1 / 108

CD5560 FABER Formal Languages, Automata and Models of Computation Lecture 15 Mälardalen University 2007

CD5560 FABER Formal Languages, Automata and Models of Computation Lecture 15 Mälardalen University 2007.

tallys
Télécharger la présentation

CD5560 FABER Formal Languages, Automata and Models of Computation Lecture 15 Mälardalen University 2007

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. CD5560 FABER Formal Languages, Automata and Models of Computation Lecture 15 Mälardalen University 2007

  2. ContentChurch-Turing ThesisOther Models of ComputationTuring Machines Recursive Functions Post Systems Rewriting Systems Matrix Grammars Markov Algorithms Lindenmayer-SystemsFundamental Limits of Computation Biological Computing Quantum Computing

  3. Church-Turing Thesis* *Source: Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

  4. A Turing machine is an abstract representation of a computing device. It is more like a computer program (software) than a computer (hardware).

  5. LCMs [Logical Computing Machines: Turing’s expression for Turing machines] were first proposed by Alan Turing, in an attempt to give a mathematically precise definition of "algorithm" or "mechanical procedure".

  6. The Church-Turing thesis • concerns an • effective or mechanical method • in logic and mathematics.

  7. A method, M, is called ‘effective’ or ‘mechanical’ just in case: • M is set out in terms of a finite number of exact instructions (each instruction being expressed by means of a finite number of symbols); • M will, if carried out without error, always produce the desired result in a finite number of steps; • M can (in practice or in principle) be carried out by a human being unaided by any machinery except for paper and pencil; • M demands no insight or ingenuity on the part of the human being carrying it out.

  8. Turing’s thesis: LCMs [logical computing machines; TMs] can do anything that could be described as "rule of thumb" or "purely mechanical". (Turing 1948) • He adds: This is sufficiently well established that it is now agreed amongst logicians that "calculable by means of an LCM" is the correct accurate rendering of such phrases.

  9. Turing introduced this thesis in the course of arguing that the Entscheidungsproblem, or decision problem, for the predicate calculus - posed by Hilbert in 1928 was unsolvable.

  10. Church’s account of the Entscheidungsproblem • By the Entscheidungsproblem of a system of symbolic logic is here understood the problem to find an effective method by which, given any expression Q in the notation of the system, it can be determined whether or not Q is provable in the system.

  11. The truth table test is such a method for the propositional calculus. • Turing showed that, given his thesis, there can be no such method for the predicate calculus.

  12. Turing proved formally that there is no TM which can determine, in a finite number of steps, whether or not any given formula of the predicate calculus is a theorem of the calculus. • So, given his thesis that if an effective method exists then it can be carried out by one of his machines, it follows that there is no such method to be found.

  13. Church’s thesis: A function of positive integers is effectively calculable only if recursive.

  14. Misunderstandings of the Turing Thesis • Turing did not show that his machines can solve any problem that can be solved "by instructions, explicitly stated rules, or procedures" and nor did he prove that a universal Turing machine "can compute any function that any computer, with any architecture, can compute".

  15. Turing proved that his universal machine can compute any function that any Turing machine can compute; and he put forward, and advanced philosophical arguments in support of, the thesis here called Turing’s thesis.

  16. A thesis concerning the extent of effective methods - procedures that a human being unaided by machinery is capable of carrying out - has no implication concerning the extent of the procedures that machines are capable of carrying out, even machines acting in accordance with ‘explicitly stated rules’.

  17. Among a machine’s repertoire of atomic operations there may be those that no human being unaided by machinery can perform.

  18. Turing introduces his machines as an idealised description of a certain human activity, the one of numerical computation, which until the advent of automatic computing machines was the occupation of many thousands of people in commerce, government, and research establishments.

  19. Turing’s "Machines". These machines are humans who calculate. (Wittgenstein) • A man provided with paper, pencil, and rubber, and subject to strict discipline, is in effect a universal machine. (Turing)

  20. The Entscheidungsproblem is the problem of finding a humanly executable procedure of a certain sort, and Turing’s aim was precisely to show that there is no such procedure in the case of predicate logic.

