DOCSLIB.ORG

Computer Science Comprehensive Examinations 1978/79 - 1980/81

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Computer Science Comprehensive Examinations 1978/79 - 1980/81 August 1981 Report. No. STAN-(2581-869 Computer Science Comprehensive Examinations 1978/79 - 1980/81 edited by Carolyn E. Tajnai Department of Computer Science Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 . L Computer Science Comprehensive Examinations 1978/79- 198W81 edited by Carolyn E. Tajnai Department of Computer Science Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 Abstract The Stanford Computer Science Comprehensive Examination was conceived Spring Quarter 1971/72 and since then has been given winter and spring quarters each year. The Camp serves several purposes in the department. There are no course requirements in the Ph.D. and the Ph.D. Minor programs, and only one (CS293, Computer Laboratory) in the Master’s program. Therefore, the Comp fulfills the breadth and depth requirements. The Ph.D. Minor and Master’s student must pass at the Master’s level to be eligible for the degree. For the Ph.D. student it serves as a “Rite of Passage;” the exam must be passed at the Ph.D. level by the end of six quarters of full-time study (excluding summers) for the student to continue in the program. This report is a collection of comprehensive examinations from Winter Quarter 1978/79 through Spring Quarter 1980181. Foreword In November, 1978, Frank Liang published the first collection of Computer Science Department Comprehensive Examinations, STAN-CS-75-677, and the document proved to be a tremendous success. No attempt has been made to emulate Frank’s style; this collection is strictly utilitarian. The comprehensive examination serves severa! purposes in the department. There are no course requirements in the Ph.D. and the Ph.D. Minor programs, and only one (CS293, Compuler Laboratory) in the Master’s program. Therefore, the comprehensive fulfills the breadth and depth requirement. The Ph.D. Minor and Master’s student must pass the exam at the Master’s level to be eligible for the degree. For the Ph.D. student it serves as a “Rite of Passage;” the exam must be passed at the Ph.D. level by the end of six quarters of full-time study (excluding summers) for the student to continue in the program. The written portion is a six-hour examination given winter and spring quarters. Until January, 1979, the programming portion was a 5-day take-home project given the week after the written portion, and the two were graded together. At the June 13, 1978, Faculty Meeting it was decided to separate them; the grading would be independent. During 1979/80 the Comprehensive Examination Committee became aware of the difficulty of equitably grading a progr,a.m written during a high stress, five day period. The following motion was passed at the June 10, 1980, faculty meeting. Professor (Michael) Genesereth, representing the Comprehensive Examination Committee, proposed that the following procedure be adopted for the Comprehensive Programming Problem. “Students in the M.S. and Ph.D. programs (and Ph.D. Minor students who have passed the written examination) in Computer Science must prepare a programming project of sufficient complexity and quality to demonstrate compctcnce in computer programming. This project must be supervised and endorsed by a member of the Computer Science Department faculty and submitted to the Comprehensive Examination Committee for final approval. The project must be written at Stanford by the student, working independently. The project must exhibit the use of sophisticated algorithms and data structures and be well documented. Programs will be judged on the basis of correctness, efficiency, clarity, and style. The project may be the result of CS293 work, although it need not be. The project should represent at least 3 units of work.” Professor Genesercth made a motion that the proposal be accepted; Professor (Forest) Baskett seconded the motion, and it was passed. At the faculty meeting on June 9, 1981, new guidelines Cornpukr Scierxe Deparlmenl Requiremenrs jbr [he Comprehensive Programmitzg Projecf were adopted, for further clarification. See page ix of this report. For those of you who are preparing to take the exam, lots of good luck. Carolyn Taj nai July 1981 . 