5,286 research outputs found
Highly Undecidable Problems For Infinite Computations
We show that many classical decision problems about 1-counter
omega-languages, context free omega-languages, or infinitary rational
relations, are -complete, hence located at the second level of the
analytical hierarchy, and "highly undecidable". In particular, the universality
problem, the inclusion problem, the equivalence problem, the determinizability
problem, the complementability problem, and the unambiguity problem are all
-complete for context-free omega-languages or for infinitary rational
relations. Topological and arithmetical properties of 1-counter
omega-languages, context free omega-languages, or infinitary rational
relations, are also highly undecidable. These very surprising results provide
the first examples of highly undecidable problems about the behaviour of very
simple finite machines like 1-counter automata or 2-tape automata.Comment: to appear in RAIRO-Theoretical Informatics and Application
Synchronizing weighted automata
We introduce two generalizations of synchronizability to automata with
transitions weighted in an arbitrary semiring K=(K,+,*,0,1). (or equivalently,
to finite sets of matrices in K^nxn.) Let us call a matrix A
location-synchronizing if there exists a column in A consisting of nonzero
entries such that all the other columns of A are filled by zeros. If
additionally all the entries of this designated column are the same, we call A
synchronizing. Note that these notions coincide for stochastic matrices and
also in the Boolean semiring. A set M of matrices in K^nxn is called
(location-)synchronizing if M generates a matrix subsemigroup containing a
(location-)synchronizing matrix. The K-(location-)synchronizability problem is
the following: given a finite set M of nxn matrices with entries in K, is it
(location-)synchronizing?
Both problems are PSPACE-hard for any nontrivial semiring. We give sufficient
conditions for the semiring K when the problems are PSPACE-complete and show
several undecidability results as well, e.g. synchronizability is undecidable
if 1 has infinite order in (K,+,0) or when the free semigroup on two generators
can be embedded into (K,*,1).Comment: In Proceedings AFL 2014, arXiv:1405.527
On equivalence, languages equivalence and minimization of multi-letter and multi-letter measure-many quantum automata
We first show that given a -letter quantum finite automata
and a -letter quantum finite automata over
the same input alphabet , they are equivalent if and only if they are
-equivalent where , , are the
numbers of state in respectively, and . By
applying a method, due to the author, used to deal with the equivalence problem
of {\it measure many one-way quantum finite automata}, we also show that a
-letter measure many quantum finite automaton and a
-letter measure many quantum finite automaton are
equivalent if and only if they are -equivalent
where , , are the numbers of state in respectively,
and .
Next, we study the language equivalence problem of those two kinds of quantum
finite automata. We show that for -letter quantum finite automata, the
non-strict cut-point language equivalence problem is undecidable, i.e., it is
undecidable whether
where
and are -letter quantum finite automata.
Further, we show that both strict and non-strict cut-point language equivalence
problem for -letter measure many quantum finite automata are undecidable.
The direct consequences of the above outcomes are summarized in the paper.
Finally, we comment on existing proofs about the minimization problem of one
way quantum finite automata not only because we have been showing great
interest in this kind of problem, which is very important in classical automata
theory, but also due to that the problem itself, personally, is a challenge.
This problem actually remains open.Comment: 30 pages, conclusion section correcte
A Survey on Continuous Time Computations
We provide an overview of theories of continuous time computation. These
theories allow us to understand both the hardness of questions related to
continuous time dynamical systems and the computational power of continuous
time analog models. We survey the existing models, summarizing results, and
point to relevant references in the literature
Conjugacy of one-dimensional one-sided cellular automata is undecidable
Two cellular automata are strongly conjugate if there exists a
shift-commuting conjugacy between them. We prove that the following two sets of
pairs of one-dimensional one-sided cellular automata over a full shift
are recursively inseparable: (i) pairs where has strictly larger
topological entropy than , and (ii) pairs that are strongly conjugate and
have zero topological entropy.
Because there is no factor map from a lower entropy system to a higher
entropy one, and there is no embedding of a higher entropy system into a lower
entropy system, we also get as corollaries that the following decision problems
are undecidable: Given two one-dimensional one-sided cellular automata and
over a full shift: Are and conjugate? Is a factor of ? Is
a subsystem of ? All of these are undecidable in both strong and weak
variants (whether the homomorphism is required to commute with the shift or
not, respectively). It also immediately follows that these results hold for
one-dimensional two-sided cellular automata.Comment: 12 pages, 2 figures, accepted for SOFSEM 201
Decidable and undecidable problems about quantum automata
We study the following decision problem: is the language recognized by a
quantum finite automaton empty or non-empty? We prove that this problem is
decidable or undecidable depending on whether recognition is defined by strict
or non-strict thresholds. This result is in contrast with the corresponding
situation for probabilistic finite automata for which it is known that strict
and non-strict thresholds both lead to undecidable problems.Comment: 10 page
Computational Processes and Incompleteness
We introduce a formal definition of Wolfram's notion of computational process
based on cellular automata, a physics-like model of computation. There is a
natural classification of these processes into decidable, intermediate and
complete. It is shown that in the context of standard finite injury priority
arguments one cannot establish the existence of an intermediate computational
process
Multi-Head Finite Automata: Characterizations, Concepts and Open Problems
Multi-head finite automata were introduced in (Rabin, 1964) and (Rosenberg,
1966). Since that time, a vast literature on computational and descriptional
complexity issues on multi-head finite automata documenting the importance of
these devices has been developed. Although multi-head finite automata are a
simple concept, their computational behavior can be already very complex and
leads to undecidable or even non-semi-decidable problems on these devices such
as, for example, emptiness, finiteness, universality, equivalence, etc. These
strong negative results trigger the study of subclasses and alternative
characterizations of multi-head finite automata for a better understanding of
the nature of non-recursive trade-offs and, thus, the borderline between
decidable and undecidable problems. In the present paper, we tour a fragment of
this literature
- âŠ