DOCSLIB.ORG

Lecture Notes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lecture Notes Theory of Computation- Lecture Notes Michael Levet August 27, 2019 Contents 1 Mathematical Preliminaries 3 1.1 Set Theory . .3 1.2 Relations and Functions . .4 1.2.1 Functions . .4 1.2.2 Equivalence Relations . .6 1.3 Proof by Induction . .8 1.3.1 A Brief Review of Asymptotics . 11 1.4 Combinatorics and Graph Theory . 12 1.4.1 Basic Enumerative Techniques . 12 1.4.2 Combinatorial Proofs . 15 1.4.3 Graph Theory . 16 1.5 Number Theory . 20 1.6 Russell's Paradox and Cantor's Diagonal Argument . 24 2 Automata Theory 25 2.1 Regular Languages . 25 2.2 Finite State Automata . 26 2.3 Converting from Regular Expressions to -NFA........................... 31 2.4 Algebraic Structure of Regular Languages . 33 2.5 DFAs, NFAs, and -NFAs ....................................... 34 2.6 DFAs to Regular Expressions- Brzozowski's Algebraic Method . 37 2.7 Pumping Lemma for Regular Languages . 41 2.8 Closure Properties . 42 2.9 Myhill-Nerode and DFA Minimization . 44 3 More Group Theory (Optional) 48 3.1 Introductory Group Theory . 48 3.1.1 Introduction to Groups . 48 3.1.2 Dihedral Group . 50 3.1.3 Symmetry Group . 53 3.1.4 Group Homomorphisms and Isomorphisms . 55 3.1.5 Group Actions . 56 3.1.6 Algebraic Graph Theory- Cayley Graphs . 58 3.1.7 Algebraic Graph Theory- Transposition Graphs . 60 3.2 Subgroups . 61 3.2.1 Cyclic Groups . 64 3.2.2 Subgroups Generated By Subsets of a Group . 66 3.2.3 Subgroup Poset and Lattice (Hasse) Diagram . 66 3.3 Quotient Groups . 69 3.3.1 Introduction to Quotients . 69 3.3.2 Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups . 70 3.3.3 More on Cosets and Lagrange's Theorem . 73 3.3.4 The Group Isomorphism Theorems . 76 3.3.5 Alternating Group . 79 3.3.6 Algebraic Graph Theory- Graph Homomorphisms . 81 1 3.3.7 Algebraic Combinatorics- The Determinant . 84 3.4 Group Actions . 84 3.4.1 Conjugacy . 84 3.4.2 Automorphisms of Groups . 88 3.4.3 Sylow's Theorems . 88 3.4.4 Applications of Sylow's Theorems . 91 3.4.5 Algebraic Combinatorics- P´olya Enumeration Theory . 93 4 Turing Machines and Computability Theory 93 4.1 Standard Deterministic Turing Machine . 93 4.2 Variations on the Standard Turing Machine . 96 4.3 Turing Machine Encodings . 98 4.4 Chomsky Heirarchy and Some Decidable Problems . 98 4.5 Undecidability . 101 4.6 Reducibility . 102 5 Complexity Theory 103 5.1 Time Complexity- P and NP ...................................... 104 5.2 NP-Completeness . 106 5.3 More on P and P-Completeness . 111 5.4 Closure Properties of NP and P .................................... 114 5.5 Structural Proofs for NP and P ..................................... 114 5.6 Ladner's Theorem . 114 5.6.1 Russell Impagliazzo's Proof of Ladner's Theorem . 117 5.7 PSPACE .................................................. 119 5.8 PSPACE-Complete . 