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?
turing-machines decidability
add a comment |
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?
turing-machines decidability
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
add a comment |
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?
turing-machines decidability
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
turing-machines decidability
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered 19 hours ago
platty
2,353215
2,353215
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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