Convert the following grammar to production C → ε, we get: X onto the stack for 'a'

Chomsky Normal form (CNF) S → aB | AA (q_0, abbb, X) -> (q_0, bbb, X) // Pop X
S→ a | aA | B A → aC | aBAC | a | aBA from the stack for 'b'
A→aBB | ε C → AAC | AA (q_1, bbb, \varepsilon) -> (q_1, bb,
B→ Aa | b B→b \varepsilon) // Pop X for 'b'
➔ Original Grammar: X→a (q_1, bb, \varepsilon) -> (q_1, b,
S → a | aA | Step 5: The production rule S → AA is not \varepsilon) // Pop X for 'b'
A → aBB | ε in GNF, so we substitute A → aC | aBAC | a (q_1, b, \varepsilon) -> (q_1, \varepsilon,
B → Aa | b | aBA in \varepsilon) // Pop X for 'b'
Step 1 : Eliminate Null Production. production rule S → AA as: (q_f, \varepsilon, Z) // Accept as the stack is
S→ a | aA | B | a S → aB | aCA | aBACA | aA | aBAA empty
A → aBB | B | ε A → aC | aBAC | a | aBA Stack transition function:
B → Aa | a | b C → AAC (q0, a, z)
Step 2 : Eliminate unit productions C → aCA | aBACA | aA | aBAA (q0, az)
S → a | aA | B | a B→b (q0, a, a)
A → aBB | Aa | a | b | ε X→a (q0, aa)
B → Aa | a | b Step 6: The production rule C → AAC is (q0, b, a)
Step 3: Replace terminals in productions by not in GNF, so we substitute A → aC | (q1, \epsilon )
new terminal-producing non-terminals aBAC | a | aBA in (q1, b, a)
S → X | YA | Z | X production rule C → AAC as: (q1, \epsilon )
A → YA | Xa | X | a | b | ε S → aB | aCA | aBACA | aA | aBAA (q1, \epsilon, z)
B → Xa | X | b A → aC | aBAC | a | aBA (qf, z)
X→a C → aCAC | aBACAC | aAC | aBAAC
Y→a C → aCA | aBACA | aA | aBAA
Z→b B→b
Step 4: Convert remaining productions to X→a
binary productions Hence, this is the GNF form for the
S → P | QA | R | P grammar G.
A → QA | Pa | P | a | b | ε
B → Pa | P | b Q)1Convert the following grammar to
P→a chomsky normal form (CNF)
Q→a G =({S}, {a, b}, P, S)
R→b P= {S→aSa | bSb | a | b | aa | bb}→Since
Now, the grammar is in Chomsky Normal there are no ε-productions, unit productions
Form (CNF) and also all productions already have Design a PDA for accepting a language
terminals and non-terminals in the given {0^n 1^m 0^n | m, n>=1}.?
Convert the following grammar to GNF. grammar, we can move to the next step. Simulate this PDA for the input string
S→XB | AA →Step 1: Convert remaining productions to “0011100”
A→ a | SA binary productions (productions with at ANS
B→ b most two symbols on In this PDA, n number of 0's are followed
X→ a the right-hand side). by any number of 1's followed n number of
→ Original Grammar: S → AS1 | BS2 | a | b | AS3 | BS4 0's. Hence the logic for design of such PDA
S→XB | AA S1 → a will be as follows:
A→ a | SA S2 → b Push all 0's onto the stack on encountering
B→ b S3 → a first 0's. Then if we read 1, just do nothing.
