Цікавий метричний простір, пов'язаний з машинами Тьюрінга


16

У цьому питанні ми розглядаємо лише машини Тьюрінга, які зупиняються на всіх входах. Якщо k ∈ N,k∈N то через T kTk позначаємо машину Тюрінга, кодом якої є kk .

Розглянемо наступну функцію

s(x,y)=min{k∣|L(Tk)∩{x,y}|=1}

s(x,y)=min{k∣|L(Tk)∩{x,y}|=1}

In other words, s(x,y)s(x,y) is the code of the smallest Turing machine that recognizes precisely one of the strings x,y.x,y. We can now define the following map

d(x,y)={2−s(x,y)if x≠y,0otherwise.

d(x,y)={2−s(x,y)0if x≠y,otherwise.

It can be quickly verified that d(x,y)d(x,y) induces a metric space (in fact an ultrametrics) on Σ∗.Σ∗.

Now I would like to prove that if f:Σ∗↦Σ∗f:Σ∗↦Σ∗ is a uniformly continuous function then for every recursive language L, f−1(L)f−1(L) is recursive as well.

In other words let ff be a map such that for every ϵ>0ϵ>0 there is a δ>0δ>0 such that if for strings x,y∈Σ∗x,y∈Σ∗ d(x,y)≤δ

d(x,y)≤δ
then d(f(x),f(y))<ϵ.
d(f(x),f(y))<ϵ.
Then we need to show that f−1(L)f−1(L) is a recursive language given that LL is recursive.

Now as already noted in this post one way to approach the problem is to show that there is a Turing machine that given a string x∈Σ∗x∈Σ∗ computes f(x).f(x).

I am stuck proving this claim and slowly wondering if there is some other approach to solve this?

Hints, suggestions and solutions are welcome!


1
Why are you trying to prove this? It reminds me of Banach-Mazur computability, which is not very well behaved.
— Andrej Bauer

@AndrejBauer Homework assignment!
— Jernej

Відповіді:


9

Edit: removed hints, posted my solution.

Here is my solution. We're going to pick a reference point xx where f(x)∈Lf(x)∈L and consider the universe from xx and f(x)f(x)'s points of view. It turns out that every "neighborhood" of a point corresponds to a recursive language. So LL is a neighborhood around f(x)f(x), and there will be some neighborhood around xx that maps to it; this neighborhood is a recursive language.

Lemma. In this space, a language is recursive if and only if it is a neighborhood of each of its strings.

Proof. First, fix a recursive language LL and let x∈Lx∈L. Let KK be the minimal index of a decider for LL. Then we have that if y∉Ly∉L, s(x,y)≤Ks(x,y)≤K, so d(x,y)≥1/2Kd(x,y)≥1/2K. Thus d(x,y)<1/2Kd(x,y)<1/2K implies that y∈Ly∈L.

Second, let xx be an arbitrary string and fix ε>0ε>0; let K=⌊log(1/ε)⌋K=⌊log(1/ε)⌋. Let LK={y:d(x,y)<ε}LK={y:d(x,y)<ε}; then LK={y:s(x,y)>K}LK={y:s(x,y)>K}. Then we can write

LK={y:(∀j=1,…,K)|L(Tj)∩{x,y}|≠1}.

LK={y:(∀j=1,…,K)|L(Tj)∩{x,y}|≠1}.

But LKLK is decidable: On input yy, one may simulate the first KK deciders on xx and yy and accept if and only if each either accepted both or rejected both.  ◻ □

Now we're almost done:

Prop. Let ff be continuous. If LL is recursive, then f−1(L)f−1(L) is recursive.

Proof. Under a continuous function, the preimage of a neighborhood is a neighborhood.


Interestingly, I think that in this space a continuous function is uniformly continuous: Let ff be continuous, so for each point xx, for each εε there exists a corresponding δδ. Fix an εε and let K=⌊log(1/ε)⌋K=⌊log(1/ε)⌋. There are a finite number of balls of size εε: there is L(T1)∪L(T2)⋯∪L(TK)L(T1)∪L(T2)⋯∪L(TK); then there is ¯L(T1)∪L(T2)⋯∪L(TK)L(T1)¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯∪L(T2)⋯∪L(TK); then L(T1)∪¯L(T2)⋯∪L(TK)L(T1)∪L(T2)¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯⋯∪L(TK), and so on. ff associates to each of these languages LiLi a preimage language L′iL′i with associated diameter δiδi. For each x∈L′ix∈L′i, d(x,y)≤δi⟹d(f(x),f(y))≤εd(x,y)≤δi⟹d(f(x),f(y))≤ε. So we can take the minimum over these finitely many δδs to get the uniform continuity constant δδ associated with this εε.


1
Clearly d(x′,y′)≤12Kd(x′,y′)≤12K but I still miss how to show that f−1(L)f−1(L) is recursive!
— Jernej

@Jernej OK, so first, we also have the contrapositive -- if d(x′,y′)>12K then either both are in L or neither is. Now let's take ϵ=12K. Then there is some δ so, if d(x,y)≤δ, then |L∩{f(x),f(y)}|=1. In particular, let's pick some x with x′=f(x)∈L. Now we want to know where all the other elements of L lie relative to x′, and therefore where must the other members of f−1(L) lie relative to x?
— usul

@Jernej I have posted my solution now. I hope what I posted earlier was helpful! Thanks for posting this problem, it is very cool.
— usul

Thank you very much for your answer. It took me a while to digest the hints hence I haven't upvoted and accepted your answer!
— Jernej

Quick question. We have shown that LK is decidable. I don't see how it follows that it is recursive? Cant it be that one of the simulated Tj never halts?
— Jernej
Використовуючи наш веб-сайт, ви визнаєте, що прочитали та зрозуміли наші Політику щодо файлів cookie та Політику конфіденційності.
Licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required.