Theory Comput Syst

DOI 10.1007/s00224-016-9698-9

On the Generic Undecidability of the Halting Problem

for Normalized Turing Machines

Alexander Rybalov1

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Abstract Hamkins and Miasnikov presented in (Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 47(4),
515–524, 2006) a generic algorithm deciding the classical Halting Problem for Tur-
ing machines with one-way tape on a set of asymptotic probability one (on a so-called
generic set). Rybalov (Theor. Comput. Sci. 377, 268–270, 2007) showed that there
is no generic algorithm deciding this problem on strongly generic sets of inputs
(some subclass of generic sets). In this paper we prove that there is no generic algo-
rithm deciding the Halting Problem for normalized Turing machines on generic sets
of inputs. Normalized Turing machines have programs with the following natural
restriction: internal states with large indices are not allowed at the beginning of the
program. This condition does not reduce the class of computable functions because
for every Turing machine there exists a normalized Turing machine which computes
the same function. Our proof holds for machines with one-way and two-way tape.
It also implies that the Hamkins-Miasnikov algorithm is not generic for normalized
Turing machines.

Keywords Generic complexity · Halting problem

1 Introduction

In [4] a theory of generic-case complexity was developed. The generic-case approach

considers an algorithmic problem on most inputs instead of the whole domain

 Alexander Rybalov
alexander.rybalov@gmail.com

1 Omsk State Technical University, prospekt Mira 11, Omsk 644050, Russia
 Theory Comput Syst

and ignores its behaviour on the rest of inputs. This generic complexity approach
has numerous applications, especially in cryptography, where cryptosystems must
be based on problems which are hard on almost all (random) instances. Usu-
ally such behavior of problems is studied in terms of average-case complexity,
but generic-case complexity and generic computability are much more convenient
in applications, in particular they allow to study the complexity of undecidable
problems.
Hamkins and Miasnikov proved in [3] that the classical Halting Problem is gener-
ically decidable (even quickly decidable) for Turing machines with one-way infinite
tape. Namely, the set of all Turing machines such that the head of the machine falls off
the tape (starting on the empty tape) before repeating a state is generic. This result is
model sensitive and it is an open problem to transfer it to Turing machines with two-
way tape. On the other hand Rybalov proved in [5] that the Halting Problem (both
for one-way and two-way models) remains undecidable on strongly generic sets of
inputs (some subclass of generic sets). In this paper we strengthen this result for so-
called normalized Turing machines. A Turing machine M over alphabet {a1 , . . . , ak }
is called normalized if its program satisfies the following condition: from every non-
final state qi of M we can only reach states qj , where j ≤ ki + 1. It corresponds
to the reasonable process of program design, when we introduce a new state qi+1
after using of state qi in the right sides of rules of the program. This condition does
not reduce the class of computable functions because for every Turing machine there
exists a normalized Turing machine which computes the same function. We prove
that there is no generic algorithm deciding the Halting Problem for normalized Turing
machines on generic sets of inputs. Our proof holds for machines with one-way and
two-way tape. It also implies that the Hamkins-Miasnikov algorithm is not generic
for normalized Turing machines.
Note that in the classical work of Chaitin [2] the probability space is defined
over the set of all programs (in some effective binary coding of programs). Chaitin’s
famous constant  is the sum of probabilities of all halting programs. Calude and
Stay in [1] extend the probability space over both space and time and consider the
probability that a random N-bit program has halted by a random time. An analo-
gous result about the undecidability of the Halting Problem on the set of programs
of probability one immediately follows from the worst-case undecidability because
every individual program has a non-zero probability.

2 Generic Algorithms

Let M be a set of all machines. Suppose that there is a function size : M → N such
that for all n the set Mn = {x ∈ M : size(x) = n} is finite. For a subset S ⊆ M
define the following sequence

|S ∩ Mn |
ρn (S) = , n = 1, 2, 3, . . .
|M n |
Theory Comput Syst

The value ρn (S) is the probability to generate a machine from S during random
and uniform generation of machines from Mn . The asymptotic density of S is the
following limit (if it exists)
ρ(S) = lim ρn (S).
n→∞
S is called generic if ρ(S) = 1 and negligible if ρ(S) = 0. Clearly, S is generic if and
only if its complement in M is negligible. We call a set S strongly negligible if the
sequence ρn (S) converges to 0 exponentially fast, i.e. there are constants 0 < σ < 1
and C > 0 such that for every n
ρn (S) < Cσ n .
Now S is called strongly generic if its complement is strongly negligible.
An algorithm A with input set M and output set J ∪{?} (? ∈ / J ) is called (strongly)
generic if
1. A stops on every input from M,
2. the set {x ∈ M : A(x) =?} is (strongly) negligible.
Generic algorithm A computes a function f : M → J if for all x ∈ M A(x) = y ∈
J ⇒ f (x) = y. The situation A(x) =? means that A cannot compute the function
f for argument x. But condition 2 says that A correctly computes f on almost all
inputs (inputs from generic set).
The Halting Problem for Turing machines is the problem of computing of the
function 
1, if machine M halts on empty tape,
h(M) =
0, otherwise,
defined on the class of all Turing machines M. It is undecidable in the classical sense.
A model of Turing machines is called effective if there is an algorithm A : M ×
N → M such that for every machine M and for every n ∈ N the machine A(M, n)
computes the same function as M. For every machine M define
c(M) = {A(M, n) : n ∈ N}.

Theorem 1 Suppose that a model of Turing machines is effective.

1. If for every machine M the set c(M) is not negligible, then there is no generic
algorithm computing function h.
2. If for every machine M the set c(M) is not strongly negligible, then there is no
strongly generic algorithm computing function h.