X→ a S4 → b Then read 0, and on each read of 0, pop one
Step 1: The production rule A → SA is not Now, the productions satisfy the CNF 0 from the stack. This scenario can be
in GNF, so we substitute S → XB | AA in requirements. The final CNF grammar is: written in the ID form as:
the production rule G = ({S, S1, S2, S3, S4}, {a, b}, P', S) δ(q0, 0, Z) = δ(q0, 0Z)
A → SA as: P' = {S → AS1 | BS2 | a | b | AS3 | BS4, δ(q0, 0, 0) = δ(q0, 00)
S → XB | AA S1 → a δ(q0, 1, 0) = δ(q1, 0)
A → a | XBA | AAA S2 → b, δ(q0, 1, 0) = δ(q1, 0)
B→b S3 → a, δ(q1, 0, 0) = δ(q1, ε)
X→a S4 → b δ(q0, ε, Z) = δ(q2, Z) (ACCEPT state)
Step 2: The production rule S → XB and B
→ XBA is not in GNF, so we substitute X Find the transition rules of PDA for Now, let's simulate the PDA for the input
→ a in the production accepting a language? L={w∈{a,b}* |w is string "0011100":
rule S → XB and B → XBA as: of the a^n b^n with n≥ 1} through both 1. δ(q0, 0011100, Z) δ(q0, 011100, 0Z)
S → aB | AA empty stack and final state and δ(q0, 11100, 00Z)
A → a | aBA | AAA demonstrates the stack operation for the δ(q0, 1100, 00Z)
B→b string aaabbb. →A Pushdown Automaton δ(q1, 100, 00Z)
X→a (PDA) is a finite automaton with an δ(q1, 00, 00Z)
Step 3: Now we will remove left recursion additional stack memory. The PDA for this δ(q1, 0, 0Z)
(A → AAA), we get: language can be represented by the 7-tuple δ(q1, ε, Z)
S → aB | AA (Q,Σ,Γ,δ,q0,Z,F). δ(q2, Z)
A → aC | aBAC Now, let's demonstrate the stack operation
C → AAC | ε for the string "aaabbb":
B→b (q_0, aaabbb, Z) -> (q_0, aabbb, XZ) // Push Construct a PDA for L= {0^n 1^m 2^n
X→a X onto the stack for 'a' 3^n | m,n≥ 0} →
Step 4: Now we will remove null (q_0, aabbb, X) -> (q_0, abbb, XX) // Push Case 1 ; n=0
Case 1 ; m=0 between states based on the symbols read
Case 1 ; m,n>0 from the current positions of all tape heads.
Case 1 ; m=0,n=0 Computation: During a computation, each
Final Pushdown Automatan Can be; tape head moves independently, and the
(q0,0,z0) = (q0,z0) transition function dictates the next state and
(q0,0,0) = (q0,00) the symbols to write on each tape. The
(q0,1,0) = (q1,10) concept of multi-tape Turing machines
(q0,1,1) = (q1,11) Design a Turing Machine that reads a contributes to the understanding of
(q0,2,1) =(q2,ε) string representing a binary number and computational complexity and the design of
(q0,2,1) =( q2, ε) erases all leading 0’s in the string. algorithms, providing insights into the
(q0,3,0) = (q3, ε) However, if the string comprises of only efficiency of parallel processing in the
(q0,3,0) = (q3, ε) 0’s it keeps one 0.? Let us assume that the context of theoretical computation.
(q0,ε,z0) =(q4,z0) input string is terminated by a blank symbol,
(q0,1,z0) =(q5,1z0) B, at each end of the string. The Turing Justify “ Halting problem of Turing
(q0,1,1) =( q5,11) Machine, M, can be constructed by the machine is undecidable”? → let's break
(q0,2,1) =(q6,ε) following moves – Let q0 be the initial state. down the statement "The halting problem of
(q0,2,1) =( q6, ε) If M is in q0, on reading 0, it moves right, a Turing machine is undecidable" in simple
(q0,ε,z0) =(q4,z0) enters the state q1 and erases 0. On reading terms. Now, why is it called undecidable?
(q0,3,0) =( q3, ε) 1, it enters the state q2 and moves right. Imagine you have a magical machine (let's
(q0,ε,z0) =(q4,z0) If M is in q1, on reading 0, it moves right call it the Oracle) that can answer any yes-
and erases 0, i.e., it replaces 0’s by B’s. On or-no question about whether a given
reaching the leftmost 1, it enters q2 and program will halt or not. We want to know
moves right. If it reaches B, i.e., the string if this Oracle machine is possible to exist.
