Chapter 3 #19 Problem X Chapter 5 #24

Chapter 3 #19

Problem Statement
Show that every infinite Turing-recognizable language has an infinite decidable subset
Martinovic says...
Use the result of 3.18: "A language is decidable iff some enumerator enumerates the language in lexicographic order."

Proof
Let L be an infinite Turing-recognizable language. Let E be the enumerator that recognizes L. Define the enumerator D as follows: D = "1) Set the length n := -1 2) Simulate E. When E prints a word w: - if |w| > n, print w and set n := |w| - else do nothing with w."

Proof (cont.)
D will print out a list of strings of increasing length L is infinite, so there is always a string w such that |w| > n L(D) is a subset of L and is infinite L(D) is decidable by 3.18 because D enumerates it in lexicographic order Therefore, every infinite Turing-recognizable language has an infinite decidable subset.

Problem X

Problem X: Problem Statement

Consider Inf = { M | M is a Turing Machine and L(M) is infinite}. Prove that Inf is not Turing Recognizable.
Martinovic says...
Use Rice's Theorem! Or, consider reducing ATMC to Inf!

Proof (1)
Let Inf = {M | M is a Turing Machine and L(M) is infinite} Inf is nontrivial: Some TMs have infinite languages while others do not Inf depends only on the language of the TM.
That is, if two TMs recognize the same language, either both will be in Inf or neither will.

Therefore, Inf is not decidable by Rice's Theorem.

Proof (2)
Let Fin = {M | M is a Turing Machine and L(M) is finite} = Infc. Let Reg = {M | M is a TM and L(M) is a regular language}. Reg is recognizable but undecidable by Theorem 5.3 By definition, all finite languages are regular languages Therefore, all M in Fin are also in Reg, and Fin is also Turing recognizable.

Proof (3)
Inf is undecidable Fin = Infc is recognizable but undecidable By Theorem 4.22, Fin would be decidable if Inf were recognizable Therefore, Inf is not Turing recognizable.

Chapter 5 #24

Problem 5.24: Problem Statement

Let J = {w | either w = 0x for some x in ATM, or w = 1y for some y in ATMC}. Show that neither J nor Jc is Turing-recognizable.
Martinovic says...
Use the fact that ATMC is not recursively enumerable!

Proof (1)
Let F be the mapping reduction such that ATMC <=m J. F = "On input <M,w>, where M is a TM and w is a string: Output 1<M,w>" If <M,w> is in ATMC, the output of F will be in J. ATMC is mapping reducible to J, so J is not Turing-recognizable.

Proof (2)
JC = {w | w=0x, x not in ATM, or w=1y, y not in ATMC.} Let F be the mapping reduction such that ATMC <= JC . F = "On input <M,w>: Output 0<M,w>" This obviously maps ATMC to JC. Therefore, JC is not Turing recognizable.

Questions?
Martinovic says...
Nope!