111 Comprehensive Examinat!on Reading List (Revised August 21, 1981) ALGORITHMS AND DATA STRUCTURES Aho, A. V., Hopcroft, J. E., and Ullrnan, J. D., The Design and Analysis of Computer Algorithms, Addison- Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1974, Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4.1-4.4, 5.1-5.4. Chapter 10.1-10.5 covers some of the same material as Garey & Johnson (below). Garey, M. R., and Johnson, D. S., Computers and Intractability, Freeman, San Francisco, 1978, Chapters l-3. Knuth, D. E., The Art of Computer Programming, Volume 1, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1968, Chapter 2 (except for Section 2.3.4). NtTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Barr, A.V. and E.A. Feigenbaum (eds.), Handbook of Artificial Intelligence, Volume l., Kaufmann, Stanford, 1981. Winston, P.H.,Artificial Intelligence, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 19’77, Part I, Chapters l-9. HARDWARE SYSTEMS General: Mano, M., Computer System Architecture, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1976, Chapters l-5, 7, 8, 11.1, 11.2, 11.5, and 12; or you may substitute Gschwind, H. W. & McCluskey, E. J., Design of Digital Computers, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1975, Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8.2, 8.3 (except for 8.3.5.1), 8.4. Memory Hierarchy: Matick, R., Computer Storage Systems and Technology, Wiley Intcrscience, Chapter 9. Strecker, W. D., Cache Memories for PDP-11 Family Computers, 3rd Annual Computer Architecture Symposium. Computer Systems: C. A. C. M. Jan 1978: CRAY-1 , pages 63-72; IBM 370, pages 73-96. Stack Computers: Stone, H. htro dUC Iont’ to Computer Architecture, SRA, 75, Chapter 7. I/O: Kraft, G. D. and Toy, W. N., Mini/Microcomputer IIardware Design, Prentice-Hall, 1979, Chapters 3, 5, 6, 8, 9. , NUMERICAL ANALYSIS Atkinson, K. E., An Introduction to Numerical Analysis, Wiley, New York, 1978, Chapters l-3. Or you may substitute Conte, S. D., and De Boor, C., Elementary Numerical Analysis: An Algorithmic Approach, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, New York, Chapters l-2 and 4.1-4.8; or Conte and De Boor, 3rd ed., 1980, Chapters l-3. Forsythe, G. E., Malcolm, M. A., and Moler, C. B., Computer Methods for Mathematical Computations, Prentice-Hall, 1977, Chapters 2, 4.4, and 4.5. Forsythe, G. E., and Moler, C. B., Computer Solution of Linear Ngebraic Systems, Prentice-Hall, 1967. SOFTWARE SYSTEMS Aho, A. V., and Ulhnan, J. D., Principles of Compiler Design, Wiley, New York, New York, 1975. Brinch Hansen, P., Operating System Principles, Prentice-Hall, 1973. Dahl, O.-J., Dijkstra, E. W., and Hoare, C. A. R., Structured Programming, Academic Press, New York, New York, 1972. Graham, R., Principles of Systems Programming, Addison-Wesley, Reading, M&achu$etts, 1975. Stone, H. S., Introduction to Computer Organization and Data Structures, McGraw-Hi& New York, New York, 1972, Chapters l-8. Contains basic knowledge about computer organization. Most students should just skim this. Wats&, R., Timesharing System Design Concept+ McGraw-Hi& 1970, section 2.4, or Denning, P., “Virtual , Memory ,” Computing Surveys, September, 1970. THEORY OF COMPUTATION Hopcroft, J., and Ullman, J., Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation, Addison- Wesley, 1979, Chapters l-3, 4.1-4.6, 5-7, 8.1-8.5. Manna, Z., Introduction to Mathematical Theory of Computation, McGraw-Hi& 1973, Chapters 1, 2 and 3. Alternative introductions to logic appear in Mendelson, E., Introduction to Mathematical Logic, Van Nostrand, Chapters l-2, or Enderton, H., A Mathematical Introduction to Logic, Academic Press, 1973, Chapters l-2. McCarthy, J., and Talcott, C., LISP: Programming and Proving, (available from Stanford Bookstore) 1980, Chapters l-3. RECOMMENDED COURSES The Comprehensive Exam is meant generally to cover the material from the following courses: CS 111 (assembly language); 311 (hardware) 137A (numerical analysis); 107, 142, 143, and 246A (systems); 144A, B (data structures); 156 (theory of computation); and 223 ( ar t’I lcialf intelligence). Since the precise content of these courses varies somewhat, the actual scope of the Exam will be determined by the references above. Please note that the reading list includes some material involving structured programming as well as the history and culture of Computer Science even though it does not correspond to any particuiar course. vi The Exam will also assume a certain mathematical sophistication and a knowledge of programming. The mathematical sophistication required may include knowledge of techniques such as induction, recursion, “divide and conquer” (e.g., techniques in sorting algorithms, case arguments, etc.), and will be at the level of an upper division undergraduate in the mathematical sciences. Proofs of correctness for simple programs may be required. The programming knowledge required will be an ALGOL-like language (e.g., Pascal), a knowledge of LISP, and possibly some assembly language. The exam will be “open-book-and-notes.” This means you are allowed to use any materials you bring with you, plus copies of the above materials which will be made available. Non-smoking and smoking examination rooms will be scheduled. Copies of previous exams are available from the department. PROGRAMMING PROBLEM Students in the M.S. and Ph.D. programs (and Ph.D. Minor students who have passed the written examina- tion) in Computer Science must prepare a programming project of sufficient complexity and quality to demonstrate competence in computer programming. This project must be supervised and endorsed by a member of the Computer Science Department faculty and submitted to the Comprehensive Examination Committee for final approval. The project must be written at Stanford by the student, working independently. The project must exhibit the use of sophisticated algorithms and data structures and be well documented. Programs will be judged on the basis of correctness, efficiency, clarity, and style.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • NI\SI\ I-J!'.~!.:}',-~)N, Vifm:Nu\ National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia 23665
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19830020606 2020-03-21T01:58:58+00:00Z NASA Technical Memorandum 83216 NASA-TM-8321619830020606 DECISION-MAKING AND PROBLEM SOLVING METHODS IN AUTOMATION TECHNOLOGY W. W. HANKINS) J. E. PENNINGTON) AND L. K. BARKER MAY 1983 : "J' ,. (,lqir; '.I '. .' I_ \ i !- ,( ~, . L!\NGLEY F~I:~~~:r.. r~CH (TN! El~ L1B!(,!\,f(,(, NA~;I\ NI\SI\ I-J!'.~!.:}',-~)N, Vifm:nU\ National Aeronautics and Space Administration Langley Research Center Hampton, Virginia 23665 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SUMMARY ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• 1 INTRODUCTION •• .,... ••••••••••••••••••••••• •• 2 DETECTION AND RECOGNITION •••••••••••••••••••••••• •• 3 T,ypes of Sensors Computer Vision CONSIGHT-1 S,ystem SRI Vision Module Touch and Contact Sensors PLANNING AND SCHEDULING ••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• 7 Operations Research Methods Linear Systems Nonlinear S,ystems Network Models Queueing Theory D,ynamic Programming Simulation Artificial Intelligence (AI) Methods Nets of Action Hierarchies (NOAH) System Monitoring Resource Allocation Robotics LEARNING ••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• 13 Expert Systems Learning Concept and Linguistic Constructions Through English Dialogue Natural Language Understanding Robot Learning The Computer as an Intelligent Partner Learning Control THEOREM PROVING ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •• 15 Logical Inference Disproof by Counterexample Proof by Contradiction Resolution Principle Heuristic Methods Nonstandard Techniques Mathematical Induction Analogies Question-Answering Systems Man-Machine Systems
    [Show full text]
  • AI-KI-B Heuristic Search
    AI-KI-B Heuristic Search Ute Schmid & Diedrich Wolter Practice: Johannes Rabold Cognitive Systems and Smart Environments Applied Computer Science, University of Bamberg last change: 3. Juni 2019, 10:05 Outline Introduction of heuristic search algorithms, based on foundations of problem spaces and search • Uniformed Systematic Search • Depth-First Search (DFS) • Breadth-First Search (BFS) • Complexity of Blocks-World • Cost-based Optimal Search • Uniform Cost Search • Cost Estimation (Heuristic Function) • Heuristic Search Algorithms • Hill Climbing (Depth-First, Greedy) • Branch and Bound Algorithms (BFS-based) • Best First Search • A* • Designing Heuristic Functions • Problem Types Cost and Cost Estimation • \Real" cost is known for each operator. • Accumulated cost g(n) for a leaf node n on a partially expanded path can be calculated. • For problems where each operator has the same cost or where no information about costs is available, all operator applications have equal cost values. For cost values of 1, accumulated costs g(n) are equal to path-length d. • Sometimes available: Heuristics for estimating the remaining costs to reach the final state. • h^(n): estimated costs to reach a goal state from node n • \bad" heuristics can misguide search! Cost and Cost Estimation cont. Evaluation Function: f^(n) = g(n) + h^(n) Cost and Cost Estimation cont. • \True costs" of an optimal path from an initial state s to a final state: f (s). • For a node n on this path, f can be decomposed in the already performed steps with cost g(n) and the yet to perform steps with true cost h(n). • h^(n) can be an estimation which is greater or smaller than the true costs.
