DOCSLIB.ORG

Computability Theory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Computability Theory STUDENT MATHEMATICAL LIBRARY Volume 62 Computability Theory Rebecca Weber http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/stml/062 Computability Theory STUDENT MATHEMATICAL LIBRARY Volume 62 Computability Theory Rebecca Weber American Mathematical Society Providence, Rhode Island Editorial Board Gerald B. Folland Brad G. Osgood (Chair) Robin Forman John Stillwell 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 03Dxx; Secondary 68Qxx. For additional information and updates on this book, visit www.ams.org/bookpages/stml-62 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Weber, Rebecca, 1977– Computability theory / Rebecca Weber. p. cm. — (Student mathematical library ; v. 62) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8218-7392-2 (alk. paper) 1. Recursion theory. 2. Computable functions. I. Title. QA9.6.W43 2012 511.352—dc23 2011050912 Copying and reprinting. Individual readers of this publication, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to make fair use of the material, such as to copy a chapter for use in teaching or research. Permission is granted to quote brief passages from this publication in reviews, provided the customary acknowledgment of the source is given. Republication, systematic copying, or multiple reproduction of any material in this publication is permitted only under license from the American Mathematical Society. Requests for such permission should be addressed to the Acquisitions Department, American Mathematical Society, 201 Charles Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02904- 2294 USA. Requests can also be made by e-mail to [email protected]. c 2012 by the American Mathematical Society. All rights reserved. The American Mathematical Society retains all rights except those granted to the United States Government. Printed in the United States of America. ∞ The paper used in this book is acid-free and falls within the guidelines established to ensure permanence and durability. Visit the AMS home page at http://www.ams.org/ 10987654321 171615141312 Contents Chapter 1. Introduction 1 §1.1. Approach 1 §1.2. Some History 4 §1.3. Notes on Use of the Text 6 §1.4. Acknowledgements and References 7 Chapter 2. Background 9 §2.1. First-Order Logic 9 §2.2. Sets 15 §2.3. Relations 21 §2.4. Bijection and Isomorphism 29 §2.5. Recursion and Induction 30 §2.6. Some Notes on Proofs and Abstraction 37 Chapter 3. Defining Computability 41 §3.1. Functions, Sets, and Sequences 41 §3.2. Turing Machines 43 §3.3. Partial Recursive Functions 50 §3.4. Coding and Countability 56 §3.5. A Universal Turing Machine 62 v vi Contents §3.6. The Church-Turing Thesis 65 §3.7. Other Definitions of Computability 66 Chapter 4. Working with Computable Functions 77 §4.1. The Halting Problem 77 §4.2. The “Three Contradictions” 78 §4.3. Parametrization 79 §4.4. The Recursion Theorem 81 §4.5. Unsolvability 85 Chapter 5. Computing and Enumerating Sets 95 §5.1. Dovetailing 95 §5.2. Computing and Enumerating 96 §5.3. Aside: Enumeration and Incompleteness 102 §5.4. Enumerating Noncomputable Sets 105 Chapter 6. Turing Reduction and Post’s Problem 109 §6.1. Reducibility of Sets 109 §6.2. Finite Injury Priority Arguments 115 §6.3. Notes on Approximation 124 Chapter 7. Two Hierarchies of Sets 127 §7.1. Turing Degrees and Relativization 127 §7.2. The Arithmetical Hierarchy 131 §7.3. Index Sets and Arithmetical Completeness 135 Chapter 8. Further Tools and Results 139 §8.1. The Limit Lemma 139 §8.2. The Arslanov Completeness Criterion 142 §8.3. E Modulo Finite Difference 145 Chapter 9. Areas of Research 149 §9.1. Computably Enumerable Sets and Degrees 149 §9.2. Randomness 155 §9.3. Some Model Theory 169 Contents vii §9.4. Computable Model Theory 174 §9.5. Reverse Mathematics 177 Appendix A. Mathematical Asides 189 §A.1. The Greek Alphabet 189 §A.2. Summations 190 §A.3. Cantor’s Cardinality Proofs 190 Bibliography 193 