Turing machines and decidability

  • Thread starter Thread starter -EquinoX-
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Machines Turing
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the decidability of a problem involving Turing machines, specifically whether a configuration αsβ can lead to a state q. The initial assertion is that this problem might be decidable, but further analysis reveals that it is indeed undecidable. The reasoning provided explains that if an algorithm could determine the existence of such a configuration leading to state q, it could also be used to solve the halting problem by feeding in a Turing machine M and its halting state. This reduction demonstrates that if the original problem were decidable, it would imply a solution to the halting problem, which is known to be undecidable. Thus, the conclusion is that the problem in question is harder than the halting problem, reinforcing its undecidability.
-EquinoX-
Messages
561
Reaction score
1
Okay, so if I have a turing machine so called M, is there a configuration alpha s beta which yields a configuration with state q? If it's decidable can someone explain the algorithm to proceed?
 
Technology news on Phys.org
That seems to be clearly harder than the halting problem, which is undecidable.
 
can you provide me with more detailed explanation why this is undecideable? I mean more saying than it's harder than the halting problem, as I can see that as well

i've also scanned the question directly from the book in case it helps
 

Attachments

  • 1.JPG
    1.JPG
    16.2 KB · Views: 435
and here's my answer so far:

Given the initial state s we can decide whether there exists a configuration αsβ and reading all the instructions of the k-cells of the TM machine that there is a path from that configuration to γqη where q is a given state of M and αβγη εΓ because there must exist a path according to the given instructions to reach from state s to q with the given configuration.

So I'd say it's decideable.. please correct me if I am wrong
 
So let's say you produce an algorithm that decides this problem.

I can then feed into your algorithm any turing machine M I like, and along with it feed in state q where I choose q to be the halting state for M. If your algorithm works, then your algorithm will tell me whether or not q is reached, and therefore it will have told me whether M halts. But that would mean you have solved the halting problem, therefore there does not exist any such algorithm.

This is what CRGreathouse means by your problem being "harder than the halting problem", it reduces to the halting problem. If you had an algorithm for deciding this problem then you could use the same algorithm to decide the halting problem. This (reducing the problem given to the halting problem) is generally the standard method for proving undecidability...
 
ok now it's clear! thanks guys
 
Dear Peeps I have posted a few questions about programing on this sectio of the PF forum. I want to ask you veterans how you folks learn program in assembly and about computer architecture for the x86 family. In addition to finish learning C, I am also reading the book From bits to Gates to C and Beyond. In the book, it uses the mini LC3 assembly language. I also have books on assembly programming and computer architecture. The few famous ones i have are Computer Organization and...
I have a quick questions. I am going through a book on C programming on my own. Afterwards, I plan to go through something call data structures and algorithms on my own also in C. I also need to learn C++, Matlab and for personal interest Haskell. For the two topic of data structures and algorithms, I understand there are standard ones across all programming languages. After learning it through C, what would be the biggest issue when trying to implement the same data...

Similar threads

Back
Top