1 / 43

The Halting Problem

The Halting Problem. Can we design a program that, given any other program and its input, tells whether that program will halt when run on that input? Output of this program, called HALT, when applied to program P and input I, is “halts” if P(I) eventually halts

Download Presentation

The Halting Problem

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. The Halting Problem • Can we design a program that, given any other program and its input, tells whether that program will halt when run on that input? • Output of this program, called HALT, when applied to program P and input I, is “halts” if P(I) eventually halts • Output of this program is “never halts” if P(I) never halts • Theorem (Alan Turing 1937):No computer program cansolve the halting problem.

  2. Proof by Contradiction • Assume the hypothesis to be proven is false, i.e. there is a computer program that can solve the halting problem • Show that this assumption leads to a contradiction • Do it by creating a program and an input to it that generate this contradiction

  3. Proof by Contradiction • Suppose there was a computer program,called HALT, which solved the halting problem. • We can write a new program that uses HALT and leads to a contradiction: Program NonConformist (Program P) If ( HALT(P) = “never halts” ) Then Halt Else Do While (1 > 0) Print “Hello!” End While EndIf End Program

  4. Proof by Contradiction Program NonConformist (Program P) If ( HALT(P) = “never halts” ) Then Halt Else Do While (1 > 0) Print “Hello!” End While EndIf End Program • Does NonConformist(NonConformist) halt? • Note: It calls HALT(NonConformist) • Yes? Means HALT(NonConformist) = never halts • No? That means HALT(NonConformist) = halts • Contradiction: There exists a program (NonConformist) for which the HALT program gives the wrong answer

  5. Undecidability • Halting Problem:Given a computer program P and input “input”: • Output “halts” if P(input) eventually halts • Output “never halts” if P(input) never halts • We’ve shown that the Halting Problem is Undecidable – no computer program can ever solve it, no matter how powerful the computer is.

  6. Undecidability • Many other problems are undecidable, too. • Moreover, the same ideas that we used to prove undecidability can be used to prove a very disturbing statement.

  7. GÖDEL’S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM • Until Gödel came along, Mathematicians were searching for the “one true logical framework,” i.e. a framework in which every true statement can be proved. • Their faith was shattered by Gödel. • For more on this and its philosophical implications, see Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter.

  8. GÖDEL’S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM • In 1931, Gödel stunned the world by proving that in any logical framework in which you can express basic facts about numbers, there exists a true statement that cannot be proved in that framework. • “Not every true statement has a proof”

  9. GÖDEL’S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM • In 1931, Gödel stunned the world by proving that in any logical framework in which you can express basic facts about numbers, there exists a true statement that cannot be proved in that framework. • But wait, if it can’t be proved, how do we know it is true?

  10. GÖDEL’S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM • We can prove that it is true by “jumping” outside the original logical framework to a “larger” logical framework…

  11. GÖDEL’S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM • We can prove that it is true by “jumping” outside the original logical framework to a “larger” logical framework… • But that larger logical framework also has a true statement that cannot be proved!

  12. GÖDEL’S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM • We can prove that it is true by “jumping” outside the original logical framework to a “larger” logical framework… • But that larger logical framework also has a true statement that cannot be proved! • …and so on, and so on… • No matter when we stop, there will always be some true statement that doesn’t have a proof!

  13. GÖDEL’S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM • Until Gödel came along, Mathematicians were searching for the “one true logical framework,” i.e. a framework in which every true statement can be proved. • Their faith was shattered by Gödel. • For more on this and its philosophical implications, see Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter.

  14. More Undecidable Problems? Post's Correspondence Problem (PCP) • An instance of PCP of size s is a finite set of pairs of strings (gi , hi) [for i = 1...s; s>=1] over some alphabet . • A solution is a sequence i1 i2 ... in of selections from each set of strings (gi , hi) such that the strings gi1gi2 ... gin and hi1hi2 ... hin formed by concatenation are identical.

  15. Sample PCP • g1 = aba h1 = abaa • g2 = bbab h2 = abab • g3 = baaa h3 = a • g4 = a h4 = bb So, 1,3,1,2 would correspond to • aba baaa aba bbab from g’s • abaa a abaa abab from h’s Not a solution!

  16. Another Sample PCP • g1 = aba h1 = abaa • g2 = bbab h2 = abab • g3 = baaa h3 = a • g4 = a h4 = bb 1,4,2,1,3 corresponds to • aba a bbab aba baaa from g • abaa bb abab abaa a from h Solution!

  17. PCP is undecidable? • PCP shown to be undecidable by Post in 1946. • What about PCP with limited-size inputs • PCP with size 2 has been proved decidable. • PCP with size 7 has been proved undecidable • The decidablility of problems with size between 3 and 6 is still pending.

