## Is all language over sigma= {0} is decidable?

I have problem in determine whether it is decidable or not, can somebody help me please

## Difference between regular grammar and CFG in generating computation histories and $\Sigma^*$

I would like to ask for intuition behind the difference between the way a CFG generates $$\Sigma^*$$ and the way a regular grammar generates $$\Sigma^*$$.. I got the examples here from Sipser. Let $$ALL_{CFG}$$ refer to the language that a CFG generates $$\Sigma^*$$, and let $$ALL_{REX}$$ refer to the regular expression equivalent to a regular grammar which generates $$\Sigma^*$$.

From what I got, we have:

• $$ALL_{CFG}$$ is not decidable, it is also not Turing-recognizable. Let $$\overline{A_{TM}}$$ refer to the language that a TM $$M$$ does not accept input word $$w$$. We can reduce $$\overline{A_{TM}}$$ to $$ALL_{CFG}$$ in polynomial time using computation histories. The reduction constructs a CFG which generates all possible words where: 1) the first characters do not match $$w$$, 2) the last characters do not match accepting configurations, and 3) characters do not match valid transitions of $$M$$‘s configurations. Since the reduction maps $$\overline{A_{TM}}$$ to $$ALL_{CFG}$$, and $$\overline{A_{TM}}$$ is not Turing-recognizable, $$ALL_{CFG}$$ is not Turing-recognizable.

• $$ALL_{REX}$$ is decidable since it is decidable if a finite automaton accepts $$\Sigma^*$$. However, any regular language $$R$$ can be mapped to the language $$ALL_{REX} \cap f(R_M)$$, where $$R_M$$ is a TM that decides $$R$$, and $$f(R_M)$$ is a similar reduction of computation histories as outlined above. In more detail, $$f(R_M)$$ is the regular grammar that generates all possible words where 1) the first characters do not match $$w$$, 2) the last characters do not match rejecting configurations, and 3) characters do not match valid transitions of $$R_M$$‘s configurations. The decider for $$ALL_{REX} \cap f(R_M)$$ checks if $$f(R_M)$$ is equal to $$\Sigma^*$$.

So, I would like to ask:

From above, both regular grammars and CFG could generate computation histories of a TM. But what is it with the CFG’s grammar structure that makes it valid to reduce $$\overline{A_{TM}}$$ to $$ALL_{CFG}$$, but it is not possible for $$\overline{A_{TM}}$$ to be reduced to $$ALL_{REX} \cap f(A_{TM})$$ ? I know that we cannot reduce $$\overline{A_{TM}}$$ to $$ALL_{REX} \cap f(A_{TM})$$ since $$ALL_{REX} \cap f(A_{TM})$$ is decidable, while $$\overline{A_{TM}}$$ is not Turing-recognizable… But I would like to ask in terms of the difference in grammar rules between CFG’s and regular grammars.

Posted on Categories proxies

## Is this correct : whether or not a type 3 grammar generates $\Sigma^*$ is not c.e

An example from Sipser’s book, Introduction to the Theory of Computation, shows that it is not decidable for a $$TM$$ to recognize whether a $$CFG$$ (or a type 2 grammar) generates $$\Sigma^*$$, where $$\Sigma$$ is the alphabet. Call this language $$CFG_{all}$$

But the above language is also not computably enumerable. There can be a reduction from $$CFG_{all}$$ to $$\bar{A_{TM}}$$, where $$\bar{A_{TM}}$$ is the language s.t. the input $$TM$$ does not accept any input. $$\bar{A_{TM}}$$ is not computably enumerable.

But could we say that whether or not a type 3 grammar generates $$\Sigma^*$$ is also not c.e. ? (since type 3 grammars are a subset of context-free grammars). While it is true that a finite automaton can recognize $$\Sigma^*$$, this language is different right from whether a type 3 grammar generates $$\Sigma^*$$?

Just to clarify the source of my confusion, in summary, it is decidable for a $$TM$$ to decide whether a pushdown automaton recognizes $$\Sigma^*$$ or accepts any input, but it is not decidable or even computably enumerable for a $$TM$$ to recognize that a CFG generates $$\Sigma^*$$. Similarly, it is decidable for a $$TM$$ to check if a finite automaton accepts $$\Sigma^*$$, but it may not be decidable for a $$TM$$ to check if a type 3 grammar generates $$\Sigma^*$$. It’s somehow the difference between recognizing and generating.

Posted on Categories proxies

## What is the density of a regular language $L$ over an alphabet $\Sigma$ in $\Sigma^n$?

In other words, what is the likelihood that a recognizer of a given regular language will accept a random string of length $$n$$?

If there is only a single non-terminal $$A$$, then there are only two kinds of rules:

1. Intermediate rules of the form $$S \to \sigma S$$.
2. Terminating rules of the form $$S \to \sigma$$.

Such a grammar can then be rewritten in shorthand with exactly two rules, thusly:

\left\{\begin{align} &S \enspace \to \enspace \{\sigma, \tau, \dots\} S = ΤS\ &S \enspace \to \enspace \{\sigma, \tau, \dots\} = Τ’\ \end{align}\right.\ \space \ (Τ, Τ’ \subset \Sigma)

So, we simply choose one of the $$Τ$$ (this is Tau) symbols at every position, except for the last one, which we choose from $$Τ’$$.

$$d = \frac {\lvert Τ\rvert^{n – 1} \lvert Τ’ \rvert} {\lvert\Sigma\rvert^n}$$

I will call an instance of such language $$L_1$$.