Index 199 Bibliography [1] Wilhelm Ackermann, Zum Hilbertschen Aufbau der reellen Zahlen, Math. Ann. 99 (1928), no. 1, 118–133 (German). [2] Klaus Ambos-Spies, Carl G. Jockusch Jr., Richard A. Shore, and Robert I. Soare, An algebraic decomposition of the recursively enumerable degrees and the coin- cidence of several degree classes with the promptly simple degrees, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 281 (1984), no. 1, 109–128. [3] Klaus Ambos-Spies, Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen, Steffen Lempp, and Theodore A. Sla- man, Comparing DNR and WWKL, J. Symbolic Logic 69 (2004), no. 4, 1089– 1104. [4] Klaus Ambos-Spies and Anton´ın Kuˇcera, Randomness in computability theory, Computability Theory and its Applications (Boulder, CO, 1999), 2000, pp. 1–14. [5] M. M. Arslanov, Some generalizations of a fixed-point theorem, Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved. Mat. 5 (1981), 9–16 (Russian). [6] M.M.Arslanov,R.F.Nadyrov,andV.D.Solovev, A criterion for the complete- ness of recursively enumerable sets, and some generalizations of a fixed point theorem,Izv.Vysˇs. Uˇcebn. Zaved. Matematika 4 (179) (1977), 3–7 (Russian). [7] C. J. Ash and J. Knight, Computable Structures and the Hyperarithmetical Hi- erarchy, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 144, North- Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 2000. [8] Jon Barwise (ed.), Handbook of mathematical logic, with the cooperation of H. J. Keisler, K. Kunen, Y. N. Moschovakis and A. S. Troelstra, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Vol. 90, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1977. [9] Charles H. Bennett and Martin Gardner, The random number Omega bids fair to hold the mysteries of the universe, Scientific American 241 (1979), no. 5, 20–34. [10] George S. Boolos, John P. Burgess, and Richard C. Jeffrey, Computability and Logic, 4th ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002. [11] Gregory J. Chaitin, Information-theoretic characterizations of recursive infinite strings,Theoret.Comput.Sci.2 (1976), no. 1, 45–48. [12] G. J. Chaitin, Incompleteness theorems for random reals, Adv. in Appl. Math. 8 (1987), no. 2, 119–146. 193 194 Bibliography [13] Peter A. Cholak, Carl G. Jockusch, and Theodore A. Slaman, On the strength of Ramsey’s theorem for pairs,J.SymbolicLogic66 (2001), no. 1, 1–55. [14] Alonzo Church, An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory,Amer. J. Math. 58 (1936), no. 2, 345–363. Reprinted in [18]. [15] , A note on the Entscheidungsproblem, J. Symbolic Logic 1 (1936), no. 1, 40–41. Correction in J. Symbolic Logic 1 No. 3 (1936), 101–102. Reprinted in [18]. [16] Robert L. Constable, Harry B. Hunt, and Sartaj Sahni, On the computational complexity of scheme equivalence, Technical Report 74–201, Department of Com- puter Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1974. [17] Nigel Cutland, Computability: An introduction to recursive function theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980. [18] Martin Davis (ed.), The Undecidable: Basic papers on undecidable propositions, unsolvable problems and computable functions, Raven Press, Hewlett, N.Y., 1965. [19] Martin Davis, Hilbert’s tenth problem is unsolvable, Amer. Math. Monthly 80 (1973), 233–269. [20] , Why G¨odel didn’t have Church’s thesis, Inform. and Control 54 (1982), no. 1-2, 3–24. [21] , American logic in the 1920s, Bull. Symbolic Logic 1 (1995), no. 3, 273– 278. [22] Rodney G. Downey and Denis R. Hirschfeldt, Algorithmic Randomness and Com- plexity, Theory and Applications of Computability, Springer, New York, 2010. [23] Bruno Durand and Alexander Zvonkin, Kolmogorov complexity, Kolmogorov’s Heritage in Mathematics, 2007, pp. 281–299. [24] A. Ehrenfeucht, J. Karhum¨aki, and G. Rozenberg, The (generalized) Post cor- respondence problem with lists consisting of two words is decidable,Theoret. Comput. Sci. 21 (1982), no. 2, 119–144. [25] Herbert B. Enderton, A Mathematical Introduction to