  18. What Computers Can’t DoIn Your Lifetime • We’ve now seen examples of problems that computers can’t solve, even if computers have unlimited speed and unlimited time. • Are there more real world problems (eg that arise in business, science, … ) that can be solved but take far too much time to be solved in practice?

  19. “Search” Problems • We’ll focus on what we’ll call “search problems”.(In Computer Science terms, we’ll be talking about what are termed NP problems) • Intuitively, a search problem is a problem where you are looking for something which you can recognize quickly if you find it. • Recognizing a good solution is easy • Problem is finding it

  20. Example: Coloring

  21. Example: Coloring with 3 colors • Suppose we are given a collection of circles (nodes). • Some circles connect to others by edges, forming a graph • Rule: No two connected circles can have the same color. • You only have three colors (Green, Red, Yellow) • Is there a valid coloring? • Note: easy to check validity. Hard to find?

  22. Search Problems:More Precise Definition • Intuitively, a search problem is a problem where you are looking for something which you can recognize quickly if you find it. • A bit more precisely, we require that there is a small circuit that can quickly check the validity of a solution. • For coloring, it would just be a circuit that checks that for every pair of connected circles, the colors are different.

  23. Another Example: Traveling Salesperson Problem • A saleswoman wants to visit n different cities. • She knows the costs associated with flights between each city. • Can she visit all the cities spending less than $B in total? • Note: Easy to check that a given flight plan visits all the cities and costs less than $B. • Seems hard to find the flight plan …

  24. Search Problems… • Unfortunately, we don’t know how to solve these and many other search problems with a computer in our lifetimes for large inputs. • Large graphs, large number of cities • For many years, computer scientists wondered which search problems could be solved, and which couldn’t. • But just because computer scientists couldn’t solve the Coloring problem for 40 years doesn’t mean it is impossible, right? • Proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem took over 300 years

  25. Search Problems… • Can we prove that it is impossible to solve them quickly for large inputs? • Unfortunately, not yet • But now we are much more confident that they really are impossible to solve quickly • How do we make progress toward determining an answer?

  26. Breakthrough: Reduction • A surprise: • In the early 70’s, Cook, Levin, and Karp showed us that if we can solve the Coloring problem quickly, then we can solve ALL search problems quickly! • But general search problems are defined in terms of circuits (that can validate their solutions), not colors… • Need to map circuits to graph coloring problems • Then we can map the circuit for any search problem to the corr. graph coloring problem

  27. Coloring and Circuits • Suppose we think of : • Green as meaning True. • Red as meaning False • Yellow as meaning nothing

  28. Input X Output NOT X What is the circuit for this graph? Valid coloring for this graph leads to a NOT gate T F So this is a graph for a NOT circuit

  29. F T Y X Output

  30. F T Y X F T Output

  31. F T Y X Output

  32. F T Y X Output

  33. F T Y X Output

  34. F T Y X Output

  35. F T Y X Output

  36. F T Y X Output OR =

  37. Coloring ! • And you thought coloring was for kids.. • In fact, we can encode any circuit into a collection of connected circles (graph) waiting to be colored. • Any valid coloring for the graph conforms to the circuit (which verifies a search problem) • Thus, we can efficiently reduce any search problem to Coloring. • If we can solve Coloring quickly, we can solve any search problem quickly!

  38. Many more • Traveling Salesperson Problem is also as “hard” as any search problem. • Search Problems with this property are called complete problems • Although we don’t know how to prove that they are hard, we know that if find a way to solve one of them quickly, we can solve all search problems quickly! • Gives us more confidence that they really are hard.

  39. Recap: Hard search problems • A hard search problem is a problem where • It is hard to find a solution • It is easy to check possible solutions for validity • A complete search problem is a problem that is as hard as any search problem • Search problem is believed to be hard because • No one found a way to solve any of the complete search problems quickly

  40. What does “Quickly” mean? • In time polynomial in the size of the input • E.g. if one could solve an n-city TSP in time • n2+2n+5 • or even n2000+7n1999+…+8n2+5n+6 • Then these are a Polynomial-time algorithms (quick) • But if one can only solve it in time: • 2n • or 2n+6n-1+…+3 • Then these are Exponential-time algorithms (slow)

  41. n2 versus 2n • n = 10 • n2 = 100 • 2n = 1024 • n = 100 • n2 = 10,000 • 2n = (1024)10 > 1 trillion * 1 trillion * 1 million Hence we call exponential-time algorithms slow

  42. Classes of search problems • In computer-science terminology: • NP = All Search Problems • P = Problems we can solve quickly • We believe that P  NP, i.e. not every search problem can be solved quickly on a computer.

  43. NP-Complete Problems • Coloring is complete • In particular, we can reduce solving any search problem to finding a valid coloring for some collection of circles! • So, if we could solve Coloring quickly, then P = NP • That’s why we believe Coloring can’t be solved quickly by any computer. • We call such problems NP-Complete.

More Related