Some representations of Diophantine sets

1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 572-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphael M. Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Universal Quantifier ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Set ◽  
Minor Error ◽  
Integer Coefficients ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Image Position ◽  
A Minor

A set D of natural numbers is called Diophantine if it can be defined in the formwhere P is a polynomial with integer coefficients. Recently, Ju. V. Matijasevič [2], [3] has shown that all recursively enumerable sets are Diophantine. From this, it follows that a bound for n may be given.We use throughout the logical symbols ∧ (and), ∨ (or), → (if … then …), ↔ (if and only if), ⋀ (for every), and ⋁ (there exists); negation does not occur explicitly. The variables range over the natural numbers 0,1,2,3, …, except as otherwise noted.It is the purpose of this paper to show that if we do not insist on prenex form, then every Diophantine set can be defined existentially by a formula in which not more than five existential quantifiers are nested. Besides existential quantifiers, only conjunctions are needed. By Matijasevič [2], [3], the representation extends to all recursively enumerable sets. Using this, we can find a bound for the number of conjuncts needed.Davis [1] proved that every recursively enumerable set of natural numbers can be represented in the formwhere P is a polynomial with integer coefficients. I showed in [5] that we can take λ = 4. (A minor error is corrected in an Appendix to this paper.) By the methods of the present paper, we can again obtain this result, and indeed in a stronger form, with the universal quantifier replaced by a conjunction.

Arithmetical representation of recursively enumerable sets

1956 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphael M. Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Recursive Function ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
General Recursive Function ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Set ◽  
Integer Coefficients ◽  
Primitive Recursive Function ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Image Position ◽  
The Right ◽  
Primitive Recursive

A set S of natural numbers is called recursively enumerable if there is a general recursive function F(x, y) such thatIn other words, S is the projection of a two-dimensional general recursive set. Actually, it is no restriction on S to assume that F(x, y) is primitive recursive. If S is not empty, it is the range of the primitive recursive functionwhere a is a fixed element of S. Using pairing functions, we see that any non-empty recursively enumerable set is also the range of a primitive recursive function of one variable.We use throughout the logical symbols ⋀ (and), ⋁ (or), → (if…then…), ↔ (if and only if), ∧ (for every), and ∨(there exists); negation does not occur explicitly. The variables range over the natural numbers, except as otherwise noted.Martin Davis has shown that every recursively enumerable set S of natural numbers can be represented in the formwhere P(y, b, w, x1 …, xλ) is a polynomial with integer coefficients. (Notice that this would not be correct if we replaced ≤ by <, since the right side of the equivalence would always be satisfied by b = 0.) Conversely, every set S represented by a formula of the above form is recursively enumerable. A basic unsolved problem is whether S can be defined using only existential quantifiers.

Universal diophantine equation

1982 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 549-571 ◽  
Author(s):  
James P. Jones
Keyword(s):  
Diophantine Equation ◽  
Diophantine Equations ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Set ◽  
Integer Coefficients ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Positive Integers ◽  
Martin Davis ◽  
Exponential Relation

In 1961 Martin Davis, Hilary Putnam and Julia Robinson [2] proved that every recursively enumerable set W is exponential diophantine, i.e. can be represented in the formHere P is a polynomial with integer coefficients and the variables range over positive integers.In 1970 Ju. V. Matijasevič used this result to establish the unsolvability of Hilbert's tenth problem. Matijasevič proved [11] that the exponential relation y = 2x is diophantine This together with [2] implies that every recursively enumerable set is diophantine, i.e. every r.e. set Wcan be represented in the formFrom this it follows that there does not exist an algorithm to decide solvability of diophantine equations. The nonexistence of such an algorithm follows immediately from the existence of r.e. nonrecursive sets.Now it is well known that the recursively enumerable sets W1, W2, W3, … can be enumerated in such a way that the binary relation x ∈ Wv is also recursively enumerable. Thus Matijasevič's theorem implies the existence of a diophantine equation U such that for all x and v,

Degrees of formal systems

1958 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. Shoenfield
Keyword(s):  
Sufficient Conditions ◽  
Formal System ◽  
Independent Interest ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Set ◽  
First Order ◽  
Formal Systems ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Axiomatizable Theory

In this paper we answer some of the questions left open in [2]. We use the terminology of [2]. In particular, a theory will be a formal system formulated within the first-order calculus with identity. A theory is identified with the set of Gödel numbers of the theorems of the theory. Thus Craig's theorem [1] asserts that a theory is axiomatizable if and only if it is recursively enumerable.In [2], Feferman showed that if A is any recursively enumerable set, then there is an axiomatizable theory T having the same degree of unsolvability as A. (This result was proved independently by D. B. Mumford.) We show in Theorem 2 that if A is not recursive, then T may be chosen essentially undecidable. This depends on Theorem 1, which is a result on recursively enumerable sets of some independent interest.Our second result, given in Theorem 3, gives sufficient conditions for a theory to be creative. These conditions are more general than those given by Feferman. In particular, they show that the system of Kreisel described in [2] is creative.

