Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with reductions
Search options not deleted
user 12948
In computability and complexity, finding mappings between problems that allow solving one problem using a solution of another one. For reduction in programming language theory (e.g. beta-reduction), see [lambda-calculus] or [term-rewriting].
1
vote
Mapping reduction to show NeverHalt is undecidable
You can reduce the $MP= \{\langle M,w \rangle : w \in L(M)\}$ to $NeverHalt$
For a given string $\langle M,w \rangle $ you construct the following machine $F$:
For input x:
Simulate M for input w
…
- 63