Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

Show that the Post Correspondence Problem is decidable over the unary alphabet=1.

Short Answer

Expert verified

It’s proved that Post Correspondence Problem is undecidable over=1.

Step by step solution

01

Introduction to Post Correspondence Problem

Post Corresponding Problem is undecidable problem where we have more than one tile which contains multiple strings. The goal of this problem is to arrange the order of strings such that the numerator and denominator are identical.

In Post Correspondence Problem (PCP), we try to find the pattern in which upper and lower strings are identical.

02

Proving PCP Undecidability over ∑=1

Now we will create a Turning Machine M that decides unary PCP such that:

M = on inputP.

  • Check if ai= bi for some value of ‘i’.

IfTrueAceept

  • Check if there exist some values of i and j such that ai > bi and aj< bj .

IfTrueAccept

Else Reject.

If both condition are false, that means upper parts have more or less 1s than lower part, hence no match will exist and M got rejected.

Thus this makes M decidable which means Post Correspondence Problem is decidable over the unary alphabet.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Say that a CFG is minimal if none of its rules can be removed without changing the language generated. Let MINCFG = {GGisaminimalCFG}is a minimal CFG}.

  1. Show that MINCFG is T-recognizable.
  2. Show that MINCFG is undecidable.

Use Rice’s theorem, which appears in Problem 5.28, to prove the undecidability of each of the following languages.

  1. INFINITETM={MMisaMandLMisaninfinitelanguage}
  2. role="math" localid="1663214080203" LTM={<M>MisaTMand1011L(M)}
  3. ALLTM={<M>MisaTMandL(M)=*}

Question: In the proof of Theorem 5.15, we modified the Turing machine M so that it never tries to move its head off the left-hand end of the tape. Suppose that we did not make this modification to M . Modify the PCP construction to handle this case.

Show that both conditions in Problem 5.28 are necessary for proving that P is undecidable.

Question: A two-dimensional finite automaton (2DIM-DFA) is defined as follows. The input is anm×n rectangle, for any m,n2. The squares along the boundary of the rectangle contain the symbol # and the internal squares contain symbols over the input alphabet Σ. The transition functionδ:Q×(Σ#)Q×{L,R,U,D} indicates the next state and the new head position (Left, Right, Up, Down). The machine accepts when it enters one of the designated accept states. It rejects if it tries to move off the input rectangle or if it never halts. Two such machines are equivalent if they accept the same rectangles. Consider the problem of determining whether two of these machines are equivalent. Formulate this problem as a language and show that it is undecidable.

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Computer Science Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free