Logic,2nded.,Har- court/Academic Press, Burlington, MA, 2001. [26] Yu. L. Ershov, S. S. Goncharov, A. Nerode, J. B. Remmel, and V. W. Marek (eds.), Handbook of Recursive Mathematics. Vol. 1: Recursive Model Theory, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 138, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1998. [27] Richard M. Friedberg, Two recursively enumerable sets of incomparable degrees of unsolvability (solution of Post’s problem, 1944), Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 43 (1957), 236–238. [28] , Three theorems on recursive enumeration. I. Decomposition. II. Max- imal set. III. Enumeration without duplication, J. Symb. Logic 23 (1958), 309– 316. [29] P´eter G´acs, Every sequence is reducible to a random one, Inform. and Control 70 (1986), no. 2-3, 186–192. [30] Kurt G¨odel, Uber¨ formal unentscheidbare S¨atze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I, Monatsh. Math. Phys. 38 (1931), no. 1, 173–198 (German). An English translation appears in [18]. [31] S. S. Gonˇcarov, The number of nonautoequivalent constructivizations,Algebra Logika 16 (1977), no. 3, 257–282, 377 (Russian); English transl., Algebra Logic 16 (1977), no. 3, 169–185. [32] , The problem of the number of nonautoequivalent constructivizations, Algebra Logika 19 (1980), no. 6, 621–639, 745 (Russian); English transl., Algebra Logic 19 (1980), no. 6, 404–414. [33] S. S. Gonˇcarov and V. D. Dzgoev, Autostability of models, Algebra Logika 19 (1980), no. 1, 45–58, 132 (Russian); English transl., Algebra Logic 19 (1980), no. 1, 28–37. Bibliography 195 [34] Eitan Gurari, An Introduction to the Theory of Computation, Computer Sci- ence Press, 1989. Available at http://www.cse.ohio-state.edu/~gurari/theory-bk/ theory-bk.html. [35] Petr H´ajek and Pavel Pudl´ak, Metamathematics of First-Order Arithmetic,Per- spectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993. [36] Valentina S. Harizanov, Computability-theoretic complexity of countable struc- tures, Bull. Symbolic Logic 8 (2002), no. 4, 457–477. [37] David Hilbert, Mathematical problems, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 8 (1902), no. 10, 437–479. [38] Denis R. Hirschfeldt, Andr´e Nies, and Frank Stephan, Using random sets as or- acles,J.Lond.Math.Soc.(2)75 (2007), no. 3, 610–622.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Hierarchy of Computably Enumerable Degrees, Ii: Some Recent Developments and New Directions
    A HIERARCHY OF COMPUTABLY ENUMERABLE DEGREES, II: SOME RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND NEW DIRECTIONS ROD DOWNEY, NOAM GREENBERG, AND ELLEN HAMMATT Abstract. A transfinite hierarchy of Turing degrees of c.e. sets has been used to calibrate the dynamics of families of constructions in computability theory, and yields natural definability results. We review the main results of the area, and discuss splittings of c.e. degrees, and finding maximal degrees in upper cones. 1. Vaughan Jones This paper is part of for the Vaughan Jones memorial issue of the New Zealand Journal of Mathematics. Vaughan had a massive influence on World and New Zealand mathematics, both through his work and his personal commitment. Downey first met Vaughan in the early 1990's, around the time he won the Fields Medal. Vaughan had the vision of improving mathematics in New Zealand, and hoped his Fields Medal could be leveraged to this effect. It is fair to say that at the time, maths in New Zealand was not as well-connected internationally as it might have been. It was fortunate that not only was there a lot of press coverage, at the same time another visionary was operating in New Zealand: Sir Ian Axford. Ian pioneered the Marsden Fund, and a group of mathematicians gathered by Vaughan, Marston Conder, David Gauld, Gaven Martin, and Rod Downey, put forth a proposal for summer meetings to the Marsden Fund. The huge influence of Vaughan saw to it that this was approved, and this group set about bringing in external experts to enrich the NZ scene.
