[Theoretical computer science] Regular Turing Machine undecidable proof

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the proof from Spiser's book regarding the undecidability of the Regular Turing Machine (REGULARTM) by constructing a Turing Machine (TM) S that decides the Acceptance Problem (ATM). The construction involves defining TM M2, which accepts strings of the form o^i 1^i and utilizes another TM R that decides REGULARTM. The proof demonstrates that if R accepts M2, it leads to a contradiction since o^i 1^i is not a regular language, thus proving that REGULARTM is undecidable.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Turing Machines (TMs)
  • Familiarity with the concepts of decidability and undecidability
  • Knowledge of regular languages and their properties
  • Basic comprehension of formal language theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of Turing Machine undecidability in detail
  • Explore the implications of the Rice's Theorem on language decidability
  • Learn about the construction of Turing Machines for various language classes
  • Investigate the differences between regular languages and context-free languages
USEFUL FOR

The discussion is beneficial for computer science students, theoretical computer scientists, and anyone interested in the foundations of computation and the limits of algorithmic decision-making.

blob84
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Hello the proof of the Spiser's book (introduction to theory of computation):
PROOF
We let R be a TM that decides REGULARTM and construct TM S to
decide ATM. Then S works in the following manner.
S = "On input (M, w), where M is a TM and w is a string:
1. Construct the following TM M2 .
M2 = "On input x:
1. If x has the form o^i 1^i , accept.
2. If x does not have this form, run M on input w and
accept if M accepts w."
2. R on input (M2 ).
3. Run R if accepts, accept; if R rejects, reject."
I don't understand how it works.
If x has that form accept and R will reject because 0^i1^i is not regular.
What happens when M rejects?
 
Technology news on Phys.org
Could you be a little more clear on what this is trying to prove?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K