119 2 1 Mathematical Preliminaries 1.1 Set Theory Definition 1 (Set). A set is collection of distinct elements, where the order in which the elements are listed does not matter. The size of a set S, denoted jSj, is known as its cardinality or order. The members of a set are referred to as its elements. We denote membership of x in S as x 2 S. Similarly, if x is not in S, we denote x 62 S. Example 1. Common examples of sets include the set of real numbers R; the set of rational numbers Q, and + + + the set of integers Z. The sets R ; Q and Z denote the strictly positive elements of the reals, rationals, + and integers respectively. We denote the set of natural numbers N = f0; 1;:::g. Let n 2 Z and denote [n] = f1; : : : ; ng. We now review several basic set operations, as well as the power set. It is expected that students will be familiar with these constructs. Therefore, we proceed briskly, recalling definitions and basic examples intended solely as a refresher. Definition 2. Set Union Let A; B be sets. Then the union of A and B, denoted A [ B is the set: A [ B := fx : x 2 A or x 2 Bg Example 2. Let A = f1; 2; 3g and B = f4; 5; 6g. Then A [ B = f1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6g. Example 3. Let A = f1; 2; 3g and B = f3; 4; 5g. So A [ B = f1; 2; 3; 4; 5g. Recall that sets do not contain duplicate elements. So even though 3 appears in both A and B, 3 occurs exactly once in A [ B. Definition 3. Set Intersection Let A; B be sets. Then the intersection of A and B, denoted A \ B is the set: A \ B := fx : x 2 A and x 2 Bg Example 4. Let A = f1; 2; 3g and B = f1; 3; 5g. Then A \ B = f1; 3g. Now let C = f4g. So A \ C = ;. Definition 4 (Symmetric Difference). Let A; B be sets. Then the symmetric difference of A and B, denoted A4B is the set: A4B := fx : x 2 A or x 2 B, but x 62 A \ Bg Example 5. Let A = f1; 2; 3g and B = f1; 3; 5g. Then A4B = f2; 5g. For our next two definitions, we let U be our universe. That is, let U be a set. Any sets we consider are subsets of U. Definition 5 (Set Complementation). Let A be a set contained in our universe U. The complement of A, denoted AC or A, is the set: A := fx 2 U : x 62 Ag Example 6. Let U = [5], and let A = f1; 2; 4g. Then A = f3; 5g. Definition 6 (Set Difference). Let A; B be sets contained in our universe U. The difference of A and B, denoted A n B or A − B, is the set: A n B = fx : x 2 A and x 62 Bg Example 7. Let U = [5], A = f1; 2; 3g and B = f1; 2g. Then A n B = f3g. Remark: The Set Difference operation is frequently known as the relative complement, as we are taking the complement of B relative to A rather than with respect to the universe U. Definition 7 (Cartesian Product). Let A; B be sets. The Cartesian product of A and B, denoted A × B, is the set: A × B := f(a; b): a 2 A; b 2 Bg Example 8. Let A = f1; 2; 3g and B = fa; bg. Then A × B = f(1; a); (1; b); (2; a); (2; b); (3; a); (3; b)g. 3 Definition 8 (Power Set). Let S be a set. The power set of S, denoted 2S or P(S), is the set of all subsets of S. Formally: 2S := fA : A ⊂ Sg Example 9. Let S = f1; 2; 3g. So 2S = f;; f1g; f2g; f3g; f1; 2g; f1; 3g; f2; 3g; f1; 2; 3gg. Remark: For finite sets S, j2Sj = 2jSj; hence, the choice of notation. Definition 9 (Subset). Let A; B be sets. A is said to be a subset of B if for every