Undecidable problem

About: Undecidable problem is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 3135 publications have been published within this topic receiving 71238 citations.

Software model checking

Abstract: Software model checking is the algorithmic analysis of programs to prove properties of their executions. It traces its roots to logic and theorem proving, both to provide the conceptual framework in which to formalize the fundamental questions and to provide algorithmic procedures for the analysis of logical questions. The undecidability theorem [Turing 1936] ruled out the possibility of a sound and complete algorithmic solution for any sufficiently powerful programming model, and even under restrictions (such as finite state spaces), the correctness problem remained computationally intractable. However, just because a problem is hard does not mean it never appears in practice. Also, just because the general problem is undecidable does not imply that specific instances of the problem will also be hard. As the complexity of software systems grew, so did the need for some reasoning mechanism about correct behavior. (While we focus here on analyzing the behavior of

The monadic theory of order

Abstract: We deal with the monadic (second-order) theory of order. We prove all known results in a unified way, show a general way of reduction, prove more results and show the limitation on extending them. We prove (CH) that the monadic theory of the real order is undecidable. Our methods are modeltheoretic, and we do not use automaton theory.

What Can Be Computed Locally

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is a study of computation that can be done locally in a distributed network, where "locally" means within time (or distance) independent of the size of the network. Locally checkable labeling (LCL) problems are considered, where the legality of a labeling can be checked locally (e.g., coloring). The results include the following: There are nontrivial LCL problems that have local algorithms. There is a variant of the dining philosophers problem that can be solved locally. Randomization cannot make an LCL problem local; i.e., if a problem has a local randomized algorithm then it has a local deterministic algorithm. It is undecidable, in general, whether a given LCL has a local algorithm. However, it is decidable whether a given LCL has an algorithm that operates in a given time $t$. Any LCL problem that has a local algorithm has one that is order-invariant (the algorithm depends only on the order of the processor IDs).

On the decidability and complexity of query answering over inconsistent and incomplete databases

Abstract: In databases with integrity constraints, data may not satisfy the constraints. In this paper, we address the problem of obtaining consistent answers in such a setting, when key and inclusion dependencies are expressed on the database schema. We establish decidability and complexity results for query answering under different assumptions on data (soundness and/or completeness). In particular, after showing that the problem is in general undecidable, we identify the maximal class of inclusion dependencies under which query answering is decidable in the presence of key dependencies. Although obtained in a single database context, such results are directly applicable to data integration, where multiple information sources may provide data that are inconsistent with respect to the global view of the sources.

What's decidable about arrays?

Abstract: Motivated by applications to program verification, we study a decision procedure for satisfiability in an expressive fragment of a theory of arrays, which is parameterized by the theories of the array elements The decision procedure reduces satisfiability of a formula of the fragment to satisfiability of an equisatisfiable quantifier-free formula in the combined theory of equality with uninterpreted functions (EUF), Presburger arithmetic, and the element theories This fragment allows a constrained use of universal quantification, so that one quantifier alternation is allowed, with some syntactic restrictions It allows expressing, for example, that an assertion holds for all elements in a given index range, that two arrays are equal in a given range, or that an array is sorted We demonstrate its expressiveness through applications to verification of sorting algorithms and parameterized systems We also prove that satisfiability is undecidable for several natural extensions to the fragment Finally, we describe our implementation in the πVC verifying compiler