    [Show full text]
  • 2011-2012 ABET Self-Study Questionnaire for Engineering
    ABET SELF-STUDY REPOrt for Computer Engineering July 1, 2012 CONFIDENTIAL The information supplied in this Self-Study Report is for the confidential use of ABET and its authorized agents, and will not be disclosed without authorization of the institution concerned, except for summary data not identifiable to a specific institution. Table of Contents BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................... 5 A. Contact Information ............................................................................................. 5 B. Program History ................................................................................................... 6 C. Options ................................................................................................................. 7 D. Organizational Structure ...................................................................................... 8 E. Program Delivery Modes ..................................................................................... 8 F. Program Locations ............................................................................................... 9 G. Deficiencies, Weaknesses or Concerns from Previous Evaluation(s) ................. 9 H. Joint Accreditation ............................................................................................... 9 CRITERION 1. STUDENTS ........................................................................................... 10 A. Student Admissions ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • PDF with Red/Green Hyperlinks
    Elements of Programming Elements of Programming Alexander Stepanov Paul McJones (ab)c = a(bc) Semigroup Press Palo Alto • Mountain View Many of the designations used by manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks. Where those designations appear in this book, and the publisher was aware of a trademark claim, the designations have been printed with initial capital letters or in all capitals. The authors and publisher have taken care in the preparation of this book, but make no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assume no responsibility for errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of the use of the information or programs contained herein. Copyright c 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. Portions Copyright c 2019 Alexander Stepanov and Paul McJones All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This publication is protected by copyright, and permission must be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. For information regarding permissions, request forms and the appropriate contacts within the Pearson Education Global Rights & Permissions Department, please visit www.pearsoned.com/permissions/. ISBN-13: 978-0-578-22214-1 First printing, June 2019 Contents Preface to Authors' Edition ix Preface xi 1 Foundations 1 1.1 Categories of Ideas: Entity, Species,
    [Show full text]
  • Undecidability of the Word Problem for Groups: the Point of View of Rewriting Theory
    Universita` degli Studi Roma Tre Facolta` di Scienze M.F.N. Corso di Laurea in Matematica Tesi di Laurea in Matematica Undecidability of the word problem for groups: the point of view of rewriting theory Candidato Relatori Matteo Acclavio Prof. Y. Lafont ..................................... Prof. L. Tortora de falco ...................................... questa tesi ´estata redatta nell'ambito del Curriculum Binazionale di Laurea Magistrale in Logica, con il sostegno dell'Universit´aItalo-Francese (programma Vinci 2009) Anno Accademico 2011-2012 Ottobre 2012 Classificazione AMS: Parole chiave: \There once was a king, Sitting on the sofa, He said to his maid, Tell me a story, And the maid began: There once was a king, Sitting on the sofa, He said to his maid, Tell me a story, And the maid began: There once was a king, Sitting on the sofa, He said to his maid, Tell me a story, And the maid began: There once was a king, Sitting on the sofa, . " Italian nursery rhyme Even if you don't know this tale, it's easy to understand that this could continue indefinitely, but it doesn't have to. If now we want to know if the nar- ration will finish, this question is what is called an undecidable problem: we'll need to listen the tale until it will finish, but even if it will not, one can never say it won't stop since it could finish later. those things make some people loose sleep, but usually children, bored, fall asleep. More precisely a decision problem is given by a question regarding some data that admit a negative or positive answer, for example: \is the integer number n odd?" or \ does the story of the king on the sofa admit an happy ending?".
