List of undecidable problems

Last updated

In computability theory, an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which an effective method (algorithm) to derive the correct answer does not exist. More formally, an undecidable problem is a problem whose language is not a recursive set; see the article Decidable language. There are uncountably many undecidable problems, so the list below is necessarily incomplete. Though undecidable languages are not recursive languages, they may be subsets of Turing recognizable languages: i.e., such undecidable languages may be recursively enumerable.

Contents

Many, if not most, undecidable problems in mathematics can be posed as word problems: determining when two distinct strings of symbols (encoding some mathematical concept or object) represent the same object or not.

For undecidability in axiomatic mathematics, see List of statements undecidable in ZFC.

Problems in logic

Problems about abstract machines

Problems about matrices

Problems in combinatorial group theory

Problems in topology

Problems in analysis

where x is a vector in Rn, p(t, x) is a vector of polynomials in t and x, and (t0, x0) belongs to Rn+1. [7]

Problems about formal languages and grammars

Other problems

See also

Notes

  1. Wells, J. B. (1993). "Typability and type checking in the second-order lambda-calculus are equivalent and undecidable". Tech. Rep. 93-011. Comput. Sci. Dept., Boston Univ.: 176–185. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.31.3590 .
  2. Trahtenbrot, B. A. (1950). "The impossibility of an algorithm for the decision problem for finite domains". Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR. New Series. 70: 569–572. MR   0033784.
  3. Halava, Vesa; Harju, Tero (September 2007). "On Markov's Undecidability Theorem for Integer Matrices" (PDF). Semigroup Forum. 75 (1). doi:10.1007/s00233-007-0714-x.
  4. Stillwell, John (1993), Classical Topology and Combinatorial Group Theory, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 72, Springer, p. 247, ISBN   9780387979700 .
  5. Keith O. Geddes, Stephen R. Czapor, George Labahn, Algorithms for Computer Algebra, ISBN   0585332479, 2007, p. 81ff
  6. 1 2 Stallworth, Daniel T.; Roush, Fred W. (July 1997). "An Undecidable Property of Definite Integrals". Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society . 125 (7): 2147–2148. doi: 10.1090/S0002-9939-97-03822-7 .
  7. Graça, Daniel S.; Buescu, Jorge; Campagnolo, Manuel L. (21 March 2008). "Boundedness of the Domain of Definition is Undecidable for Polynomial ODEs". Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science. 202: 49–57. doi: 10.1016/j.entcs.2008.03.007 . hdl: 10400.1/1016 .
  8. Moore, Cristopher (1990), "Unpredictability and undecidability in dynamical systems" (PDF), Physical Review Letters , 64 (20): 2354–2357, Bibcode:1990PhRvL..64.2354M, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.2354, PMID   10041691 .
  9. Cubitt, Toby S.; Perez-Garcia, David; Wolf, Michael M. (2015). "Undecidability of the spectral gap". Nature. 528 (7581): 207–211. arXiv: 1502.04135 . Bibcode:2015Natur.528..207C. doi:10.1038/nature16059. PMID   26659181. S2CID   4451987.
  10. Bausch, Johannes; Cubitt, Toby S.; Lucia, Angelo; Perez-Garcia, David (17 August 2020). "Undecidability of the Spectral Gap in One Dimension". Physical Review X . 10 (3): 031038. arXiv: 1810.01858 . Bibcode:2020PhRvX..10c1038B. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.10.031038 .
  11. Elkouss, D.; Pérez-García, D. (2018). "Memory effects can make the transmission capability of a communication channel uncomputable". Nature Communications. 9 (1): 1149. Bibcode:2018NatCo...9.1149E. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-03428-0. PMC   5861076 . PMID   29559615.
  12. Li, C. T. (2023). "Undecidability of Network Coding, Conditional Information Inequalities, and Conditional Independence Implication". IEEE Transactions on Information Theory. 69 (6): 1. arXiv: 2205.11461 . doi:10.1109/TIT.2023.3247570. S2CID   248986512.
  13. Kühne, L.; Yashfe, G. (2022). "Representability of Matroids by c-Arrangements is Undecidable". Israel Journal of Mathematics . 252: 1-53. arXiv: 1912.06123 . doi:10.1007/s11856-022-2345-z. S2CID   209324252.
  14. Herrick, Austin; Biderman, Stella; Churchill, Alex (2019-03-24). "Magic: The Gathering is Turing Complete". arXiv: 1904.09828v2 [cs.AI].
  15. de Marcken, Carl. "Computational Complexity of Air Travel Planning" (PDF). ITA Software . Retrieved 4 January 2021.
  16. "Computability and Complexity of Ray Tracing" (PDF). CS.Duke.edu.
  17. Cardona, R.; Miranda, E.; Peralta-Salas, D.; Presas, F. (2021). "Constructing Turing complete Euler flows in dimension 3". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (19): 19. arXiv: 2012.12828 . Bibcode:2021PNAS..11826818C. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2026818118 . PMC   8126859 . PMID   33947820.
  18. Cardona, R.; Miranda, E.; Peralta-Salas, D. (2023). "Computability and Beltrami fields in Euclidean space". Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées. 169: 50-81. arXiv: 2111.03559 . doi:10.1016/j.matpur.2022.11.007.

