of RAM programs And Turing Machines . 20 1.5 Listable Languages and Computable Languages . 21 1.6 A Simple Function Not Known to be Computable . 22 1.7 The Primitive Recursive Functions . 25 1.8 Primitive Recursive Predicates . 33 1.9 The Partial Computable Functions . 35 2 Universal RAM Programs and the Halting Problem 41 2.1 Pairing Functions . 41 2.2 Equivalence of Alphabets . 48 2.3 Coding of RAM Programs; The Halting Problem . 50 2.4 Universal RAM Programs . 54 2.5 Indexing of RAM Programs . 59 2.6 Kleene's T -Predicate . 60 2.7 A Non-Computable Function; Busy Beavers . 62 3 Elementary Recursive Function Theory 67 3.1 Acceptable Indexings . 67 3.2 Undecidable Problems . 70 3.3 Reducibility and Rice's Theorem . 73 3.4 Listable (Recursively Enumerable) Sets . 76 3.5 Reducibility and Complete Sets . 82 4 The Lambda-Calculus 87 4.1 Syntax of the Lambda-Calculus . 89 4.2 β-Reduction and β-Conversion; the Church{Rosser Theorem . 94 4.3 Some Useful Combinators .
    [Show full text]
  • Halting Problems: a Historical Reading of a Paradigmatic Computer Science Problem
    PROGRAMme Autumn workshop 2018, Bertinoro L. De Mol Halting problems: a historical reading of a paradigmatic computer science problem Liesbeth De Mol1 and Edgar G. Daylight2 1 CNRS, UMR 8163 Savoirs, Textes, Langage, Universit´e de Lille, [email protected] 2 Siegen University, [email protected] 1 PROGRAMme Autumn workshop 2018, Bertinoro L. De Mol and E.G. Daylight Introduction (1) \The improbable symbolism of Peano, Russel, and Whitehead, the analysis of proofs by flowcharts spearheaded by Gentzen, the definition of computability by Church and Turing, all inventions motivated by the purest of mathematics, mark the beginning of the computer revolution. Once more, we find a confirmation of the sentence Leonardo jotted despondently on one of those rambling sheets where he confided his innermost thoughts: `Theory is the captain, and application the soldier.' " (Metropolis, Howlett and Rota, 1980) Introduction 2 PROGRAMme Autumn workshop 2018, Bertinoro L. De Mol and E.G. Daylight Introduction (2) Why is this `improbable' symbolism considered relevant in comput- ing? ) Different non-excluding answers... 1. (the socio-historical answers) studying social and institutional developments in computing to understand why logic, or, theory, was/is considered to be the captain (or not) e.g. need for logic framed in CS's struggle for disciplinary identity and independence (cf (Tedre 2015)) 2. (the philosophico-historical answers) studying history of computing on a more technical level to understand why and how logic (or theory) are in- troduced in the computing practices { question: is there something to com- puting which makes logic epistemologically relevant to it? ) significance of combining the different answers (and the respective approaches they result in) ) In this talk: focus on paradigmatic \problem" of (theoretical) computer science { the halting problem Introduction 3 PROGRAMme Autumn workshop 2018, Bertinoro L.
    [Show full text]
  • Undecidable Problems: a Sampler (.Pdf)
    UNDECIDABLE PROBLEMS: A SAMPLER BJORN POONEN Abstract. After discussing two senses in which the notion of undecidability is used, we present a survey of undecidable decision problems arising in various branches of mathemat- ics. 1. Introduction The goal of this survey article is to demonstrate that undecidable decision problems arise naturally in many branches of mathematics. The criterion for selection of a problem in this survey is simply that the author finds it entertaining! We do not pretend that our list of undecidable problems is complete in any sense. And some of the problems we consider turn out to be decidable or to have unknown decidability status. For another survey of undecidable problems, see [Dav77]. 2. Two notions of undecidability There are two common settings in which one speaks of undecidability: 1. Independence from axioms: A single statement is called undecidable if neither it nor its negation can be deduced using the rules of logic from the set of axioms being used. (Example: The continuum hypothesis, that there is no cardinal number @0 strictly between @0 and 2 , is undecidable in the ZFC axiom system, assuming that ZFC itself is consistent [G¨od40,Coh63, Coh64].) The first examples of statements independent of a \natural" axiom system were constructed by K. G¨odel[G¨od31]. 2. Decision problem: A family of problems with YES/NO answers is called unde- cidable if there is no algorithm that terminates with the correct answer for every problem in the family. (Example: Hilbert's tenth problem, to decide whether a mul- tivariable polynomial equation with integer coefficients has a solution in integers, is undecidable [Mat70].) Remark 2.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Lambda Calculus and Computation 6.037 – Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
    Lambda Calculus and Computation 6.037 { Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs Benjamin Barenblat [email protected] Massachusetts Institute of Technology With material from Mike Phillips, Nelson Elhage, and Chelsea Voss January 30, 2019 Benjamin Barenblat 6.037 Lambda Calculus and Computation : Build a calculating machine that gives a yes/no answer to all mathematical questions. Figure: Alonzo Church Figure: Alan Turing (1912-1954), (1903-1995), lambda calculus Turing machines Theorem (Church, Turing, 1936): These models of computation can't solve every problem. Proof: next! Limits to Computation David Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem (1928) Benjamin Barenblat 6.037 Lambda Calculus and Computation Figure: Alonzo Church Figure: Alan Turing (1912-1954), (1903-1995), lambda calculus Turing machines Theorem (Church, Turing, 1936): These models of computation can't solve every problem. Proof: next! Limits to Computation David Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem (1928): Build a calculating machine that gives a yes/no answer to all mathematical questions. Benjamin Barenblat 6.037 Lambda Calculus and Computation Theorem (Church, Turing, 1936): These models of computation can't solve every problem. Proof: next! Limits to Computation David Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem (1928): Build a calculating machine that gives a yes/no answer to all mathematical questions. Figure: Alonzo Church Figure: Alan Turing (1912-1954), (1903-1995), lambda calculus Turing machines Benjamin Barenblat 6.037 Lambda Calculus and Computation Proof: next! Limits to Computation David Hilbert's Entscheidungsproblem (1928): Build a calculating machine that gives a yes/no answer to all mathematical questions. Figure: Alonzo Church Figure: Alan Turing (1912-1954), (1903-1995), lambda calculus Turing machines Theorem (Church, Turing, 1936): These models of computation can't solve every problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1111.3965V3 [Quant-Ph] 25 Jun 2012 Setting