comprises of only 0’s, it moves left and Here's a simple way to think about it:
enters the state q3. If M is in q2, on reading Assume we have this magical Oracle
either 0 or 1, it moves right. On reaching B, machine that can tell us whether any
it moves left and enters the state q4. This program halts or runs forever. Now, let's
validates that the string comprises only of create a new program (let's call it Paradox
0’s and 1’s. If M is in q3, it replaces B by 0, Program) that uses the Oracle machine to
moves left and reaches the final state qf. If check whether a modified version of itself
M is in q4, on reading either 0 or 1, it moves will halt or run forever. If the Oracle
Difference Finite Automaton(FA) left. On reaching the beginning of the string, machine says the modified version halts,
Pushdown Automaton(PDA)→ i.e., when it reads B, it reaches the final state then Paradox Program runs forever. If the
1.(FA) is a used to recognize patterns within qf. Oracle machine says it runs forever, then
input taken from some character set. Paradox Program halts. This creates a
1.(PDA) is a type of automata that employs Reducibility →Reducibility is a paradox because no matter what the Oracle
a stack. 2. It doesn’t have the capability or fundamental concept in the theory of machine says, it leads to a contradiction.
space to store long sequence of input computation, particularly in the context of Therefore, the initial assumption that we can
alphabets. 2. It has the additional stack for Turing machines and decidability. When we have a magical Oracle machine that decides
storing long sequence of alphabets. 3. Finite say a problem A is reducible to problem B, the halting problem must be false. This
Automata can be onstructed for Type-3 it means that solving problem B allows us to means that there is no general algorithm (a
grammar. 3. Pushdown Automata can be solve problem A. In other words, if there step-by-step procedure) that can determine
constructed for Type-2 grammar. 4. exists an algorithm to solve problem B, we whether any arbitrary program will halt or
constructed for regular language. 4. can use it to construct an algorithm to solve run forever. Hence, the halting problem for
constructed for context free grammar. problem A. This concept is crucial for Turing machines is undecidable.
understanding the relationships between
Q)Write a short note on Halting problem different computational problems. P class Problem==1)P problems are a set of
of Turing machine.? → The halting Reducibility is extensively used to classify problems that can be solved in polynomial
problem is a decision problem about problems into complexity classes and to time by deterministic algorithms. 2)P
properties of computer programs on a fixed prove the inherent difficulty of certain Problems can be solved and verified in
Turing- complete model of computation, problems. For example, many problems in polynomial time. 3)P problems are a subset
i.e., all programs that can be written in some computer science are classified as NP- of NP problems 4)All P problems are
given programming language that is general complete if they are as hard as the hardest deterministic in nature.5) The solution to P
enough to be equivalent to a Turing problems in NP (nondeterministic class problems is easy to find 6) Examples
machine. Input - A Turing machine and an polynomial time), and this classification is of P problems are: Selection sort, Linear
input string w. Problem - Does the Turing based on polynomial-time reducibility. Search.
machine finish computing of the string w in Multi-tape Turing Machin →A multi-tape NP class Problem==1)NP problems are
a finite number of steps? The answer must Turing machine is an extension of the problems that can be solved in
be either yes or no. Proof -At first, we will classical Turing machine model that nondeterministic polynomial time.2) The
assume that such a Turing machine exists to incorporates multiple tapes, each with its solution to NP problems cannot be obtained
solve this problem and then we will show it own tape head. The machine operates on in polynomial time, but if the solution is
is contradicting itself. We will call this uring multiple tapes simultaneously, and the given, it can be verified in polynomial time
machine as a Halting machine that produces transition function is defined based on the 3)NP Problems are a superset of P problem
a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ in a finite amount of time. If combination of symbols read from all tapes. 4)All the NP problems are non-deterministic
the halting machine finishes in a finite In a multi-tape Turing machine:→ in nature 5)The solution to NP class
amount of time, the output comes as ‘yes’, Configuration: The configuration of the problems is hard to find 6) Examples of NP
otherwise as ‘no’. The following is the machine is represented by the content of all problems are the Travelling salesman
block diagram of a Halting machine – tapes and the positions of the tape heads. problem and the knapsack problem.
Transition Function: The transition function
specifies how the machine transitions