x 2 A, we have x 2 B as well. This is denoted A ⊂ B (equivocally, A ⊆ B). Note that B is a superset of A. Example 10. Let A = [3];B = [6];C = f2; 3; 5g. So we have A ⊂ B and C ⊂ B. However, A 6⊂ C as 1 62 C; and C 6⊂ A, as 5 62 A. Remark: Let S be a set. The subset relation forms a partial order on 2S. To show two sets A and B are equal, we must show A ⊂ B and B ⊂ A. We demonstrate how to prove two sets are equal below. Proposition 1.1. Let A = f6n : n 2 Zg;B = f2n : n 2 Zg;C = f3n : n 2 Zg. So A = B \ C. Proof. We first show that A ⊂ B \ C. Let n 2 Z. So 6n 2 A. We show 6n 2 B \ C. As 2 is a factor of 6, 6n = 2 · (3n) 2 B. Similarly, as 3 is a factor of 6, 6n = 3 · (2n) 2 C. So 6n 2 B \ C. We now show that B \ C ⊂ A. Let x 2 B \ C. Let n1; n2 2 Z such that x = 2n1 = 3n2. As 2 is a factor of x and 3 is a factor of x, it follows that 2 · 3 = 6 is also a factor of x. Thus, x = 6n3 for some n3 2 Z. So x 2 A. Thus, B \ C ⊂ A. Thus, A = B \ C, as desired. Proposition 1.2. Let A; B; C be sets. Then A × (B [ C) = (A × B) [ (A × C). Proof. Let (x; y) 2 A × (B [ C). If y 2 B, then (x; y) 2 (A × B). Otherwise, y 2 C and so (x; y) 2 (A × C). Thus, A × (B [ C) ⊂ (A × B) [ (A × C). Now let (d; f) 2 (A × B) [ (A × C). Clearly, d 2 A. So f must be in either B or C. Thus, (d; f) 2 A × (B [ C), which implies (A × B) [ (A × C) ⊂ A × (B [ C). We conclude that A × (B [ C) = (A × B) [ (A × C). 1.2 Relations and Functions Definition 10 (Relation). Let X be a set. A k-ary relation on X is a subset R ⊂ Xk. Example 11. The notion of equality = over R is the canonical example of a relation. It is perhaps the most well-known instance of an equivalence relation, which will be discussed later. Intuitively, a k-ary relation R contains k-tuples of elements from X that share common properties.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1 Elementary Set Theory
    1 Elementary Set Theory Notation: fg enclose a set. f1; 2; 3g = f3; 2; 2; 1; 3g because a set is not defined by order or multiplicity. f0; 2; 4;:::g = fxjx is an even natural numberg because two ways of writing a set are equivalent. ; is the empty set. x 2 A denotes x is an element of A. N = f0; 1; 2;:::g are the natural numbers. Z = f:::; −2; −1; 0; 1; 2;:::g are the integers. m Q = f n jm; n 2 Z and n 6= 0g are the rational numbers. R are the real numbers. Axiom 1.1. Axiom of Extensionality Let A; B be sets. If (8x)x 2 A iff x 2 B then A = B. Definition 1.1 (Subset). Let A; B be sets. Then A is a subset of B, written A ⊆ B iff (8x) if x 2 A then x 2 B. Theorem 1.1. If A ⊆ B and B ⊆ A then A = B. Proof. Let x be arbitrary. Because A ⊆ B if x 2 A then x 2 B Because B ⊆ A if x 2 B then x 2 A Hence, x 2 A iff x 2 B, thus A = B. Definition 1.2 (Union). Let A; B be sets. The Union A [ B of A and B is defined by x 2 A [ B if x 2 A or x 2 B. Theorem 1.2. A [ (B [ C) = (A [ B) [ C Proof. Let x be arbitrary. x 2 A [ (B [ C) iff x 2 A or x 2 B [ C iff x 2 A or (x 2 B or x 2 C) iff x 2 A or x 2 B or x 2 C iff (x 2 A or x 2 B) or x 2 C iff x 2 A [ B or x 2 C iff x 2 (A [ B) [ C Definition 1.3 (Intersection).
