Skip to content
Official PYQ · 2003

GATE CS 2003 Q52 — Undecidability

Explain with AI

Consider two languages L1L_1 and L2L_2 each on the alphabet Σ\Sigma. Let f:Σ∗→Σ∗f : \Sigma^* \to \Sigma^* be a polynomial time computable bijection such that (∀x)[x∈L1(\forall x) [ x\in L_1 iff f(x)∈L2]f(x) \in L_2]. Further, let f−1f^{-1} be also polynomial time computable.

Which of the following CANNOT be true?

Choose one option
View worked solution

Answer: C

The given condition states that there exists a polynomial-time computable bijection f:Σ∗→Σ∗f: \Sigma^* \to \Sigma^* such that:

x∈L1  ⟺  f(x)∈L2x \in L_1 \iff f(x) \in L_2

This implies that L1L_1 is polynomial-time reducible to L2L_2 (written as L1≤PL2L_1 \le_P L_2).

Similarly, since f−1f^{-1} is also polynomial-time computable, we have L2≤PL1L_2 \le_P L_1.

Since polynomial-time reductions are a subset of computable (many-one) reductions, we have the following properties:

  1. If L2L_2 is decidable (recursive), then L1L_1 must also be decidable (recursive).
  2. If L2∈PL_2 \in P, then L1∈PL_1 \in P.

Let us analyze each option based on these properties:

  • Option A: If L2L_2 is finite, then L2∈PL_2 \in P. Since L1≤PL2L_1 \le_P L_2, we must have L1∈PL_1 \in P. This is completely possible (e.g., when both L1L_1 and L2L_2 are empty).
  • Option B: If L2∈PL_2 \in P, then L1∈PL_1 \in P. Since P⊆NPP \subseteq NP, L1∈NPL_1 \in NP is also true. This is possible.
  • Option C: If L2L_2 is decidable, then L1L_1 must be decidable. It is impossible for L1L_1 to be undecidable. Thus, this statement CANNOT be true.
  • Option D: If L2L_2 is recursive (decidable), then L1L_1 must be recursive. Since every recursive language is also recursively enumerable (RE), L1L_1 is recursively enumerable. This is possible.

Free practice · Your answers on this page are not saved.

Published
Report a correction
Keep exploringMore Undecidability questions