Why is the assumption of the existence of a decider for the empty language problem contradicted by the construction of a decider for the acceptance problem?
The assumption of the existence of a decider for the empty language problem is contradicted by the construction of a decider for the acceptance problem in the field of computational complexity theory. To understand why this assumption is contradicted, it is important to consider the nature of these two problems and their relationship to Turing machines.
A Turing machine (TM) is a theoretical model of computation that consists of a tape divided into cells, a read/write head, and a control unit. The control unit moves the head along the tape, reads the symbol on the current cell, and based on a set of predefined rules, determines the next action to take. A TM can be represented as a state transition diagram, where each state corresponds to a different configuration of the machine.
The acceptance problem for a TM is defined as follows: Given a TM M and an input string w, does M accept w? In other words, we want to determine whether M, when started on input w, eventually enters an accepting state. This problem is decidable because we can construct a decider for it. A decider is a TM that halts and gives the correct answer for every input.
On the other hand, the empty language problem for a TM is defined as follows: Given a TM M, does M accept any string? In other words, we want to determine whether there exists at least one input string that M accepts. This problem is undecidable, meaning that no decider can exist for it.
To prove the undecidability of the empty language problem, we can use a technique called diagonalization. Assume, for the sake of contradiction, that there exists a decider D for the empty language problem. We can then construct a new TM N that takes its own description as input and simulates D on this description. If D accepts the description of N, then N rejects its input; otherwise, N accepts its input. Now, let's consider what happens when N is given its own description as input. If N accepts its input, then according to its construction, it should reject its input. Conversely, if N rejects its input, then according to its construction, it should accept its input. This creates a contradiction, proving that the assumption of the existence of a decider for the empty language problem is false.
The assumption of the existence of a decider for the empty language problem is contradicted by the construction of a decider for the acceptance problem. The acceptance problem is decidable, as we can construct a decider for it, while the empty language problem is undecidable, as no decider can exist for it.
Other recent questions and answers regarding Decidability:
- Can a tape be limited to the size of the input (which is equivalent to the head of the turing machine being limited to move beyond the input of the TM tape)?
- What does it mean for different variations of Turing Machines to be equivalent in computing capability?
- Can a turing recognizable language form a subset of decidable language?
- Is the halting problem of a Turing machine decidable?
- If we have two TMs that describe a decidable language is the equivalence question still undecidable?
- How does the acceptance problem for linear bounded automata differ from that of Turing machines?
- Give an example of a problem that can be decided by a linear bounded automaton.
- Explain the concept of decidability in the context of linear bounded automata.
- How does the size of the tape in linear bounded automata affect the number of distinct configurations?
- What is the main difference between linear bounded automata and Turing machines?
View more questions and answers in Decidability