    [Show full text]
  • A Proof of Cantor's Theorem
    Cantor’s Theorem Joe Roussos 1 Preliminary ideas Two sets have the same number of elements (are equinumerous, or have the same cardinality) iff there is a bijection between the two sets. Mappings: A mapping, or function, is a rule that associates elements of one set with elements of another set. We write this f : X ! Y , f is called the function/mapping, the set X is called the domain, and Y is called the codomain. We specify what the rule is by writing f(x) = y or f : x 7! y. e.g. X = f1; 2; 3g;Y = f2; 4; 6g, the map f(x) = 2x associates each element x 2 X with the element in Y that is double it. A bijection is a mapping that is injective and surjective.1 • Injective (one-to-one): A function is injective if it takes each element of the do- main onto at most one element of the codomain. It never maps more than one element in the domain onto the same element in the codomain. Formally, if f is a function between set X and set Y , then f is injective iff 8a; b 2 X; f(a) = f(b) ! a = b • Surjective (onto): A function is surjective if it maps something onto every element of the codomain. It can map more than one thing onto the same element in the codomain, but it needs to hit everything in the codomain. Formally, if f is a function between set X and set Y , then f is surjective iff 8y 2 Y; 9x 2 X; f(x) = y Figure 1: Injective map.
    [Show full text]
  • Computability and Incompleteness Fact Sheets
    Computability and Incompleteness Fact Sheets Computability Definition. A Turing machine is given by: A finite set of symbols, s1; : : : ; sm (including a \blank" symbol) • A finite set of states, q1; : : : ; qn (including a special \start" state) • A finite set of instructions, each of the form • If in state qi scanning symbol sj, perform act A and go to state qk where A is either \move right," \move left," or \write symbol sl." The notion of a \computation" of a Turing machine can be described in terms of the data above. From now on, when I write \let f be a function from strings to strings," I mean that there is a finite set of symbols Σ such that f is a function from strings of symbols in Σ to strings of symbols in Σ. I will also adopt the analogous convention for sets. Definition. Let f be a function from strings to strings. Then f is computable (or recursive) if there is a Turing machine M that works as follows: when M is started with its input head at the beginning of the string x (on an otherwise blank tape), it eventually halts with its head at the beginning of the string f(x). Definition. Let S be a set of strings. Then S is computable (or decidable, or recursive) if there is a Turing machine M that works as follows: when M is started with its input head at the beginning of the string x, then if x is in S, then M eventually halts, with its head on a special \yes" • symbol; and if x is not in S, then M eventually halts, with its head on a special • \no" symbol.
    [Show full text]
  • Computational Complexity Theory Introduction to Computational
    31/03/2012 Computational complexity theory Introduction to computational complexity theory Complexity (computability) theory theory deals with two aspects: Algorithm’s complexity. Problem’s complexity. References S. Cook, « The complexity of Theorem Proving Procedures », 1971. Garey and Johnson, « Computers and Intractability, A guide to the theory of NP-completeness », 1979. J. Carlier et Ph. Chrétienne « Problèmes d’ordonnancements : algorithmes et complexité », 1988. 1 31/03/2012 Basic Notions • Some problem is a “question” characterized by parameters and needs an answer. – Parameters description; – Properties that a solutions must satisfy; – An instance is obtained when the parameters are fixed to some values. • An algorithm: a set of instructions describing how some task can be achieved or a problem can be solved. • A program : the computational implementation of an algorithm. Algorithm’s complexity (I) • There may exists several algorithms for the same problem • Raised questions: – Which one to choose ? – How they are compared ? – How measuring the efficiency ? – What are the most appropriate measures, running time, memory space ? 2 31/03/2012 Algorithm’s complexity (II) • Running time depends on: – The data of the problem, – Quality of program..., – Computer type, – Algorithm’s efficiency, – etc. • Proceed by analyzing the algorithm: – Search for some n characterizing the data. – Compute the running time in terms of n. – Evaluating the number of elementary operations, (elementary operation = simple instruction of a programming language). Algorithm’s evaluation (I) • Any algorithm is composed of two main stages: initialization and computing one • The complexity parameter is the size data n (binary coding). Definition: Let be n>0 andT(n) the running time of an algorithm expressed in terms of the size data n, T(n) is of O(f(n)) iff n0 and some constant c such that: n n0, we have T(n) c f(n).
