Undecidability of: $|w in L| geq 1, L={w in {0,1}^*|a_0·#_0(w)+a_1·#_1(w)- a_1a_0=0}$











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Let $a_0, a_1 in mathbb{N} setminus {0}$ and $L={w in {0,1}^*|a_0·#_0(w)+a_1·#_1(w)- a_1a_0=0}$ . Let's assume problem $P$ that, language of Turing machine accepts at least one word from language $L$. Using membership problem, is $P$ undecidable?



Membership problem of $w in L land L in unrestricted$, is undecidable but is semi-decidable. Prove of semi-decitability is quite easy by simulating of Turing machine $T$, where $L(T)=L$. But how can we show that $P$ is undecidable?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • You don't include a condition in the set-builder notation. What is this supposed to say? It's also unclear what you mean by $L land L$.
    – platty
    20 hours ago












  • I edited the question, is it better?
    – nocturne
    20 hours ago










  • I think so. Is $P$ supposed to be a language of Turing Machine encodings, and the question is whether $P$ is undecidable?
    – platty
    20 hours ago










  • Question is whether the P is undecidable. Problem P is undecidable when is not decidable which means we can construct a Turing machine $T$, where it decides whether it accepts $w in L$ and rejects $w in sum^* setminus L$
    – nocturne
    20 hours ago

















up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Let $a_0, a_1 in mathbb{N} setminus {0}$ and $L={w in {0,1}^*|a_0·#_0(w)+a_1·#_1(w)- a_1a_0=0}$ . Let's assume problem $P$ that, language of Turing machine accepts at least one word from language $L$. Using membership problem, is $P$ undecidable?



Membership problem of $w in L land L in unrestricted$, is undecidable but is semi-decidable. Prove of semi-decitability is quite easy by simulating of Turing machine $T$, where $L(T)=L$. But how can we show that $P$ is undecidable?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • You don't include a condition in the set-builder notation. What is this supposed to say? It's also unclear what you mean by $L land L$.
    – platty
    20 hours ago












  • I edited the question, is it better?
    – nocturne
    20 hours ago










  • I think so. Is $P$ supposed to be a language of Turing Machine encodings, and the question is whether $P$ is undecidable?
    – platty
    20 hours ago










  • Question is whether the P is undecidable. Problem P is undecidable when is not decidable which means we can construct a Turing machine $T$, where it decides whether it accepts $w in L$ and rejects $w in sum^* setminus L$
    – nocturne
    20 hours ago















up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











Let $a_0, a_1 in mathbb{N} setminus {0}$ and $L={w in {0,1}^*|a_0·#_0(w)+a_1·#_1(w)- a_1a_0=0}$ . Let's assume problem $P$ that, language of Turing machine accepts at least one word from language $L$. Using membership problem, is $P$ undecidable?



Membership problem of $w in L land L in unrestricted$, is undecidable but is semi-decidable. Prove of semi-decitability is quite easy by simulating of Turing machine $T$, where $L(T)=L$. But how can we show that $P$ is undecidable?










share|cite|improve this question















Let $a_0, a_1 in mathbb{N} setminus {0}$ and $L={w in {0,1}^*|a_0·#_0(w)+a_1·#_1(w)- a_1a_0=0}$ . Let's assume problem $P$ that, language of Turing machine accepts at least one word from language $L$. Using membership problem, is $P$ undecidable?



Membership problem of $w in L land L in unrestricted$, is undecidable but is semi-decidable. Prove of semi-decitability is quite easy by simulating of Turing machine $T$, where $L(T)=L$. But how can we show that $P$ is undecidable?







turing-machines decidability






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 20 hours ago

























asked 20 hours ago









nocturne

655




655












  • You don't include a condition in the set-builder notation. What is this supposed to say? It's also unclear what you mean by $L land L$.
    – platty
    20 hours ago












  • I edited the question, is it better?
    – nocturne
    20 hours ago










  • I think so. Is $P$ supposed to be a language of Turing Machine encodings, and the question is whether $P$ is undecidable?
    – platty
    20 hours ago










  • Question is whether the P is undecidable. Problem P is undecidable when is not decidable which means we can construct a Turing machine $T$, where it decides whether it accepts $w in L$ and rejects $w in sum^* setminus L$
    – nocturne
    20 hours ago




















  • You don't include a condition in the set-builder notation. What is this supposed to say? It's also unclear what you mean by $L land L$.
    – platty
    20 hours ago












  • I edited the question, is it better?
    – nocturne
    20 hours ago










  • I think so. Is $P$ supposed to be a language of Turing Machine encodings, and the question is whether $P$ is undecidable?
    – platty
    20 hours ago










  • Question is whether the P is undecidable. Problem P is undecidable when is not decidable which means we can construct a Turing machine $T$, where it decides whether it accepts $w in L$ and rejects $w in sum^* setminus L$
    – nocturne
    20 hours ago


















You don't include a condition in the set-builder notation. What is this supposed to say? It's also unclear what you mean by $L land L$.
– platty
20 hours ago






You don't include a condition in the set-builder notation. What is this supposed to say? It's also unclear what you mean by $L land L$.
– platty
20 hours ago