    [Show full text]
  • CS411-2015F-14 Counter Machines & Recursive Functions
    Automata Theory CS411-2015F-14 Counter Machines & Recursive Functions David Galles Department of Computer Science University of San Francisco 14-0: Counter Machines Give a Non-Deterministic Finite Automata a counter Increment the counter Decrement the counter Check to see if the counter is zero 14-1: Counter Machines A Counter Machine M = (K, Σ, ∆,s,F ) K is a set of states Σ is the input alphabet s ∈ K is the start state F ⊂ K are Final states ∆ ⊆ ((K × (Σ ∪ ǫ) ×{zero, ¬zero}) × (K × {−1, 0, +1})) Accept if you reach the end of the string, end in an accept state, and have an empty counter. 14-2: Counter Machines Give a Non-Deterministic Finite Automata a counter Increment the counter Decrement the counter Check to see if the counter is zero Do we have more power than a standard NFA? 14-3: Counter Machines Give a counter machine for the language anbn 14-4: Counter Machines Give a counter machine for the language anbn (a,zero,+1) (a,~zero,+1) (b,~zero,−1) (b,~zero,−1) 0 1 14-5: Counter Machines Give a 2-counter machine for the language anbncn Straightforward extension – examine (and change) two counters instead of one. 14-6: Counter Machines Give a 2-counter machine for the language anbncn (a,zero,zero,+1,0) (a,~zero,zero,+1,0) (b,~zero,~zero,-1,+1) (b,~zero,zero,−1,+1) 0 1 (c,zero,~zero,0,-1) 2 (c,zero,~zero,0,-1) 14-7: Counter Machines Our counter machines only accept if the counter is zero Does this give us any more power than a counter machine that accepts whenever the end of the string is reached in an accept state? That is, given
    [Show full text]
  • Search Algorithms ◦ Breadth-First Search (BFS) ◦ Uniform-Cost Search ◦ Depth-First Search (DFS) ◦ Depth-Limited Search ◦ Iterative Deepening  Best-First Search
    9-04-2013 Uninformed (blind) search algorithms ◦ Breadth-First Search (BFS) ◦ Uniform-Cost Search ◦ Depth-First Search (DFS) ◦ Depth-Limited Search ◦ Iterative Deepening Best-First Search HW#1 due today HW#2 due Monday, 9/09/13, in class Continue reading Chapter 3 Formulate — Search — Execute 1. Goal formulation 2. Problem formulation 3. Search algorithm 4. Execution A problem is defined by four items: 1. initial state 2. actions or successor function 3. goal test (explicit or implicit) 4. path cost (∑ c(x,a,y) – sum of step costs) A solution is a sequence of actions leading from the initial state to a goal state Search algorithms have the following basic form: do until terminating condition is met if no more nodes to consider then return fail; select node; {choose a node (leaf) on the tree} if chosen node is a goal then return success; expand node; {generate successors & add to tree} Analysis ◦ b = branching factor ◦ d = depth ◦ m = maximum depth g(n) = the total cost of the path on the search tree from the root node to node n h(n) = the straight line distance from n to G n S A B C G h(n) 5.8 3 2.2 2 0 Uninformed search strategies use only the information available in the problem definition Breadth-first search ◦ Uniform-cost search Depth-first search ◦ Depth-limited search ◦ Iterative deepening search • Expand shallowest unexpanded node • Implementation: – fringe is a FIFO queue, i.e., new successors go at end idea: order the branches under each node so that the “most promising” ones are explored first g(n) is the total cost
    [Show full text]
  • A Microcontroller Based Fan Speed Control Using PID Controller Theory
    A Microcontroller Based Fan Speed Control Using PID Controller Theory Thu Thu Zue Zin and Hlaing Thida Oo University of Computer Studies, Yangon thuthuzuezin @gmail.com Abstract PIC control application is widely used and User define popular in modern elections. The aim of this paper Microcontroller speed PIC 16F877 is design and construct the fan speed control system Duty cycle with microcontroller. PIC 16F877 and photo transistor is used for the system. User define speed can be selected by keypads for various speed. Motor is controlled by the pulse width modulation. Driver The system can be operate with normal mode and circuit timer mode. Delay time for timer mode is 10 seconds. The feedback signal