    [Show full text]
  • Linear Transformation (Sections 1.8, 1.9) General View: Given an Input, the Transformation Produces an Output
    Linear Transformation (Sections 1.8, 1.9) General view: Given an input, the transformation produces an output. In this sense, a function is also a transformation. 1 4 3 1 3 Example. Let A = and x = 1 . Describe matrix-vector multiplication Ax 2 0 5 1 1 1 in the language of transformation. 1 4 3 1 31 5 Ax b 2 0 5 11 8 1 Vector x is transformed into vector b by left matrix multiplication Definition and terminologies. Transformation (or function or mapping) T from Rn to Rm is a rule that assigns to each vector x in Rn a vector T(x) in Rm. • Notation: T: Rn → Rm • Rn is the domain of T • Rm is the codomain of T • T(x) is the image of vector x • The set of all images T(x) is the range of T • When T(x) = Ax, A is a m×n size matrix. Range of T = Span{ column vectors of A} (HW1.8.7) See class notes for other examples. Linear Transformation --- Existence and Uniqueness Questions (Section 1.9) Definition 1: T: Rn → Rm is onto if each b in Rm is the image of at least one x in Rn. • i.e. codomain Rm = range of T • When solve T(x) = b for x (or Ax=b, A is the standard matrix), there exists at least one solution (Existence question). Definition 2: T: Rn → Rm is one-to-one if each b in Rm is the image of at most one x in Rn. • i.e. When solve T(x) = b for x (or Ax=b, A is the standard matrix), there exists either a unique solution or none at all (Uniqueness question).
    [Show full text]
  • Computability of Fraïssé Limits
    COMPUTABILITY OF FRA¨ISSE´ LIMITS BARBARA F. CSIMA, VALENTINA S. HARIZANOV, RUSSELL MILLER, AND ANTONIO MONTALBAN´ Abstract. Fra¨ıss´estudied countable structures S through analysis of the age of S, i.e., the set of all finitely generated substructures of S. We investigate the effectiveness of his analysis, considering effectively presented lists of finitely generated structures and asking when such a list is the age of a computable structure. We focus particularly on the Fra¨ıss´elimit. We also show that degree spectra of relations on a sufficiently nice Fra¨ıss´elimit are always upward closed unless the relation is definable by a quantifier-free formula. We give some sufficient or necessary conditions for a Fra¨ıss´elimit to be spectrally universal. As an application, we prove that the computable atomless Boolean algebra is spectrally universal. Contents 1. Introduction1 1.1. Classical results about Fra¨ıss´elimits and background definitions4 2. Computable Ages5 3. Computable Fra¨ıss´elimits8 3.1. Computable properties of Fra¨ıss´elimits8 3.2. Existence of computable Fra¨ıss´elimits9 4. Examples 15 5. Upward closure of degree spectra of relations 18 6. Necessary conditions for spectral universality 20 6.1. Local finiteness 20 6.2. Finite realizability 21 7. A sufficient condition for spectral universality 22 7.1. The countable atomless Boolean algebra 23 References 24 1. Introduction Computable model theory studies the algorithmic complexity of countable structures, of their isomorphisms, and of relations on such structures. Since algorithmic properties often depend on data presentation, in computable model theory classically isomorphic structures can have different computability-theoretic properties.
