Two-tape turing machine, Theory of Computation

Assignment Help:

Let there L1 and L2 . We show that L1 ∩ L2 is CFG .

Let M1 be a decider for L1 and M2 be a decider for L2 .

Consider a 2-tape TM M:

"On input x:

1. copy x on the second tape

2. on the ?rst tape run M1 on x

M=

3. if M1 accepted then goto 4. else M rejects

4. on the second tape run M2 on x

5. if M2 accepted then M accepts else M rejects."

The machine M is a decider and it accepts a string x i? both M1 and M2 accept x.

Two-tape TM is as expressive as the single tape TM.

The process is as follows

"Given a CFG G and a string w , does G generate w ?

Language Formulation (Acceptance Problem for CFG) def

ACFG = {?G , w ? | G is a CFG, w a string and w ∈ L(G )}

The language ACFG is decidable.

 Construct a decider M for ACFG :M = " 1. On input x check if x = ?G , w ? where

G is an CFG and w is a string, if not then M rejects.

2. Convert G into Chomsky normal form.

3. List all derivations in G of length exactly 2|w | - 1,

if w = ? then check if there is the rule S → ?.

4. If w is ever generated then M accepts, else M rejects."


Related Discussions:- Two-tape turing machine

Abstract model of computation, When we say "solved algorithmically" we are ...

When we say "solved algorithmically" we are not asking about a speci?c programming language, in fact one of the theorems in computability is that essentially all reasonable program

Kleene closure, One might assume that non-closure under concatenation would...

One might assume that non-closure under concatenation would imply non closure under both Kleene- and positive closure, since the concatenation of a language with itself is included

Concatenation, We saw earlier that LT is not closed under concatenation. If...

We saw earlier that LT is not closed under concatenation. If we think in terms of the LT graphs, recognizing the concatenation of LT languages would seem to require knowing, while

Automata, As we are primarily concerned with questions of what is and what ...

As we are primarily concerned with questions of what is and what is not computable relative to some particular model of computation, we will usually base our explorations of langua

Mapping reducibility, (c) Can you say that B is decidable? (d) If you someh...

(c) Can you say that B is decidable? (d) If you somehow know that A is decidable, what can you say about B?

Suffix substitution closure, Our primary concern is to obtain a clear chara...

Our primary concern is to obtain a clear characterization of which languages are recognizable by strictly local automata and which aren't. The view of SL2 automata as generators le

Class of recognizable languages, Proof (sketch): Suppose L 1 and L 2 are ...

Proof (sketch): Suppose L 1 and L 2 are recognizable. Then there are DFAs A 1 = (Q,Σ, T 1 , q 0 , F 1 ) and A 2 = (P,Σ, T 2 , p 0 , F 2 ) such that L 1 = L(A 1 ) and L 2 = L(

Pumping lemma constant, a) Let n be the pumping lemma constant. Then if L i...

a) Let n be the pumping lemma constant. Then if L is regular, PL implies that s can be decomposed into xyz, |y| > 0, |xy| ≤n, such that xy i z is in L for all i ≥0. Since the le

Write Your Message!

Captcha
Free Assignment Quote

Assured A++ Grade

Get guaranteed satisfaction & time on delivery in every assignment order you paid with us! We ensure premium quality solution document along with free turntin report!

All rights reserved! Copyrights ©2019-2020 ExpertsMind IT Educational Pvt Ltd