from sensor is controlled by the proportional integral derivative equations to reproduce the desire duty cycle. Sensor Motor 1. Introduction Figure 1. Block Diagram of the System Motors are widely used in many applications, such as air conditioners , slide doors, washing machines and control areas. Motors are 2. Background Theory derivate it’s output performance due to the PID Controller tolerances, operating conditions, process error and Proportional Integral Derivative controller is measurement error. Pulse Width Modulation a generic control loop feedback mechanism widely control technique is better for control the DC motor used in industrial control systems. A PID controller than others techniques. PWM control the speed of attempts to correct the error between a measured motor without changing the voltage supply to process variable and a desired set point by calculating motor. Series of pulse define the speed of the and then outputting a corrective action that can adjust motor.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright © 1998, by the Author(S). All Rights Reserved
    Copyright © 1998, by the author(s). All rights reserved. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission. WHATS DECIDABLE ABOUT HYBRID AUTOMATA by Thomas A. Henzinger, Peter W. Kopke, Anuj Puri, and Pravin Varaiya Memorandum No. UCB/ERL M98/22 15 April 1998 WHAT'S DECIDABLE ABOUT HYBRID AUTOMATA by Thomas A. Henzinger,Peter W. Kopke, Anuj Puri, and Pravin Varaiya Memorandum No. UCB/ERL M98/22 15 April 1998 ELECTRONICS RESEARCH LABORATORY College ofEngineering University of California, Berkeley 94720 What's Decidable About Hybrid Automata?*^ Thomas A. Henzinger^ Peter W. Kopke^ Anuj Puri^ Pravin Varaiya^ Abstract. Hybrid automata model systems with both digital and analog compo nents, such as embedded control programs. Many verification tasks for such programs can be expressed as reachabibty problems for hybrid automata. By improving on pre vious decidability and undecidability results, we identify a precise boundary between decidability and undecidability for the reachabibty problem of hybrid automata. On the positive side, we give an (optimal) PSPACE reachabibty algorithmfor the case of initiabzed rectangular automata, where ab analog variables foUow independent tra jectories within piecewise-bnear envelopes and are reinitiabzed whenever the envelope changes. Our algorithm is based on the construction ofa timedautomaton that contains ab reachabibty information about a given initiabzed rectangular automaton.
    [Show full text]
  • Turing Machines [Fa’16]
    Models of Computation Lecture 6: Turing Machines [Fa’16] Think globally, act locally. — Attributed to Patrick Geddes (c.1915), among many others. We can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done. — Alan Turing, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” (1950) Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it’s supposed to do. — Robert Anson Heinlein, Waldo & Magic, Inc. (1950) It is a sobering thought that when Mozart was my age, he had been dead for two years. — Tom Lehrer, introduction to “Alma”, That Was the Year That Was (1965) 6 Turing Machines In 1936, a few months before his 24th birthday, Alan Turing launched computer science as a modern intellectual discipline. In a single remarkable paper, Turing provided the following results: • A simple formal model of mechanical computation now known as Turing machines. • A description of a single universal machine that can be used to compute any function computable by any other Turing machine. • A proof that no Turing machine can solve the halting problem—Given the formal description of an arbitrary Turing machine M, does M halt or run forever? • A proof that no Turing machine can determine whether an arbitrary given proposition is provable from the axioms of first-order logic. This is Hilbert and Ackermann’s famous Entscheidungsproblem (“decision problem”). • Compelling arguments1 that his machines can execute arbitrary “calculation by finite means”. Although Turing did not know it at the time, he was not the first to prove that the Entschei- dungsproblem had no algorithmic solution.