    [Show full text]
  • Weakly Precomplete Computably Enumerable Equivalence Relations
    Math. Log. Quart. 62, No. 1–2, 111–127 (2016) / DOI 10.1002/malq.201500057 Weakly precomplete computably enumerable equivalence relations Serikzhan Badaev1 ∗ and Andrea Sorbi2∗∗ 1 Department of Mechanics and Mathematics, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, 050038, Kazakhstan 2 Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell’Informazione e Scienze Matematiche, Universita` Degli Studi di Siena, 53100, Siena, Italy Received 28 July 2015, accepted 4 November 2015 Published online 17 February 2016 Using computable reducibility ≤ on equivalence relations, we investigate weakly precomplete ceers (a “ceer” is a computably enumerable equivalence relation on the natural numbers), and we compare their class with the more restricted class of precomplete ceers. We show that there are infinitely many isomorphism types of universal (in fact uniformly finitely precomplete) weakly precomplete ceers , that are not precomplete; and there are infinitely many isomorphism types of non-universal weakly precomplete ceers. Whereas the Visser space of a precomplete ceer always contains an infinite effectively discrete subset, there exist weakly precomplete ceers whose Visser spaces do not contain infinite effectively discrete subsets. As a consequence, contrary to precomplete ceers which always yield partitions into effectively inseparable sets, we show that although weakly precomplete ceers always yield partitions into computably inseparable sets, nevertheless there are weakly precomplete ceers for which no equivalence class is creative. Finally, we show that the index set of the precomplete ceers is 3-complete, whereas the index set of the weakly precomplete ceers is 3-complete. As a consequence of these results, we also show that the index sets of the uniformly precomplete ceers and of the e-complete ceers are 3-complete.
    [Show full text]
  • Submitted Thesis
    Saarland University Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science Bachelor’s Thesis Synthetic One-One, Many-One, and Truth-Table Reducibility in Coq Author Advisor Felix Jahn Yannick Forster Reviewers Prof. Dr. Gert Smolka Prof. Dr. Markus Bläser Submitted: September 15th, 2020 ii Eidesstattliche Erklärung Ich erkläre hiermit an Eides statt, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbstständig ver- fasst und keine anderen als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel verwendet habe. Statement in Lieu of an Oath I hereby confirm that I have written this thesis on my own and that I have not used any other media or materials than the ones referred to in this thesis. Einverständniserklärung Ich bin damit einverstanden, dass meine (bestandene) Arbeit in beiden Versionen in die Bibliothek der Informatik aufgenommen und damit veröffentlicht wird. Declaration of Consent I agree to make both versions of my thesis (with a passing grade) accessible to the public by having them added to the library of the Computer Science Department. Saarbrücken, September 15th, 2020 Abstract Reducibility is an essential concept for undecidability proofs in computability the- ory. The idea behind reductions was conceived by Turing, who introduced the later so-called Turing reduction based on oracle machines. In 1944, Post furthermore in- troduced with one-one, many-one, and truth-table reductions in comparison to Tur- ing reductions more specific reducibility notions. Post then also started to analyze the structure of the different reducibility notions and their computability degrees. Most undecidable problems were reducible from the halting problem, since this was exactly the method to show them undecidable. However, Post was able to con- struct also semidecidable but undecidable sets that do not one-one, many-one, or truth-table reduce from the halting problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Properties of the Turing Degrees and the Turing Jump
    Global Properties of the Turing Degrees and the Turing Jump Theodore A. Slaman¤ Department of Mathematics University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-3840, USA [email protected] Abstract We present a summary of the lectures delivered to the Institute for Mathematical Sci- ences, Singapore, during the 2005 Summer School in Mathematical Logic. The lectures covered topics on the global structure of the Turing degrees D, the countability of its automorphism group, and the definability of the Turing jump within D. 1 Introduction This note summarizes the tutorial delivered to the Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Singapore, during the 2005 Summer School in Mathematical Logic on the structure of the Turing degrees. The tutorial gave a survey on the global structure of the Turing degrees D, the countability of its automorphism group, and the definability of the Turing jump within D. There is a glaring open problem in this area: Is there a nontrivial automorphism of the Turing degrees? Though such an automorphism was announced in Cooper (1999), the construction given in that paper is yet to be independently verified. In this pa- per, we regard the problem as not yet solved. The Slaman-Woodin Bi-interpretability Conjecture 5.10, which still seems plausible, is that there is no such automorphism. Interestingly, we can assemble a considerable amount of information about Aut(D), the automorphism group of D, without knowing whether it is trivial. For example, we can prove that it is countable and every element is arithmetically definable. Further, restrictions on Aut(D) lead us to interesting conclusions concerning definability in D.