If there are two non-terminals, the palette widens:

1. Looping rules of the form $$S \to \sigma S$$.
2. Alternating rules of the form $$S \to \sigma A$$.
3. Terminating rules of the form $$S \to \sigma$$.
4. Looping rules of the form $$A \to \sigma A$$.
5. Alternating rules of the form $$A \to \sigma S$$.
6. Terminating rules of the form $$A \to \sigma$$.

In shorthand: \left\{\begin{align} &S \enspace \to \enspace Τ_{SS} S \ &S \enspace \to \enspace Τ_{SA} A \ &S \enspace \to \enspace Τ_{S\epsilon} \ &A \enspace \to \enspace Τ_{AA} A \ &A \enspace \to \enspace Τ_{AS} S \ &A \enspace \to \enspace Τ_{S\epsilon} \ \end{align}\right.\ \space \ (Τ_{SS}, Τ_{SA}, Τ_{S\epsilon}, Τ_{AA}, Τ_{AS}, Τ_{S\epsilon} \subset \Sigma)

Happily, we may deconstruct this complicated language into words of the simpler languages $$L_1$$ by taking only a looping rule and either an alternating or a terminating shorthand rule. This gives us four languages that I will intuitively denote $$L_{1S}, L_{1S\epsilon}, L_{1A}, L_{1A\epsilon}$$. I will also say $$L^n$$ meaning all the sentences of $$L$$ that are $$n$$ symbols long.

So, the sentences of this present language (let us call it $$L_2$$) consist of $$k$$ alternating words of $$L_{1S}$$ and $$L_{1A}$$ of lengths $$m_1 \dots m_k, \sum_{i = 1 \dots k}m_i = n$$, starting with $$L_{1S}^{m_1}$$ and ending on either $$L_{1S\epsilon}^{m_k}$$ if $$k$$ is odd or otherwise on $$L_{1A\epsilon}^{m_k}$$.

To compute the number of such sentences, we may start with the set $$\{P\}$$ of integer partitions of $$n$$, then from each partition $$P = \langle m_1\dots m_k \rangle$$ compute the following numbers:

1. The number $$p$$ of distinct permutations $$\left(^k_Q\right)$$ of the constituent words, where $$Q = \langle q_1\dots\ \rangle$$ is the number of times each integer is seen in $$P$$. For instance, for $$n = 5$$ and $$P = \langle 2, 2, 1 \rangle$$, $$Q = \langle 1, 2 \rangle$$ and $$p = \frac{3!}{2! \times 1!} = 3$$

2. The product $$r$$ of the number of words of lengths $$m_i \in P$$, given that the first word comes from $$L_{1S}$$, the second from $$L_{1A}$$, and so on (and accounting for the last word being of a slightly different form):

$$r = \prod_{i = 1, 3\dots k – 1}\lvert L_{1S}^{m_i} \rvert \times \prod_{i = 2, 4\dots k – 1}\lvert L_{1A}^{m_i} \rvert \times \begin{cases} & \lvert L_{1S\epsilon}^{m_k} \rvert &\text{if m is odd}\ & \lvert L_{1A\epsilon}^{m_k} \rvert &\text{if m is even}\ \end{cases}$$

If my thinking is right, the sum of $$p \times r$$ over the partitions of $$n$$ is the number of sentences of $$L_2$$ of length $$n$$, but this is a bit difficult for me.

My questions:

• Is this the right way of thinking?
• Can it be carried onwards to regular grammars of any complexity?
• Is there a simpler way?
• Is there prior art on this topic?
Posted on Categories proxies

## Prove that there is no computability reduction HP $\le$ $\Sigma$*

I tried to prove in negative way that there is computability reduction HP $$\le$$ $$\Sigma$$* and accept contradiction because of HP $$\in$$ RE and $$\Sigma$$* $$\in$$ R but it feels that is not strong argument.

There is a more solid way to prove it?

Posted on Categories proxies

## prove $L=\{M\ |\ M\ is\ a\ TM\ and\ \forall.x\in \Sigma^*\ with\ |x|>2,\ M\ on\ x\ runs\ at\ most\ 4|x|^2\ steps\}\notin R$

I am trying to prove that the language

$$L=\{M\ |\ M\ is\ a\ TM\ and\ \forall.x\in \Sigma^*\ with\ |x|>2,\ M\ on\ x\ runs\ at\ most\ 4|x|^2\ steps\}$$

belongs to $$Co-RE$$ but not to $$R$$.

Showing $$\bar{L}\in RE$$ is pretty much straight forward, but I also want to show that $$L\notin{R}$$

My idea was a reduction $$\bar{H_{TM}}\le_mL$$ but I struggle to figure out how to do it.

Any help/guidance will be much appreciated.