    [Show full text]
  • Complexity: Automata DICE 2015
    An in-between “implicit” and “explicit” complexity: Automata DICE 2015 Clément Aubert Queen Mary University of London 12 April 2015 Introduction: Motivation (Dal Lago, 2011, p. 90) Question Is there an in-between? Answer One can also restrict the quality of the resources. ICC is machine-independent and without explicit bounds. 2 (Ibarra, 1971, p. 88) (Girard et al., 1992, p. 18) Machine-independant Bounded recursion on notation (Cobham, 1965), Bounded linear logic (Girard et al., 1992), Bounded arithmetic (Buss, 1986), . Explicit bounds Automaton, Descriptive complexity (Fagin, 1973), Auxiliary pushdown machine, Recursion on notation (Bellantoni and Cook, 1992), (Boolean circuit,) . Tiered recurrence (Leivant, 1993), . Implicit bounds Introduction: What is ICC? Machine-dependant Turing machine, Random access machine, Counter machine, . 3 (Ibarra, 1971, p. 88) (Girard et al., 1992, p. 18) Explicit bounds Automaton, Descriptive complexity (Fagin, 1973), Auxiliary pushdown machine, Recursion on notation (Bellantoni and Cook, 1992), (Boolean circuit,) . Tiered recurrence (Leivant, 1993), . Implicit bounds Introduction: What is ICC? Machine-dependant Machine-independant Turing machine, Bounded recursion on notation (Cobham, 1965), Random access machine, Bounded linear logic (Girard et al., 1992), Counter machine, . Bounded arithmetic (Buss, 1986), . 3 (Ibarra, 1971, p. 88) Explicit bounds Automaton, Descriptive complexity (Fagin, 1973), Auxiliary pushdown machine, Recursion on notation (Bellantoni and Cook, 1992), (Boolean circuit,) . Tiered recurrence (Leivant, 1993), . Implicit bounds Introduction: What is ICC? Machine-dependant Machine-independant Turing machine, Bounded recursion on notation (Cobham, 1965), Random access machine, Bounded linear logic (Girard et al., 1992), Counter machine, . Bounded arithmetic (Buss, 1986), . (Girard et al., 1992, p. 18) 3 (Ibarra, 1971, p. 88) (Girard et al., 1992, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Bounded Counter Languages
    Bounded Counter Languages⋆ Holger Petersen Reinsburgstr. 75 D-70197 Stuttgart Abstract. We show that deterministic finite automata equipped with k two-way heads are equivalent to deterministic machines with a single two-way input head and k − 1 linearly bounded counters if the accepted ∗ ∗ ∗ language is strictly bounded, i.e., a subset of a1a2 · · · am for a fixed se- quence of symbols a1,a2,...,am. Then we investigate linear speed-up for counter machines. Lower and upper time bounds for concrete recognition problems are shown, implying that in general linear speed-up does not hold for counter machines. For bounded languages we develop a technique for speeding up computations by any constant factor at the expense of adding a fixed number of counters. 1 Introduction The computational model investigated in the present work is the two-way counter machine as defined in [4]. Recently, the power of this model has been compared to quantum automata and probabilistic automata [17,14]. We will show that bounded counters and heads are equally powerful for finite deterministic devices, provided the languages under consideration are strictly bounded. By equally powerful we mean that up to a single head each two- way input head of a deterministic finite machine can be simulated by a counter bounded by the input length and vice versa. The condition that the input is bounded cannot be removed in general, since it is known that deterministic finite two-way two-head automata are more powerful than deterministic two- way one counter machines if the input is not bounded [2]. The special case of equivalence between deterministic one counter machines and two-head automata over a single letter alphabet has been shown with the help of a two-dimensional automata model as an intermediate step in [10], see also [11].
    [Show full text]