I edited the question, is it better?
– nocturne
20 hours ago




I edited the question, is it better?
– nocturne
20 hours ago












I think so. Is $P$ supposed to be a language of Turing Machine encodings, and the question is whether $P$ is undecidable?
– platty
20 hours ago




I think so. Is $P$ supposed to be a language of Turing Machine encodings, and the question is whether $P$ is undecidable?
– platty
20 hours ago












Question is whether the P is undecidable. Problem P is undecidable when is not decidable which means we can construct a Turing machine $T$, where it decides whether it accepts $w in L$ and rejects $w in sum^* setminus L$
– nocturne
20 hours ago






Question is whether the P is undecidable. Problem P is undecidable when is not decidable which means we can construct a Turing machine $T$, where it decides whether it accepts $w in L$ and rejects $w in sum^* setminus L$
– nocturne
20 hours ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote













To show that a language over Turing Machine encodings is undecidable, we can use Rice's Theorem, which states that any non-trivial semantic property of Turing Machines is undecidable. Here, our property is "Turing Machine $M$ accepts at least one word from language $L$." We first note that, for every $a_0,a_1 in mathbb{N} setminus {0}$, $L$ is nonempty and does not contain every string. For the former, $1^{a_0} in L$ for any $a_0,a_1$; for the latter, observe that $varepsilon notin L$ for any such $L$.



From here, we just need to show that this property is nontrivial. This requires showing that there is a Turing machine that accepts a language satisfying this property, and one that accepts a language which does not satisfy this property. Turing machines accepting the languages $Sigma^*$ and $emptyset$ suffice, respectively.






share|cite|improve this answer





















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3019923%2fundecidability-of-w-in-l-geq-1-l-w-in-0-1-a-0-0wa-1-1w%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote













    To show that a language over Turing Machine encodings is undecidable, we can use Rice's Theorem, which states that any non-trivial semantic property of Turing Machines is undecidable. Here, our property is "Turing Machine $M$ accepts at least one word from language $L$." We first note that, for every $a_0,a_1 in mathbb{N} setminus {0}$, $L$ is nonempty and does not contain every string. For the former, $1^{a_0} in L$ for any $a_0,a_1$; for the latter, observe that $varepsilon notin L$ for any such $L$.



    From here, we just need to show that this property is nontrivial. This requires showing that there is a Turing machine that accepts a language satisfying this property, and one that accepts a language which does not satisfy this property. Turing machines accepting the languages $Sigma^*$ and $emptyset$ suffice, respectively.






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      To show that a language over Turing Machine encodings is undecidable, we can use Rice's Theorem, which states that any non-trivial semantic property of Turing Machines is undecidable. Here, our property is "Turing Machine $M$ accepts at least one word from language $L$." We first note that, for every $a_0,a_1 in mathbb{N} setminus {0}$, $L$ is nonempty and does not contain every string. For the former, $1^{a_0} in L$ for any $a_0,a_1$; for the latter, observe that $varepsilon notin L$ for any such $L$.



      From here, we just need to show that this property is nontrivial. This requires showing that there is a Turing machine that accepts a language satisfying this property, and one that accepts a language which does not satisfy this property. Turing machines accepting the languages $Sigma^*$ and $emptyset$ suffice, respectively.






      share|cite|improve this answer























        up vote
        1
        down vote










        up vote
        1
        down vote









        To show that a language over Turing Machine encodings is undecidable, we can use Rice's Theorem, which states that any non-trivial semantic property of Turing Machines is undecidable. Here, our property is "Turing Machine $M$ accepts at least one word from language $L$." We first note that, for every $a_0,a_1 in mathbb{N} setminus {0}$, $L$ is nonempty and does not contain every string. For the former, $1^{a_0} in L$ for any $a_0,a_1$; for the latter, observe that $varepsilon notin L$ for any such $L$.



        From here, we just need to show that this property is nontrivial. This requires showing that there is a Turing machine that accepts a language satisfying this property, and one that accepts a language which does not satisfy this property. Turing machines accepting the languages $Sigma^*$ and $emptyset$ suffice, respectively.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        To show that a language over Turing Machine encodings is undecidable, we can use Rice's Theorem, which states that any non-trivial semantic property of Turing Machines is undecidable. Here, our property is "Turing Machine $M$ accepts at least one word from language $L$." We first note that, for every $a_0,a_1 in mathbb{N} setminus {0}$, $L$ is nonempty and does not contain every string. For the former, $1^{a_0} in L$ for any $a_0,a_1$; for the latter, observe that $varepsilon notin L$ for any such $L$.



        From here, we just need to show that this property is nontrivial. This requires showing that there is a Turing machine that accepts a language satisfying this property, and one that accepts a language which does not satisfy this property. Turing machines accepting the languages $Sigma^*$ and $emptyset$ suffice, respectively.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 19 hours ago









        platty

        2,353215




        2,353215






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3019923%2fundecidability-of-w-in-l-geq-1-l-w-in-0-1-a-0-0wa-1-1w%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Bressuire

            Cabo Verde

            Gyllenstierna