On the K-theory of the extended power construction

1982 ◽  
Vol 92 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-274 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. E. McClure ◽  
V. P. Snaith
Keyword(s):  
Minor Error ◽  
Ring Spectra ◽  
Power Construction ◽  
Complete Treatment ◽  
K Theory ◽  
Image Position ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Extended Power

The construction of Dyer-Lashof operations in K-theory outlined in (6) and refined in (12) depends in an essential way on the descriptions of the mod-p K-theory of EZp, ×ZpXp and EΣ ×σ p Xp given there. Unfortunately, these descriptions are incorrect when p is odd except in the case where the Bockstein β is identically zero in K*(X; Zp), and even in this case the methods of proof used in (6) and (12) are not strong enough to show that the answer given there is correct. In this paper we repair this difficulty, obtaining a complete corrected description of K*(EZp ×ZpXp; Zp) and K*(EΣp) (theorem 3·1 below, which should be compared with ((12); theorems 3·8 and 3·9) and ((6); theorem 3)). Because of the error, the method used in (6) and (12) to construct Dyer-Lashof operations fails to go through for odd primes when non-zero Bocksteins occur, and it is not clear that this method can be repaired. We shall not deal with the construction of Dyer-Lashof operations in this paper. Instead, the first author will give a complete treatment of these operations in (5), using our present results and the theory of H∞-ring spectra to obtain strengthened versions of the results originally claimed in ((12); theorem 5·1). There is also a minor error in the mod-2 results of (12) (namely, the second formula in (12), theorem 3·8 (a) (ii)) should readwhere B2 is the second mod-2 Bockstein, and a similar change is necessary in the second formula of ((12), theorem 3·8(b) (ii)). The correction of this error requires the methods of (5) and will not be dealt with here; fortunately, the mod-2 calculations of ((12), §6–9), (10) and (11) are unaffected and remain true as stated.

Applications of Strict Π11 predicates to infinitary logic

1969 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 409-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Barwise
Keyword(s):  
Normal Form ◽  
Infinitary Logic ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Image Position

Consider the predicate of natural numbers defined by: where R is recursive. If, as usual, the variable ƒ ranges over ωω (the set of functions from natural numbers to natural numbers) then this is just the usual normal form for Π11 sets. If, however, ƒ ranges over 2ω (the set of functions from ω into {0, 1}) then every such predicate is recursively enumerable.3 Thus the second type of formula is generally ignored. However, the reduction just mentioned requires proof, and the proof uses some form of the Brower-König Infinity Lemma.

scholarly journals Formalization of the MRDP Theorem in the Mizar System

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-221
Author(s):  
Karol Pąk
Keyword(s):  
Normal Form ◽  
Linear Equations ◽  
Negative Solution ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Set ◽  
Pell’S Equation ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Finite Products ◽  
Special Case ◽  
Martin Davis

Summary This article is the final step of our attempts to formalize the negative solution of Hilbert’s tenth problem. In our approach, we work with the Pell’s Equation defined in [2]. We analyzed this equation in the general case to show its solvability as well as the cardinality and shape of all possible solutions. Then we focus on a special case of the equation, which has the form x2 − (a2 − 1)y2 = 1 [8] and its solutions considered as two sequences $\left\{ {{x_i}(a)} \right\}_{i = 0}^\infty ,\left\{ {{y_i}(a)} \right\}_{i = 0}^\infty$ . We showed in [1] that the n-th element of these sequences can be obtained from lists of several basic Diophantine relations as linear equations, finite products, congruences and inequalities, or more precisely that the equation x = yi(a) is Diophantine. Following the post-Matiyasevich results we show that the equality determined by the value of the power function y = xz is Diophantine, and analogously property in cases of the binomial coe cient, factorial and several product [9]. In this article, we combine analyzed so far Diophantine relation using conjunctions, alternatives as well as substitution to prove the bounded quantifier theorem. Based on this theorem we prove MDPR-theorem that every recursively enumerable set is Diophantine, where recursively enumerable sets have been defined by the Martin Davis normal form. The formalization by means of Mizar system [5], [7], [4] follows [10], Z. Adamowicz, P. Zbierski [3] as well as M. Davis [6].

A correction to Lewis and Langford's Symbolic logic

1940 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 149-149
Author(s):  
J. C. C. McKinsey
Keyword(s):  
The Other ◽  
Symbolic Logic ◽  
Minor Error ◽  
Counter Example ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Image Position ◽  
A Minor

The purpose of this note is to call attention to a minor error in Lewis and Langford's Symbolic logic. On page 221, in discussing the Tarski-Łukasiewicz three-valued logic, the authors make the following assertion: “Let T(p) be any proposition, involving only one element, whose analogue holds in the two-valued system; if T(p) does not hold in the Three-valued Calculus, then pC.T(p) and Np.C.T(p) both hold.”I shall show, by means of a counter-example, that this assertion is not true. Let T(p) be the sentence:It is then easily verified that T(0) = T(1) = 1, and that T(½) = 0. Thus T(p) holds in the two-valued calculus, but not in the three-valued calculus. On the other hand, pC.T(p) does not hold, since ½.CT(½) = ½C0 = ½; similarly, Np.C.T(p) does not hold, since N½.C.T(½) = ½C0 = ½.

