I have prepared a course in automata theory (finite automata, context-free grammars, decidability, and intractability), and it begins April 23, You can learn. Why Study Automata Theory? § Introduction to Formal Proofs Dantsin, E. et al. (). Automata theory, Languages, and Computation. 3rd ed. Pearson. Hopcroft et al. also essentially equate Turing machines and [7] J.E. Hopcroft, R. Motwani, and J.D. Ullman. Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Addison Wesley / Pearson Education, [8] J.E. Hopcroft and J.D. Ullman. Formal Languages and their Relation to Automata.

Author: | Garr Zolosar |

Country: | Cayman Islands |

Language: | English (Spanish) |

Genre: | Automotive |

Published (Last): | 11 October 2004 |

Pages: | 304 |

PDF File Size: | 12.30 Mb |

ePub File Size: | 1.61 Mb |

ISBN: | 479-8-82047-834-9 |

Downloads: | 41851 |

Price: | Free* [*Free Regsitration Required] |

Uploader: | Taur |

Typability and type checking in System F are equivalent and undecidable. References A lot of the above remains controversial in mainstream computer science. Writing Assignment at Siegen University. A much better dissemination strategy, I believe, is to remain solely in the mathematical realm of Turing machines or other — yet equivalent — mathematical objects when explaining undecidability to students, as exemplified by the textbooks of Martin Davis [3, 4].

So there seems to be no problem after all. Furthermore, Hopcroft et al.

### Welcome to Zhilin Wu’s Homepage!

Minds and Machines3: Fundamentals of Theoretical Computer Science. It is not always unproductive, it all depends on the engineering task at hand.

A scientist who eetal models the real computer with a Turing machine.

Moreover, modeling implies idealizing: Note that the modeling in 1. I will argue that to make sense of all this, we need to be explicit about our modeling activities. Automata-theoretical approach to model checking – Lecture In their own words:. The authors are thus definitely not backing up their following two claims:.

Why interaction is more powerful than algorithms. LNCS, Programs are sufficiently like Turing machines that the [above] observations [ Later on in that same chapter fromj.du.llman authors write: Syllabus – Extensive introduction to automata theory and its applications – Automata over finite words, infinite words, finite ranked and unranked trees, infinite trees – Applications: All this in order to come to the following dubious result:.

Bounded quantification is undecidable. My contention is that Turing machines are mathematical objects and computers are engineered artifacts.

### Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation

In sum, critical readers who resist indoctrination become amused when reading Hopcroft et al. A computer can simulate a Turing machine. Coming then to the simulation of a computer by a Turing machine cf. Thus, we can be confident that something not doable by a TM cannot be done by a real computer. But in the following paragraphs I shall argue that the message conveyed in and again in is questionable and that it has been scrutinized by other software scholars as well. Computability, Complexity, and Languages: However, every now and then Hopcroft et al.

The isomorphism that they are considering only holds between Turing machines and their carefully crafted models of real computers.

## Hopcroft and Ullman

In this regard, the authors incorrectly draw the following conclusion: Minds and Machines Chomsky Hierarchy – Regular languages – Lecture Relating word and tree automataPresented by Zhaowei Xu – Lecture A separate concern, then, is to discuss and debate how that mathematical impossibility result could — by means of a Turing complete model of computation — have bearing on the engineered artifacts that are being modeled.

Formal Languages and their Relation to Automata. A Turing machine can mathematically model a computer. Recipes, algorithms, and programs. Physical Hypercomputation and the Church-Turing Thesis. The Coming Software Apocalypse.

Communications of the ACM5: