Arjun Suresh (talk | contribs) |
Arjun Suresh (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Which of the following '''CANNOT''' be true ? | Which of the following '''CANNOT''' be true ? | ||
| − | (A) <math>L_1</math> | + | (A) <math>L_1</math> $\in P$ and <math>L_2</math> is finite |
| − | (B) <math>L_1</math> | + | (B) <math>L_1</math> $\in NP$ and <math>L_2</math> $\in P$ |
'''(C) <math>L_1</math> is undecidable and <math>L_2</math> is decidable''' | '''(C) <math>L_1</math> is undecidable and <math>L_2</math> is decidable''' | ||
Consider two languages $L_1$ and $L_2$ each on the alphabet $\Sigma$. Let $f : \Sigma → \Sigma$ be a polynomial time computable bijection such that $(\forall x) [x\in L_1$ iff $f(x) \in L_2]$. Further, let $f^{-1}$ be also polynomial time computable.
Which of the following CANNOT be true ?
(A) <math>L_1</math> $\in P$ and <math>L_2</math> is finite
(B) <math>L_1</math> $\in NP$ and <math>L_2</math> $\in P$
(C) <math>L_1</math> is undecidable and <math>L_2</math> is decidable
(D) <math>L_1</math> is recursively enumerable and <math>L_2</math> is recursive
A language <math>L</math> is recursively enumerable (partially decidable), iff there is a Turing Machine <math>M</math>, which can enumerate all the strings of <math>L</math>.
So, suppose <math>L_2</math> is decidable. Now we have a <math>TM</math> <math>T</math>, which can enumerate all strings of <math>L_2</math>. For each of these strings <math>w</math>, we can find <math>x</math>, such that <math>f(x) = w</math>, using the function $f^{-1}$. Since $f^{-1}$ is bijective, it ensures that for each of the string <math>w</math> enumerated by <math>T</math>, we are getting a unique $f^{-1}(w)$ (because of one-one property of bijection) and we are guaranteed that we'll generate all strings of $L_1$ (because of "co-domain = range" property of bijection),. i.e.; we are actually enumerating all strings of <math>L_1</math>. Thus, we are getting a <math>TM</math> which is enumerating all strings of <math>L_1</math>, which means <math>L_1</math> should also be recursively enumerable (partially decidable).
Thus, if <math>L_2</math> is decidable, <math>L_1</math> will at-least be partially decidable.
Consider two languages $L_1$ and $L_2$ each on the alphabet $\Sigma$. Let $f : \Sigma → \Sigma$ be a polynomial time computable bijection such that $(\forall x) [x\in L_1$ iff $f(x) \in L_2]$. Further, let $f^{-1}$ be also polynomial time computable.
Which of the following CANNOT be true ?
(A) <math>L_1</math> Image not present P and <math>L_2</math> is finite
(B) <math>L_1</math> Image not present NP and <math>L_2</math> Image not present P
(C) <math>L_1</math> is undecidable and <math>L_2</math> is decidable
(D) <math>L_1</math> is recursively enumerable and <math>L_2</math> is recursive
A language <math>L</math> is recursively enumerable (partially decidable), iff there is a Turing Machine <math>M</math>, which can enumerate all the strings of <math>L</math>.
So, suppose <math>L_2</math> is decidable. Now we have a <math>TM</math> <math>T</math>, which can enumerate all strings of <math>L_2</math>. For each of these strings <math>w</math>, we can find <math>x</math>, such that <math>f(x) = w</math>, using the function $f^{-1}$. Since $f^{-1}$ is bijective, it ensures that for each of the string <math>w</math> enumerated by <math>T</math>, we are getting a unique $f^{-1}(w)$ (because of one-one property of bijection) and we are guaranteed that we'll generate all strings of $L_1$ (because of "co-domain = range" property of bijection),. i.e.; we are actually enumerating all strings of <math>L_1</math>. Thus, we are getting a <math>TM</math> which is enumerating all strings of <math>L_1</math>, which means <math>L_1</math> should also be recursively enumerable (partially decidable).
Thus, if <math>L_2</math> is decidable, <math>L_1</math> will at-least be partially decidable.
GATECSE