Degrees of unsolvability associated with classes of formalized theories

1957 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Solomon Feferman
Keyword(s):  
Formal System ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Wide Sense ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Set ◽  
Formal Systems ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Degrees Of Unsolvability ◽  
Order Predicate Calculus

In his well-known paper [11], Post founded a general theory of recursively enumerable sets, which had its metamathematical source in questions about the decision problem for deducibility in formal systems. However, in centering attention on the notion of degree of unsolvability, Post set a course for his theory which has rarely returned to this source. Among exceptions to this tendency we may mention, as being closest to the problems considered here, the work of Kleene in [8] pp. 298–316, of Myhill in [10], and of Uspenskij in [15]. It is the purpose of this paper to make some further contributions towards bridging this gap.From a certain point of view, it may be argued that there is no real separation between metamathematics and the theory of recursively enumerable sets. For, if the notion of formal system is construed in a sufficiently wide sense, by taking as ‘axioms’ certain effectively found members of a set of ‘formal objects’ and as ‘proofs’ certain effectively found sequences of these objects, then the set of ‘provable statements’ of such a system may be identified, via Gödel's numbering technique, with a recursively enumerable set; and conversely, each recursively enumerable set is identified in this manner with some formal system (cf. [8] pp. 299–300 and 306). However, the pertinence of Post's theory is no longer clear when we turn to systems formalized within the more conventional framework of the first-order predicate calculus. It is just this restriction which serves to clarify the difference in spirit of the two disciplines.

Nonisomorphism of lattices of recursively enumerable sets

1993 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 1177-1188 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Todd Hammond
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Isomorphism Class ◽  
Boolean Algebras ◽  
Turing Degree ◽  
Symmetric Difference ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Definition Of

Let ω be the set of natural numbers, let be the lattice of recursively enumerable subsets of ω, and let A be the lattice of subsets of ω which are recursively enumerable in A. If U, V ⊆ ω, put U =* V if the symmetric difference of U and V is finite.A natural and interesting question is then to discover what the relation is between the Turing degree of A and the isomorphism class of A. The first result of this form was by Lachlan, who proved [6] that there is a set A ⊆ ω such that A ≇ . He did this by finding a set A ⊆ ω and a set C ϵ A such that the structure ({W ϵ A∣W ⊇ C},∪,∩)/=* is a Boolean algebra and is not isomorphic to the structure ({W ϵ ∣W ⊇ D},∪,∩)/=* for any D ϵ . There is a nonrecursive ordinal which is recursive in the set A which he constructs, so his set A is not (see, for example, Shoenfield [11] for a definition of what it means for a set A ⊆ ω to be ). Feiner then improved this result substantially by proving [1] that for any B ⊆ ω, B′ ≇ B, where B′ is the Turing jump of B. To do this, he showed that for each X ⊆= ω there is a Boolean algebra which is but not and then applied a theorem of Lachlan [6] (definitions of and Boolean algebras will be given in §2). Feiner's result is of particular interest for the case B = ⊘, for it shows that the set A of Lachlan can actually be chosen to be arithmetical (in fact, ⊘′), answering a question that Lachlan posed in his paper. Little else has been known.

A hierarchy of families of recursively enumerable degrees

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 1160-1170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence V. Welch
Keyword(s):  
Finite Sets ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Similar Theorem ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Complete Set ◽  
Image Position

Certain investigations have been made concerning the nature of classes of recursively enumerable sets, and the relation of such classes to the recursively enumerable indices of their sets. For instance, a theorem of Rice [3, Theorem XIV(a), p. 324] states that if A is the complete set of indices for a class of recursively enumerable sets (that is, if there is a class of recursively enumerable sets such that and if A is recursive, then either A = ⌀ or A = ω. A relate theorem by Rice and Shapiro [3, Theorem XIV(b), p. 324] can be stated as follows:Let be a class of recursively enumerable sets, and let A be the complete set of indices for . Then A is r.e. if and only if there is an r.e. set D of canonical indices of finite sets Du, u ∈ D, such thatA somewhat similar theorem of Yates is the following: Let be a class of recursively enumerable sets which contains all finite sets. Let A be the complete set of indices for . Then there is a uniform recursive enumeration of the sets in if and only if A is recursively enumerable in 0(2)—that is, if and only if A is Σ3. A corollary of this is that if C is any r.e. set such that C(2)≡T⌀(2), there is a uniform recursive enumeration of all sets We such that We ≤TC [9, Theorem 9, p. 265].

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document