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Directed Graphs Or Quivers What Is Category Theory? • Graph Theory on Steroids • Comic Book Mathematics • Abstract Nonsense • the Secret Dictionary
    1. Directed graphs or quivers What is category theory? • Graph theory on steroids • Comic book mathematics • Abstract nonsense • The secret dictionary Sets and classes: For S = fX j X2 = Xg, have S 2 S , S2 = S Directed graph or quiver: C = (C0;C1;@0 : C1 ! C0;@1 : C1 ! C0) Class C0 of objects, vertices, points, . Class C1 of morphisms, (directed) edges, arrows, . For x; y 2 C0, write C(x; y) := ff 2 C1 j @0f = x; @1f = yg f 2C1 tail, domain / @0f / @1f o head, codomain op Opposite or dual graph of C = (C0;C1;@0;@1) is C = (C0;C1;@1;@0) Graph homomorphism F : D ! C has object part F0 : D0 ! C0 and morphism part F1 : D1 ! C1 with @i ◦ F1(f) = F0 ◦ @i(f) for i = 0; 1. Graph isomorphism has bijective object and morphism parts. Poset (X; ≤): set X with reflexive, antisymmetric, transitive order ≤ Hasse diagram of poset (X; ≤): x ! y if y covers x, i.e., x 6= y and [x; y] = fx; yg, so x ≤ z ≤ y ) z = x or z = y. Hasse diagram of (N; ≤) is 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / ::: Hasse diagram of (f1; 2; 3; 6g; j ) is 3 / 6 O O 1 / 2 1 2 2. Categories Category: Quiver C = (C0;C1;@0 : C1 ! C0;@1 : C1 ! C0) with: • composition: 8 x; y; z 2 C0 ; C(x; y) × C(y; z) ! C(x; z); (f; g) 7! g ◦ f • satisfying associativity: 8 x; y; z; t 2 C0 ; 8 (f; g; h) 2 C(x; y) × C(y; z) × C(z; t) ; h ◦ (g ◦ f) = (h ◦ g) ◦ f y iS qq <SSSS g qq << SSS f qqq h◦g < SSSS qq << SSS qq g◦f < SSS xqq << SS z Vo VV < x VVVV << VVVV < VVVV << h VVVV < h◦(g◦f)=(h◦g)◦f VVVV < VVV+ t • identities: 8 x; y; z 2 C0 ; 9 1y 2 C(y; y) : 8 f 2 C(x; y) ; 1y ◦ f = f and 8 g 2 C(y; z) ; g ◦ 1y = g f y o x MM MM 1y g MM MMM f MMM M& zo g y Example: N0 = fxg ; N1 = N ; 1x = 0 ; 8 m; n 2 N ; n◦m = m+n ; | one object, lots of arrows [monoid of natural numbers under addition] 4 x / x Equation: 3 + 5 = 4 + 4 Commuting diagram: 3 4 x / x 5 ( 1 if m ≤ n; Example: N1 = N ; 8 m; n 2 N ; jN(m; n)j = 0 otherwise | lots of objects, lots of arrows [poset (N; ≤) as a category] These two examples are small categories: have a set of morphisms.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematics 144 Set Theory Fall 2012 Version
    MATHEMATICS 144 SET THEORY FALL 2012 VERSION Table of Contents I. General considerations.……………………………………………………………………………………………………….1 1. Overview of the course…………………………………………………………………………………………………1 2. Historical background and motivation………………………………………………………….………………4 3. Selected problems………………………………………………………………………………………………………13 I I. Basic concepts. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….15 1. Topics from logic…………………………………………………………………………………………………………16 2. Notation and first steps………………………………………………………………………………………………26 3. Simple examples…………………………………………………………………………………………………………30 I I I. Constructions in set theory.………………………………………………………………………………..……….34 1. Boolean algebra operations.……………………………………………………………………………………….34 2. Ordered pairs and Cartesian products……………………………………………………………………… ….40 3. Larger constructions………………………………………………………………………………………………..….42 4. A convenient assumption………………………………………………………………………………………… ….45 I V. Relations and functions ……………………………………………………………………………………………….49 1.Binary relations………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ….49 2. Partial and linear orderings……………………………..………………………………………………… ………… 56 3. Functions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ….…….. 61 4. Composite and inverse function.…………………………………………………………………………… …….. 70 5. Constructions involving functions ………………………………………………………………………… ……… 77 6. Order types……………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………… 80 i V. Number systems and set theory …………………………………………………………………………………. 84 1. The Natural Numbers and Integers…………………………………………………………………………….83 2. Finite induction
    [Show full text]
  • 19 Theory of Computation
    19 Theory of Computation "You are about to embark on the study of a fascinating and important subject: the theory of computation. It com- prises the fundamental mathematical properties of computer hardware, software, and certain applications thereof. In studying this subject we seek to determine what can and cannot be computed, how quickly, with how much memory, and on which type of computational model." - Michael Sipser, "Introduction to the Theory of Computation", one of the driest computer science textbooks ever In which we go back to the basics with arcane, boring, and irrelevant set theory and counting. This week’s material is made challenging by two orthogonal issues. There’s a whole bunch of stuff to cover, and 95% of it isn’t the least bit interesting to a physical scientist. Nevertheless, being the starry-eyed optimist that I am, I’ll forge ahead through the mountainous bulk of knowledge. In other words, expect these notes to be long! But skim when necessary; if you look at the homework first (and haven’t entirely forgotten the lectures), you should be able to pick out the important parts. I understand if this type of stuff isn’t exactly your cup of tea, but bear with me while you can. In some sense, most of what we refer to as computer science isn’t computer science at all, any more than what an accountant does is math. Sure, modern economics takes some crazy hardcore theory to make it all work, but un- derlying the whole thing is a solid layer of applications and industrial moolah.