    [Show full text]
  • Artificial Consciousness and the Consciousness-Attention Dissociation
    Consciousness and Cognition 45 (2016) 210–225 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Consciousness and Cognition journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/concog Review article Artificial consciousness and the consciousness-attention dissociation ⇑ Harry Haroutioun Haladjian a, , Carlos Montemayor b a Laboratoire Psychologie de la Perception, CNRS (UMR 8242), Université Paris Descartes, Centre Biomédical des Saints-Pères, 45 rue des Saints-Pères, 75006 Paris, France b San Francisco State University, Philosophy Department, 1600 Holloway Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94132 USA article info abstract Article history: Artificial Intelligence is at a turning point, with a substantial increase in projects aiming to Received 6 July 2016 implement sophisticated forms of human intelligence in machines. This research attempts Accepted 12 August 2016 to model specific forms of intelligence through brute-force search heuristics and also reproduce features of human perception and cognition, including emotions. Such goals have implications for artificial consciousness, with some arguing that it will be achievable Keywords: once we overcome short-term engineering challenges. We believe, however, that phenom- Artificial intelligence enal consciousness cannot be implemented in machines. This becomes clear when consid- Artificial consciousness ering emotions and examining the dissociation between consciousness and attention in Consciousness Visual attention humans. While we may be able to program ethical behavior based on rules and machine Phenomenology learning, we will never be able to reproduce emotions or empathy by programming such Emotions control systems—these will be merely simulations. Arguments in favor of this claim include Empathy considerations about evolution, the neuropsychological aspects of emotions, and the disso- ciation between attention and consciousness found in humans.
    [Show full text]
  • 31 Summary of Computability Theory
    CS:4330 Theory of Computation Spring 2018 Computability Theory Summary Haniel Barbosa Readings for this lecture Chapters 3-5 and Section 6.2 of [Sipser 1996], 3rd edition. A hierachy of languages n m B Regular: a b n n B Deterministic Context-free: a b n n n 2n B Context-free: a b [ a b n n n B Turing decidable: a b c B Turing recognizable: ATM 1 / 12 Why TMs? B In 1900: Hilbert posed 23 “challenge problems” in Mathematics The 10th problem: Devise a process according to which it can be decided by a finite number of operations if a given polynomial has an integral root. It became necessary to have a formal definition of “algorithms” to define their expressivity. 2 / 12 Church-Turing Thesis B In 1936 Church and Turing independently defined “algorithm”: I λ-calculus I Turing machines B Intuitive notion of algorithms = Turing machine algorithms B “Any process which could be naturally called an effective procedure can be realized by a Turing machine” th B We now know: Hilbert’s 10 problem is undecidable! 3 / 12 Algorithm as Turing Machine Definition (Algorithm) An algorithm is a decider TM in the standard representation. B The input to a TM is always a string. B If we want an object other than a string as input, we must first represent that object as a string. B Strings can easily represent polynomials, graphs, grammars, automata, and any combination of these objects. 4 / 12 How to determine decidability / Turing-recognizability? B Decidable / Turing-recognizable: I Present a TM that decides (recognizes) the language I If A is mapping reducible to
    [Show full text]
  • Computability and Complexity
    Computability and Complexity Lecture Notes Herbert Jaeger, Jacobs University Bremen Version history Jan 30, 2018: created as copy of CC lecture notes of Spring 2017 Feb 16, 2018: cleaned up font conversion hickups up to Section 5 Feb 23, 2018: cleaned up font conversion hickups up to Section 6 Mar 15, 2018: cleaned up font conversion hickups up to Section 7 Apr 5, 2018: cleaned up font conversion hickups up to the end of these lecture notes 1 1 Introduction 1.1 Motivation This lecture will introduce you to the theory of computation and the theory of computational complexity. The theory of computation offers full answers to the questions, • what problems can in principle be solved by computer programs? • what functions can in principle be computed by computer programs? • what formal languages can in principle be decided by computer programs? Full answers to these questions have been found in the last 70 years or so, and we will learn about them. (And it turns out that these questions are all the same question). The theory of computation is well-established, transparent, and basically simple (you might disagree at first). The theory of complexity offers many insights to questions like • for a given problem / function / language that has to be solved / computed / decided by a computer program, how long does the fastest program actually run? • how much memory space has to be used at least? • can you speed up computations by using different computer architectures or different programming approaches? The theory of complexity is historically younger than the theory of computation – the first surge of results came in the 60ties of last century.
    [Show full text]