Can a turing machine move the head over the tape by more than one cell at each step of their operation
A Turing machine, as originally conceived by Alan Turing in 1936, operates on a tape divided into discrete cells, each capable of holding a symbol from a finite alphabet. The machine has a head that can read and write symbols on the tape and move left or right one cell at a time. This fundamental model is known as the "classical" or "standard" Turing machine. The question at hand is whether a Turing machine can move its head over the tape by more than one cell at each step of its operation.
To address this question comprehensively, it is essential to understand the formal definition of a Turing machine and the implications of allowing the head to move by more than one cell per step. A classical Turing machine is defined by the following components:
1. A finite set of states, including a designated start state and one or more accepting states.
2. An infinite tape divided into cells, each cell containing a symbol from a finite alphabet.
3. A tape head that can read and write symbols on the tape and move left or right one cell at a time.
4. A transition function that, given the current state and the symbol under the tape head, specifies the new state, the symbol to be written, and the direction in which the head should move (left or right).
In this classical model, the head moves exactly one cell to the left or right in each step. This restriction is part of what makes the Turing machine a simple yet powerful model of computation. However, it is possible to define variations of the Turing machine in which the head can move by more than one cell per step. These variations are known as "generalized" or "multi-tape" Turing machines.
One such variation is the "multi-tape Turing machine," which has multiple tapes, each with its own head. The transition function for a multi-tape Turing machine specifies the actions for each tape head independently. While each head still moves one cell at a time, the overall effect can be more complex due to the simultaneous movement of multiple heads. Another variation is the "k-tape Turing machine," where the head can move k cells to the left or right in a single step. This type of machine is more powerful in terms of its ability to traverse the tape quickly, but it does not fundamentally change the class of problems that the machine can solve.
To illustrate, consider a multi-tape Turing machine with two tapes. The transition function might specify that, given the current state and the symbols under both heads, the machine should write new symbols on both tapes, change to a new state, and move the first head one cell to the left and the second head one cell to the right. This ability to move heads independently can make certain computations more efficient, but it does not increase the computational power of the machine in terms of the class of languages it can recognize. The class of languages recognized by multi-tape Turing machines is the same as that recognized by single-tape Turing machines, namely, the class of recursively enumerable languages.
The notion of allowing the head to move by more than one cell per step can also be explored through the concept of "jumping" Turing machines. In a jumping Turing machine, the transition function allows the head to move k cells to the left or right, where k is an integer. This variation can be formalized by extending the transition function to include a parameter for the number of cells to move. For example, if the current state is q, the symbol under the head is a, and the transition function specifies that the new state is q', the symbol to be written is b, and the head should move 3 cells to the right, the transition function can be written as δ(q, a) = (q', b, +3).
While jumping Turing machines can traverse the tape more quickly, they do not increase the computational power of the machine in terms of the class of problems it can solve. The Church-Turing thesis posits that any computation that can be performed by a mechanical process can be performed by a Turing machine, and this includes jumping Turing machines. The class of languages recognized by jumping Turing machines is still the class of recursively enumerable languages.
To further understand the implications of allowing the head to move by more than one cell per step, consider the problem of recognizing palindromes. A palindrome is a string that reads the same forward and backward, such as "radar" or "level." A classical Turing machine can recognize palindromes by moving the head back and forth across the tape, comparing corresponding symbols from the beginning and end of the string. This process requires multiple passes over the tape, with the head moving one cell at a time.
In contrast, a jumping Turing machine could potentially recognize palindromes more efficiently by moving the head directly to the corresponding positions. For example, if the head is at the first cell of the tape, the machine could jump to the last cell to compare the first and last symbols. If they match, the head could then jump to the second and second-to-last cells, and so on. This approach reduces the number of steps required to recognize a palindrome, but it does not change the fact that the problem is decidable by a Turing machine.
Another example is the problem of addition. A classical Turing machine can perform addition by moving the head back and forth across the tape, carrying out the addition digit by digit. A jumping Turing machine could potentially perform addition more efficiently by jumping to the relevant positions on the tape, but again, this does not change the fact that addition is a computable function.
To summarize, while a classical Turing machine moves the head one cell at a time, it is possible to define variations of the Turing machine in which the head can move by more than one cell per step. These variations, such as multi-tape Turing machines and jumping Turing machines, can make certain computations more efficient by reducing the number of steps required to traverse the tape. However, they do not increase the computational power of the machine in terms of the class of problems it can solve. The class of languages recognized by these variations is still the class of recursively enumerable languages, as posited by the Church-Turing thesis.
Other recent questions and answers regarding EITC/IS/CCTF Computational Complexity Theory Fundamentals:
- Are regular languages equivalent with Finite State Machines?
- Is PSPACE class not equal to the EXPSPACE class?
- Is algorithmically computable problem a problem computable by a Turing Machine accordingly to the Church-Turing Thesis?
- What is the closure property of regular languages under concatenation? How are finite state machines combined to represent the union of languages recognized by two machines?
- Can every arbitrary problem be expressed as a language?
- Is P complexity class a subset of PSPACE class?
- Does every multi-tape Turing machine has an equivalent single-tape Turing machine?
- What are the outputs of predicates?
- Are lambda calculus and turing machines computable models that answers the question on what does computable mean?
- Can we can prove that Np and P class are the same by finding an efficient polynomial solution for any NP complete problem on a deterministic TM?
View more questions and answers in EITC/IS/CCTF Computational Complexity Theory Fundamentals