    [Show full text]
  • Software for Numerical Computation
    Purdue University Purdue e-Pubs Department of Computer Science Technical Reports Department of Computer Science 1977 Software for Numerical Computation John R. Rice Purdue University, [email protected] Report Number: 77-214 Rice, John R., "Software for Numerical Computation" (1977). Department of Computer Science Technical Reports. Paper 154. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cstech/154 This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. SOFTWARE FOR NUMERICAL COMPUTATION John R. Rice Department of Computer Sciences Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907 CSD TR #214 January 1977 SOFTWARE FOR NUMERICAL COMPUTATION John R. Rice Mathematical Sciences Purdue University CSD-TR 214 January 12, 1977 Article to appear in the book: Research Directions in Software Technology. SOFTWARE FOR NUMERICAL COMPUTATION John R. Rice Mathematical Sciences Purdue University INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATING PROBLEMS. The purpose of this article is to examine the research developments in software for numerical computation. Research and development of numerical methods is not intended to be discussed for two reasons. First, a reasonable survey of the research in numerical methods would require a book. The COSERS report [Rice et al, 1977] on Numerical Computation does such a survey in about 100 printed pages and even so the discussion of many important fields (never mind topics) is limited to a few paragraphs. Second, the present book is focused on software and thus it is natural to attempt to separate software research from numerical computation research. This, of course, is not easy as the two are intimately intertwined.
    [Show full text]
  • Turing's Influence on Programming — Book Extract from “The Dawn of Software Engineering: from Turing to Dijkstra”
    Turing's Influence on Programming | Book extract from \The Dawn of Software Engineering: from Turing to Dijkstra" Edgar G. Daylight∗ Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands [email protected] Abstract Turing's involvement with computer building was popularized in the 1970s and later. Most notable are the books by Brian Randell (1973), Andrew Hodges (1983), and Martin Davis (2000). A central question is whether John von Neumann was influenced by Turing's 1936 paper when he helped build the EDVAC machine, even though he never cited Turing's work. This question remains unsettled up till this day. As remarked by Charles Petzold, one standard history barely mentions Turing, while the other, written by a logician, makes Turing a key player. Contrast these observations then with the fact that Turing's 1936 paper was cited and heavily discussed in 1959 among computer programmers. In 1966, the first Turing award was given to a programmer, not a computer builder, as were several subsequent Turing awards. An historical investigation of Turing's influence on computing, presented here, shows that Turing's 1936 notion of universality became increasingly relevant among programmers during the 1950s. The central thesis of this paper states that Turing's in- fluence was felt more in programming after his death than in computer building during the 1940s. 1 Introduction Many people today are led to believe that Turing is the father of the computer, the father of our digital society, as also the following praise for Martin Davis's bestseller The Universal Computer: The Road from Leibniz to Turing1 suggests: At last, a book about the origin of the computer that goes to the heart of the story: the human struggle for logic and truth.