Posted on Categories proxies

## If $\lambda \notin \sigma(A)$ then $\lambda \in \sigma (B)$ iff $\lambda \in \sigma_p(B)$ or $\overline{\lambda} \in \sigma_p(B^*)$

Let $$A$$, $$B$$ and $$C$$ the differential operators defined by $$D(A)=H^{2n}(\mathbb{R}), \ D(B)=H^{2n}(0, \infty)\cap H^{n}_0(0, \infty), D(C)=H^{2n}(-\infty,0)\cap H^{n}_0(-\infty,0),$$ where $$H^{k}(I)$$ is the Sobolev space $$W^{k,2}(I)$$, and $$Af:=Tf, Bg:=Tg, Ch:=Th \mbox{ for } \ f \in D(A), \ g \in D(B), \ h \in D(C),$$ where $$T:=\sum_{r=0}^{2n}a_r\frac{d^r}{dx^r}$$ with $$a_r$$ complex constants.

I know that $$\sigma(A)=\sigma_{ess}(A)$$, i.e., $$\lambda \in \sigma(A)$$ iff $$A-\lambda I$$ is not a Fredholm operator (an operator is Fredholm if its range is closed and both its kernel and its cokernel are finite-dimensional).

I need to show that if $$\lambda \notin \sigma(A)$$ then $$\lambda \in \sigma (B)$$ iff $$\lambda$$ is an eigenvalue of $$B$$ or $$\overline{\lambda}$$ is an eigenvalue of $$B^{*}$$. I’m reading a proof of that assertion, but I don’t understand the argument. The proof is the following:

Since $$B\oplus C$$ differs from $$A$$ only by imposing homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions at $$0$$ (I think that I can say that $$A$$ is a finite-dimensional extension of $$B\oplus C$$), the difference of the resolvents is of finite rank (If $$A$$ is a finite-dimensional extension of $$B\oplus C$$, the difference of the resolvents of that operators is of finite rank (Lemma 6.32 on page 188 of Kato’s book)). So if $$\lambda \notin \sigma(A)$$ then it follows that $$B-\lambda I$$ and $$C-\lambda I$$ are Fredholm operators (why?). Thus $$\lambda \in \sigma (B)$$ iff $$\lambda$$ is an eigenvalue of $$B$$ or $$\overline{\lambda}$$ is an eigenvalue of $$B^{*}$$ (why?).

Thank you for reading my question. Can you help me to understand the proof?

## Problem

Suppose $$A$$ is $$n \times n$$ Hermitian matrix, and unitarily diagonalized as follows

$$A = U\Sigma U^\ast$$

where $$\Sigma$$ is the diagonal matrix with eigenvalues and $$U$$ is the matrix of orthonormal eigenvectors.

Show, for $$\forall y$$ such that $$\Vert y \Vert_2 = 1$$,

$$\min_{\lambda \in \sigma(A)} |\lambda| \le \vert y^\ast \Sigma y \vert \le \max_{\lambda \in \sigma(A)} |\lambda|$$

where $$\sigma(A)$$ denotes the set of all eigenvalues of $$A$$.

## Try

Let $$u_1, \cdots, u_n$$ be the columns of $$U$$. Then

$$y = \sum_{i=1}^n a_i u_i$$

with $$\sum_i a_i^2 = 1$$. Thus

$$\vert y^\ast \Sigma y \vert = \vert \sum_{i=1}^n a_i^2 \lambda_i \vert$$

but I’m not sure we can say

$$\min_{\lambda \in \sigma(A)} |\lambda| \le \vert \sum_{i=1}^n a_i^2 \lambda_i \vert \le \max_{\lambda \in \sigma(A)} |\lambda|$$

Any help will be appreciated.

Posted on Categories proxies

## Why is $\sigma (g) = \phi (g) g$ for every $\phi \in \mathrm{Hom} (G,Z)$?

Let $$G$$ be a group.

Let $$Z$$ be the center of $$G$$ which is not finite, such that $$G/Z$$ is a finite group.

If $$\sigma \in \mathrm{Aut} ( G )$$, then $$\sigma ( Z ) = Z$$, hence, we obtain the two following morphisms : $$\mathrm{Aut} ( G ) \to \mathrm{Aut} ( Z )$$ and $$\mathrm{Aut} ( G ) \to \mathrm{Aut} ( G / Z )$$

Question :

Why is :

$$\sigma \in \ker ( \mathrm{Aut} ( G ) \to \mathrm{Aut} ( G/Z )$$ if and only if $$\sigma (g) = \phi (g) g$$ for every $$\phi \in \mathrm{Hom} (G,Z)$$ ?

## Prooving equations are non derivable in Sigma algebra

Let Σ be the signature made up from the following symbols.

e: 0argument function (constant symbol) f: 2 argument function g: 1 argument function

Variable set Var is made up from x,y,z

Let E be the set of the following equations

f(x,f(y,z)) = f(f(x,y),z) f(x,e) = x f(g(x),x) = e

How can I prove that the following equations are non-derivable from E

f(e,x) = x f(x,g(x)) = e

Posted on Categories proxies