  21. Other Models of Computation

  22. Models of Computation • Turing Machines • Recursive Functions • Post Systems • Rewriting Systems

  23. Turing’s Thesis A computation is mechanical if and only if it can be performed by a Turing Machine. Church’s Thesis (extended)All models of computation are equivalent.

  24. Post Systems • Axioms • Productions Very similar to unrestricted grammars.

  25. Theorem: A language is recursively enumerable if and only if it is generated by a Turing Machine.

  26. Theorem: A language is recursively enumerable if and only if it is generated by a recursive function.

  27. Post SystemsExample: Unary Addition Axiom: Productions:

  28. A production:

  29. Post systems are good for proving mathematical statements from a set of Axioms.

  30. Theorem: A language is recursively enumerable if and only if it is generated by a Post system.

  31. Rewriting Systems They convert one string to another • Matrix Grammars • Markov Algorithms • Lindenmayer-Systems (L-Systems) Very similar to unrestricted grammars.

  32. Matrix Grammars Example: Derivation: A set of productions is applied simultaneously.

  33. Theorem: A language is recursively enumerable if and only if it is generated by a Matrix grammar.

  34. Markov Algorithms Grammars that produce Example: Derivation:

  35. In general:

  36. Theorem: A language is recursively enumerable if and only if it is generated by a Markov algorithm.

  37. Lindenmayer-Systems They are parallel rewriting systems Example: Derivation:

  38. context Lindenmayer-Systems are not general as recursively enumerable languages Extended Lindenmayer-Systems: Theorem: A language is recursively enumerable if and only if it is generated by an Extended Lindenmayer-System.

  39. L-System Example: Fibonacci numbers • Consider the following simple grammar: • variables : A B • constants : none • start: A • rules: A B • B  AB

  40. This L-system produces the following sequence of strings ... • Stage 0 : A • Stage 1 : B • Stage 2 : AB • Stage 3 : BAB • Stage 4 : ABBAB • Stage 5 : BABABBAB • Stage 6 : ABBABBABABBAB • Stage 7 : BABABBABABBABBABABBAB

  41. If we count the length of each string, we obtain the Fibonacci sequence of numbers : • 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 ....

  42. Example - Algal growth The figure shows the pattern of cell lineages found in the alga Chaetomorpha linum. To describe this pattern, we must let the symbols denote cells in different states, rather than different structures.

  43. This growth process can be generated from an axiom A and growth rules • A  DB • B  C • C  D • D  E • E  A

  44. Here is the pattern generated by this model. It matches the arrangement of cells in the original alga. • Stage 0 : A • Stage 1 : D B • Stage 2 : E C • Stage 3 : A D • Stage 4 : D B E • Stage 5 : E C A • Stage 6 : A D D B • Stage 7 : D B E E C • Stage 8 : E C A A D • Stage 9 : A D D B D B E • Stage 10 : D B E E C E C A • Stage 11 : E C A A D A D D B

  45. Example - a compound leaf (or branch) • Leaf1 { ; Name of the l-system, "{" indicates start • ; Compound leaf with alternating branches, • angle 8 ; Set angle increment to (360/8)=45 degrees • axiom x ; Starting character string • a=n ; Change every "a" into an "n" • n=o ; Likewise change "n" to "o" etc ... • o=p • p=x • b=e • e=h • h=j • j=y • x=F[+A(4)]Fy ; Change every "x" into "F[+A(4)]Fy" • y=F[-B(4)]Fx ; Change every "y" into "F[-B(4)]Fx" • F=@1.18F@i1.18 • } ; final } indicates end

  46. http://www.xs4all.nl/~cvdmark/tutor.html (Cool site with animated L-systems)

  47. Here is a series of forms created by slowly changing the angle parameter. lsys00.ls Check the rest of the Gallery of L-systems: http://home.wanadoo.nl/laurens.lapre/

  48. A model of a horse chestnut tree inspired by the work of Chiba and Takenaka. Plant Environment Response Reception Internal processes Internal processes Here branches compete for light from the sky hemisphere. Clusters of leaves cast shadows on branches further down. An apex in shade does not produce new branches. An existing branch whose leaves do not receive enough light dies and is shed from the tree. In such a manner, the competition for light controls the density of branches in the tree crowns. Reception Response

  49. Plant Environment Reception Response Internal processes Internal processes Response Reception

More Related