Equivalence of models with respect to Turing-recognizability and -decidability

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter alexfloo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Equivalence Models
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Two computational models are equivalent if they recognize the same class of languages, but decidability complicates this equivalence. A Turing-recognizable language is decidable if and only if its complement is also Turing-recognizable. This leads to the conclusion that a model decides the decidable languages if and only if it recognizes the Turing-recognizable languages. The discussion highlights that the definition of a "model of computation" remains ambiguous, similar to the pre-Turing concept of an "algorithm."

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Turing-recognizable languages
  • Knowledge of decidability in computational theory
  • Familiarity with models of computation
  • Basic concepts of language recognition and enumeration
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the relationship between Turing machines and enumerators
  • Explore the implications of decidability in various computational models
  • Investigate the concept of a "category of computational models"
  • Study the differences between recognizing and deciding languages
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for computer scientists, theoretical computer scientists, and students studying computational theory, particularly those interested in the nuances of language recognition and decidability.

alexfloo
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
This seemed like the least inappropriate place for this. Feel free to move it if I am wrong.

Generally speaking, two computational models are equivalent if they recognize the same class of languages. In the case of models that can run indefinitely, we also have the problem of decidability. Generally, we make no mention of decidability in equivalence proofs.

I understand that a Turing-recognizable language is decidable if and only if its complement is Turing-recognizable. Can this fact be used to prove that a model decides the decidable languages if and only if it recognizes the Turing-recognizable languages?

Can it be shown more generally two models decide the same languages if and only if they recognize the same languages?

Clearly this problem isn't completely specified, since to my knowledge a "model of computation" is as loosely defined today as an "algorithm" was pre-Turing. (By the way is there any theory about something resembling a "category of computational models?")
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey alexfloo.

In terms of the language, does one language have to be the same or can it be a subset of the other language?
 
I actually managed to find a partial answer, which is that even my first question was ill-formed.

The enumerator is equivalent to the TM in that they recognize the same languages, but enumerators decide exactly the finite languages. For any infinite language, an enumerator enumerates infinitely.

Furthermore, it raises the point that a model (at least until we have a better definition of it) need not "decide" at all.

For instance, we have the trivial model "the set" which accepts if it contains a string and rejects otherwise. It recognizes the class of all languages, unrestricted. It may make sense to say that it decides the same languages it accepts, but it illuminates that a model may not have a parallel as a "process" which can "run infinitely" or "not run infinitely," and decidability need not make sense with respect to any model
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
9K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K