    Quantum measurement occurrence is undecidable J. Eisert,1 M. P. Muller,¨ 2 and C. Gogolin1 1Qmio Group, Dahlem Center for Complex Quantum Systems, Freie Universitat¨ Berlin, 14195 Berlin, Germany 2Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, 31 Caroline Street North, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 2Y5, Canada In this work, we show that very natural, apparently simple problems in quantum measurement theory can be undecidable even if their classical analogues are decidable. Undecidability hence appears as a genuine quantum property here. Formally, an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which one cannot construct a single algorithm that will always provide a correct answer in finite time. The problem we consider is to determine whether sequentially used identical Stern-Gerlach-type measurement devices, giving rise to a tree of possible outcomes, have outcomes that never occur. Finally, we point out implications for measurement-based quantum computing and studies of quantum many-body models and suggest that a plethora of problems may indeed be undecidable. At the heart of the field of quantum information theory is the insight that the computational complexity of similar tasks in quantum and classical settings may be crucially different. Here we present an extreme example of this phenomenon: an operationally defined problem that is undecidable in the quan- tum setting but decidable in an even slightly more general classical analog. While the early focus in the field was on the assessment of tasks of quantum information processing, it has become increasingly clear that studies in computational complexity are also very fruitful when approaching problems FIG. 1. (Color online) The setting of sequential application of Stern- Gerlach-type devices considered here, gives rise to a tree of possible outside the realm of actual information processing, for exam- outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Halting Problem
    Automata Theory CS411-2015S-FR2 Final Review David Galles Department of Computer Science University of San Francisco FR2-0: Halting Problem Halting Machine takes as input an encoding of a Turing Machine e(M) and an encoding of an input string e(w), and returns “yes” if M halts on w, and “no” if M does not halt on w. Like writing a Java program that parses a Java function, and determines if that function halts on a specific input e(M) Halting yes e(w) Machine no FR2-1: Halting Problem Halting Machine takes as input an encoding of a Turing Machine e(M) and an encoding of an input string e(w), and returns “yes” if M halts on w, and “no” if M does not halt on w. Like writing a Java program that parses a Java function, and determines if that function halts on a specific input How might the Java version work? Check for loops while (<test>) <body> Use program verification techniques to see if test can ever be false, etc. FR2-2: Halting Problem The Halting Problem is Undecidable There exists no Turing Machine that decides it There is no Turing Machine that halts on all inputs, and always says “yes” if M halts on w, and always says “no” if M does not halt on w Prove Halting Problem is Undecidable by Contradiction: FR2-3: Halting Problem Prove Halting Problem is Undecidable by Contradiction: Assume that there is some Turing Machine that solves the halting problem. e(M) Halting yes e(w) Machine no We can use this machine to create a new machine Q: Q e(M) runs forever e(M) Halting yes e(M) Machine no yes FR2-4: Halting Problem Q e(M) runs forever e(M) Halting yes e(M) Machine no yes R yes MDUPLICATE MHALT no yes FR2-5: Halting Problem Machine Q takes as input a Turing Machine M, and either halts, or runs forever.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gödel Incompleteness Theorems (1931) by the Axiom of Choice
    The G¨odel incompleteness theorems (1931) by the axiom of choice Vasil Penchev, [email protected] Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: Institute of philosophy and Sociology: Dept. of Logic and Philosophy of Science Abstract. Those incompleteness theorems mean the relation of (Peano) arithmetic and (ZFC) set theory, or philosophically, the relation of arithmetical finiteness and actual infinity. The same is managed in the framework of set theory by the axiom of choice (respectively, by the equivalent well-ordering "theorem'). One may discuss that incompleteness form the viewpoint of set theory by the axiom of choice rather than the usual viewpoint meant in the proof of theorems. The logical corollaries from that "nonstandard" viewpoint the relation of set theory and arithmetic are demonstrated. Key words: choice, arithmetic, set theory, well-ordering, information Many efforts address the constructiveness of the proof in the so-called G¨odel first incompleteness theorem (G¨odel, 1931). One should use the axiom of choice in- stead of this and abstract from that the theorem is formulated about statements, which will be replaced by the arbitrary elements of any infinite countable set. Furthermore all four theorems ( G¨odel, 1931; L¨ob, 1955; Rogers, 1967; Jeroslow, 1971) about the so-called metamathematical fixed points induced by the G¨odel incompleteness theorems will be considered jointly and in a generalized way. The strategy is the following: An arbitrary infinite countable set "A" and another set "B" so that their intersection is empty are given. One constitutes their union "C=A[B", which will be an infinite set whatever "B" is.
    [Show full text]