Bibliography

Further reading

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kolmogorov complexity</span> Measure of algorithmic complexity

In algorithmic information theory, the Kolmogorov complexity of an object, such as a piece of text, is the length of a shortest computer program that produces the object as output. It is a measure of the computational resources needed to specify the object, and is also known as algorithmic complexity, Solomonoff–Kolmogorov–Chaitin complexity, program-size complexity, descriptive complexity, or algorithmic entropy. It is named after Andrey Kolmogorov, who first published on the subject in 1963 and is a generalization of classical information theory.

The P versus NP problem is a major unsolved problem in theoretical computer science. Informally, it asks whether every problem whose solution can be quickly verified can also be quickly solved.

In the computer science subfield of algorithmic information theory, a Chaitin constant or halting probability is a real number that, informally speaking, represents the probability that a randomly constructed program will halt. These numbers are formed from a construction due to Gregory Chaitin.

In theoretical computer science and mathematics, computational complexity theory focuses on classifying computational problems according to their resource usage, and explores the relationships between these classifications. A computational problem is a task solved by a computer. A computation problem is solvable by mechanical application of mathematical steps, such as an algorithm.

In mathematics and computer science, the Entscheidungsproblem is a challenge posed by David Hilbert and Wilhelm Ackermann in 1928. It asks for an algorithm that considers an inputted statement and answers "yes" or "no" according to whether it is universally valid, i.e., valid in every structure. Such an algorithm was proven to be impossible by Alonzo Church and Alan Turing in 1936.

In computability theory, Rice's theorem states that all non-trivial semantic properties of programs are undecidable. A semantic property is one about the program's behavior, unlike a syntactic property. A non-trivial property is one which is neither true for every program, nor false for every program.

In theoretical computer science and mathematics, the theory of computation is the branch that deals with what problems can be solved on a model of computation, using an algorithm, how efficiently they can be solved or to what degree. The field is divided into three major branches: automata theory and formal languages, computability theory, and computational complexity theory, which are linked by the question: "What are the fundamental capabilities and limitations of computers?".

Computability theory, also known as recursion theory, is a branch of mathematical logic, computer science, and the theory of computation that originated in the 1930s with the study of computable functions and Turing degrees. The field has since expanded to include the study of generalized computability and definability. In these areas, computability theory overlaps with proof theory and effective descriptive set theory.

Computability is the ability to solve a problem in an effective manner. It is a key topic of the field of computability theory within mathematical logic and the theory of computation within computer science. The computability of a problem is closely linked to the existence of an algorithm to solve the problem.

In logic, a true/false decision problem is decidable if there exists an effective method for deriving the correct answer. Zeroth-order logic is decidable, whereas first-order and higher-order logic are not. Logical systems are decidable if membership in their set of logically valid formulas can be effectively determined. A theory in a fixed logical system is decidable if there is an effective method for determining whether arbitrary formulas are included in the theory. Many important problems are undecidable, that is, it has been proven that no effective method for determining membership can exist for them.

In computability theory, a Turing reduction from a decision problem to a decision problem is an oracle machine that decides problem given an oracle for . It can be understood as an algorithm that could be used to solve if it had available to it a subroutine for solving . The concept can be analogously applied to function problems.

Algorithmic topology, or computational topology, is a subfield of topology with an overlap with areas of computer science, in particular, computational geometry and computational complexity theory.

In computability theory, a decider is a Turing machine that halts for every input. A decider is also called a total Turing machine as it represents a total function.

In computability theory and computational complexity theory, RE is the class of decision problems for which a 'yes' answer can be verified by a Turing machine in a finite amount of time. Informally, it means that if the answer to a problem instance is 'yes', then there is some procedure that takes finite time to determine this, and this procedure never falsely reports 'yes' when the true answer is 'no'. However, when the true answer is 'no', the procedure is not required to halt; it may go into an "infinite loop" for some 'no' cases. Such a procedure is sometimes called a semi-algorithm, to distinguish it from an algorithm, defined as a complete solution to a decision problem.

In mathematics, an impossibility theorem is a theorem that demonstrates a problem or general set of problems cannot be solved. These are also known as proofs of impossibility, negative proofs, or negative results. Impossibility theorems often resolve decades or centuries of work spent looking for a solution by proving there is no solution. Proving that something is impossible is usually much harder than the opposite task, as it is often necessary to develop a proof that works in general, rather than to just show a particular example. Impossibility theorems are usually expressible as negative existential propositions or universal propositions in logic.

In computational mathematics, a word problem is the problem of deciding whether two given expressions are equivalent with respect to a set of rewriting identities. A prototypical example is the word problem for groups, but there are many other instances as well. A deep result of computational theory is that answering this question is in many important cases undecidable.

In computability theory and computational complexity theory, an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is proved to be impossible to construct an algorithm that always leads to a correct yes-or-no answer. The halting problem is an example: it can be proven that there is no algorithm that correctly determines whether an arbitrary program eventually halts when run.

In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever. The halting problem is undecidable, meaning that no general algorithm exists that solves the halting problem for all possible program–input pairs. The problem comes up often in discussions of computability since it demonstrates that some functions are mathematically definable but not computable.

The simplicial complex recognition problem is a computational problem in algebraic topology. Given a simplicial complex, the problem is to decide whether it is homeomorphic to another fixed simplicial complex. The problem is undecidable for complexes of dimension 5 or more.