    [Show full text]
  • Invention, Intension and the Limits of Computation
    Minds & Machines { under review (final version pre-review, Copyright Minds & Machines) Invention, Intension and the Limits of Computation Hajo Greif 30 June, 2020 Abstract This is a critical exploration of the relation between two common as- sumptions in anti-computationalist critiques of Artificial Intelligence: The first assumption is that at least some cognitive abilities are specifically human and non-computational in nature, whereas the second assumption is that there are principled limitations to what machine-based computation can accomplish with respect to simulating or replicating these abilities. Against the view that these putative differences between computation in humans and machines are closely re- lated, this essay argues that the boundaries of the domains of human cognition and machine computation might be independently defined, distinct in extension and variable in relation. The argument rests on the conceptual distinction between intensional and extensional equivalence in the philosophy of computing and on an inquiry into the scope and nature of human invention in mathematics, and their respective bearing on theories of computation. Keywords Artificial Intelligence · Intensionality · Extensionality · Invention in mathematics · Turing computability · Mechanistic theories of computation This paper originated as a rather spontaneous and quickly drafted Computability in Europe conference submission. It grew into something more substantial with the help of the CiE review- ers and the author's colleagues in the Philosophy of Computing Group at Warsaw University of Technology, Paula Quinon and Pawe lStacewicz, mediated by an entry to the \Caf´eAleph" blog co-curated by Pawe l. Philosophy of Computing Group, International Center for Formal Ontology (ICFO), Warsaw University of Technology E-mail: [email protected] https://hajo-greif.net; https://tinyurl.com/philosophy-of-computing 2 H.
    [Show full text]
  • Limits on Efficient Computation in the Physical World
    Limits on Efficient Computation in the Physical World by Scott Joel Aaronson Bachelor of Science (Cornell University) 2000 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Committee in charge: Professor Umesh Vazirani, Chair Professor Luca Trevisan Professor K. Birgitta Whaley Fall 2004 The dissertation of Scott Joel Aaronson is approved: Chair Date Date Date University of California, Berkeley Fall 2004 Limits on Efficient Computation in the Physical World Copyright 2004 by Scott Joel Aaronson 1 Abstract Limits on Efficient Computation in the Physical World by Scott Joel Aaronson Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science University of California, Berkeley Professor Umesh Vazirani, Chair More than a speculative technology, quantum computing seems to challenge our most basic intuitions about how the physical world should behave. In this thesis I show that, while some intuitions from classical computer science must be jettisoned in the light of modern physics, many others emerge nearly unscathed; and I use powerful tools from computational complexity theory to help determine which are which. In the first part of the thesis, I attack the common belief that quantum computing resembles classical exponential parallelism, by showing that quantum computers would face serious limitations on a wider range of problems than was previously known. In partic- ular, any quantum algorithm that solves the collision problem—that of deciding whether a sequence of n integers is one-to-one or two-to-one—must query the sequence Ω n1/5 times.
    [Show full text]
  • A Taste of Set Theory for Philosophers
    Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research, Vol. XXVII, No. 2. A Special Issue on "Logic and Philosophy Today", 143-163, 2010. Reprinted in "Logic and Philosophy Today" (edited by A. Gupta ans J.v.Benthem), College Publications vol 29, 141-162, 2011. A taste of set theory for philosophers Jouko Va¨an¨ anen¨ ∗ Department of Mathematics and Statistics University of Helsinki and Institute for Logic, Language and Computation University of Amsterdam November 17, 2010 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Elementary set theory 2 3 Cardinal and ordinal numbers 3 3.1 Equipollence . 4 3.2 Countable sets . 6 3.3 Ordinals . 7 3.4 Cardinals . 8 4 Axiomatic set theory 9 5 Axiom of Choice 12 6 Independence results 13 7 Some recent work 14 7.1 Descriptive Set Theory . 14 7.2 Non well-founded set theory . 14 7.3 Constructive set theory . 15 8 Historical Remarks and Further Reading 15 ∗Research partially supported by grant 40734 of the Academy of Finland and by the EUROCORES LogICCC LINT programme. I Journal of the Indian Council of Philosophical Research, Vol. XXVII, No. 2. A Special Issue on "Logic and Philosophy Today", 143-163, 2010. Reprinted in "Logic and Philosophy Today" (edited by A. Gupta ans J.v.Benthem), College Publications vol 29, 141-162, 2011. 1 Introduction Originally set theory was a theory of infinity, an attempt to understand infinity in ex- act terms. Later it became a universal language for mathematics and an attempt to give a foundation for all of mathematics, and thereby to all sciences that are based on mathematics.