Proof We will prove the case 1 of the theorem. Case 2 is proved similarly. Suppose,
to the contrary, that there exists a generic algorithm A, computing function h. Then
there is a classical algorithm B , computing h for every input M in the following way.
Algorithm B enumerates the set c(M) in some increasing order and runs algorithm A
on every M
∈ c(M) until A(M
)  =?. The set c(M) is not negligible. By definition
of generic algorithms the set {M ∈ M : A(M) =?} is negligible. So there exists a
 Theory Comput Syst

machine M
∈ c(M) such that A(M
)  =?. Now B outputs A(M
) = A(M) = h(M).
Thereby algorithm B computes function h for all inputs. This contradiction proves
the theorem.

3 Normalized Turing Machines

Every Turing machine M has a finite set of states Q = {q0 , q1 , . . . , qn }, where q1 is

the start state and q0 is the final state. The head of the machine M can read and write
symbols from the alphabet  = {0, 1, } ( is the blank symbol) while moving on
an infinite tape divided into cells. The program PM of a Turing machine M consists
of a finite set of instructions (one for every non-final qi ∈ Q and a ∈ )
(qi , a) → (qj , b, S),
where qj ∈ Q, b ∈ , and S ∈ {R, L} – shift to the right or to the left. This
instruction says that M being in state qi with the head, reading symbol a on the tape,
must change state to qj , replace symbol a by b and move the head (to right or left
adjacent cell). We identify machine M with its program PM . Note that our result does
not depend on the size of alphabet  and holds for any alphabet with at least two
symbols. The size of a Turing machine is the number of its non-final states.
A Turing machine M is called normalized if its program satisfies the following
condition: from every non-final state qi of M we can only reach states qj , where
j ≤ 3i + 1. This condition corresponds to the reasonable process of program design,
when we introduce a new state qi+1 after using state qi in the right sides of rules of
the program. This condition does not reduce the class of computable functions.

Lemma 1 For every Turing machine M there exists a normalized Turing machine
M ∗ , computing the same function.

Proof Note that if we swap non-final states qi and qj in the program of M, then the
new machine M
will run on any input in the same way as M. Now we can normalize
machine M by swapping states starting with the first instruction.

Denote by M the set of all normalized Turing machines.

Lemma 2 The number of normalized Turing machines of size n is

(n−1)/3

|Mn | = 63n (n + 1)3(n− (n−1)/3) (3i + 2)3 .
i=1

Proof For every three instructions

(qi , a) → (qj , b, S), a ∈ {0, 1, }, S ∈ {R, L}
there are 3i + 2 variants to choose a state qj if 3i + 1 < n and n + 1 variants if
3i + 1 ≥ n. Also there are 3 variants to choose symbol a and 2 variants to choose a
shift S. Multiplying these numbers for all n states we obtain the formula.
Theory Comput Syst

Now define an algorithm A, which for every normalized Turing machine M effec-
tively enumerates the set c(M) of all machines obtained from M by adding new
states and arbitrary normalized instructions for the new states to the program of M.
All machines from c(M) compute the same function as M because all new states are
unreachable from the old states of M. So the model of normalized Turing machines
is effective.

Lemma 3 For every machine M the set c(M) is not negligible.

Proof Let M have k states. Consider machines from c(M) with k + n states, where
n > 3k + 1. The number of such machines is the number of variants to chose
instructions for states qk+1 , . . . , qk+n . As in the proof of Lemma 2 we can compute
(k+n−1)/3

|c(M)k+n | = 6 (k + n + 1)
3n 3(k+n− (k+n−1)/3)
(3i + 2)3 .
i=k+1

So
|c(M)k+n |
ρ(c(M)) = lim =
|Mk+n |
n→∞

 (k+n−1)/3
63n (k + n + 1)3(k+n− (k+n−1)/3) i=k+1 (3i + 2)3
= lim  (k+n−1)/3
=
n→∞ 63(k+n) (n + k + 1)3(k+n− (k+n−1)/3) (3i + 2)3
i=1

1
= lim k = lim const = const > 0.
n→∞ 63k i=1 (3i + 2)3 n→∞

Now Lemma 3 and Theorem 1 imply the following statement.

Theorem 2 For normalized Turing machines there is no generic algorithm comput-

ing function h.

For non-normalized Turing machines a weaker result (proven in [5]) follows from
Theorem 1 and Lemma 2 from [5].

Theorem 3 For non-normalized Turing machines there is no strongly generic

algorithm computing function h.

Note also that a similar result about undecidability of the Halting Problem for
Chaitin’s model can be obtained in these frameworks.
The author thanks Volker Diekert for useful suggestions and the anonymous ref-
eree for many useful remarks. Also the author thanks the Russian Science Foundation
(grant 14-11-00085) for financial support.

Acknowledgments Supported by Russian Science Foundation, grant 14-11-00085

 Theory Comput Syst

References

1. Calude, C.S., Stay, M.A.: Most programs stop quickly or never halt. Adv. Appl. Math. 40(3), 295–308
(2008)
2. Chaitin, G.J.: A theory of program size formally identical to information theory. J. ACM 22, 329–340
(1975)
3. Hamkins, J.D., Miasnikov, A.: The halting problem is decidable on a set of asymptotic probability one.
Notre Dame J. Formal Logic 47(4), 515–524 (2006)
4. Kapovich, I., Myasnikov, A., Schupp, P., Shpilrain, V.: Generic-case complexity, decision problems in
group theory and random walks. J. Algebra 264(2), 665–694 (2003)
5. Rybalov, A.: On the strongly generic undecidability of the Halting Problem. Theor. Comput. Sci. 377,
268–270 (2007)