    [Show full text]
  • Graph Theory
    1 Graph Theory “Begin at the beginning,” the King said, gravely, “and go on till you come to the end; then stop.” — Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland The Pregolya River passes through a city once known as K¨onigsberg. In the 1700s seven bridges were situated across this river in a manner similar to what you see in Figure 1.1. The city’s residents enjoyed strolling on these bridges, but, as hard as they tried, no residentof the city was ever able to walk a route that crossed each of these bridges exactly once. The Swiss mathematician Leonhard Euler learned of this frustrating phenomenon, and in 1736 he wrote an article [98] about it. His work on the “K¨onigsberg Bridge Problem” is considered by many to be the beginning of the field of graph theory. FIGURE 1.1. The bridges in K¨onigsberg. J.M. Harris et al., Combinatorics and Graph Theory , DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-79711-3 1, °c Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008 2 1. Graph Theory At first, the usefulness of Euler’s ideas and of “graph theory” itself was found only in solving puzzles and in analyzing games and other recreations. In the mid 1800s, however, people began to realize that graphs could be used to model many things that were of interest in society. For instance, the “Four Color Map Conjec- ture,” introduced by DeMorgan in 1852, was a famous problem that was seem- ingly unrelated to graph theory. The conjecture stated that four is the maximum number of colors required to color any map where bordering regions are colored differently.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Hypercomputation—Hype Or Computation?
    Quantum Hypercomputation—Hype or Computation? Amit Hagar,∗ Alex Korolev† February 19, 2007 Abstract A recent attempt to compute a (recursion–theoretic) non–computable func- tion using the quantum adiabatic algorithm is criticized and found wanting. Quantum algorithms may outperform classical algorithms in some cases, but so far they retain the classical (recursion–theoretic) notion of computability. A speculation is then offered as to where the putative power of quantum computers may come from. ∗HPS Department, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 47405. [email protected] †Philosophy Department, University of BC, Vancouver, BC. [email protected] 1 1 Introduction Combining physics, mathematics and computer science, quantum computing has developed in the past two decades from a visionary idea (Feynman 1982) to one of the most exciting areas of quantum mechanics (Nielsen and Chuang 2000). The recent excitement in this lively and fashionable domain of research was triggered by Peter Shor (1994) who showed how a quantum computer could exponentially speed–up classical computation and factor numbers much more rapidly (at least in terms of the number of computational steps involved) than any known classical algorithm. Shor’s algorithm was soon followed by several other algorithms that aimed to solve combinatorial and algebraic problems, and in the last few years the- oretical study of quantum systems serving as computational devices has achieved tremendous progress. According to one authority in the field (Aharonov 1998, Abstract), we now have strong theoretical evidence that quantum computers, if built, might be used as powerful computational tool, capable of per- forming tasks which seem intractable for classical computers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Limits of Knowledge: Philosophical and Practical Aspects of Building a Quantum Computer
    1 The Limits of Knowledge: Philosophical and practical aspects of building a quantum computer Simons Center November 19, 2010 Michael H. Freedman, Station Q, Microsoft Research 2 • To explain quantum computing, I will offer some parallels between philosophical concepts, specifically from Catholicism on the one hand, and fundamental issues in math and physics on the other. 3 Why in the world would I do that? • I gave the first draft of this talk at the Physics Department of Notre Dame. • There was a strange disconnect. 4 The audience was completely secular. • They couldn’t figure out why some guy named Freedman was talking to them about Catholicism. • The comedic potential was palpable. 5 I Want To Try Again With a rethought talk and broader audience 6 • Mathematics and Physics have been in their modern rebirth for 600 years, and in a sense both sprang from the Church (e.g. Roger Bacon) • So let’s compare these two long term enterprises: - Methods - Scope of Ideas 7 Common Points: Catholicism and Math/Physics • Care about difficult ideas • Agonize over systems and foundations • Think on long time scales • Safeguard, revisit, recycle fruitful ideas and methods Some of my favorites Aquinas Dante Lully Descartes Dali Tolkien • Lully may have been the first person to try to build a computer. • He sought an automated way to distinguish truth from falsehood, doctrine from heresy 8 • Philosophy and religion deal with large questions. • In Math/Physics we also have great overarching questions which might be considered the social equals of: Omniscience, Free Will, Original Sin, and Redemption.
    [Show full text]