27.04.2015 Views

Computability and Logic

Computability and Logic

Computability and Logic

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

134 THE UNDECIDABILITY OF FIRST-ORDER LOGIC<br />

11.3 Lemma<br />

(a) If f i is obtained by composition from functions f k <strong>and</strong> f j1 , ... f jp for which Ɣ is<br />

adequate, then Ɣ is adequate also for f i .<br />

(b) If f i is obtained by primitive recursion from functions f j <strong>and</strong> f k for which Ɣ is<br />

adequate, then Ɣ is adequate also for f i .<br />

Proof: We leave (a) to the reader <strong>and</strong> do (b). Given a, b, <strong>and</strong> c with f i (a, b) = c, for<br />

each p ≤ b let c p = f i (a, p), so that c b = c. Note that since f i is obtained by primitive<br />

recursion from f j <strong>and</strong> f k ,wehave<br />

<strong>and</strong> for all p < b we have<br />

c 0 = f i (a, 0) = f j (a)<br />

c p ′ = f i (a, p ′ ) = f k (a, p, f i (a, p)) = f k (a, p, c p ).<br />

Since Ɣ is adequate for f j <strong>and</strong> f k ,<br />

(6a)<br />

(6b)<br />

f j (a, 0) = c 0<br />

f k (a, p, c p ) = c p ′<br />

are consequences of Ɣ. But (6a) <strong>and</strong> (5a) imply<br />

(7a)<br />

f i (a, 0) = c 0<br />

while (6b) <strong>and</strong> (5b) imply<br />

(7b)<br />

fi(a, p) = c p → f i (a, p ′ ) = c p ′.<br />

But (7a) <strong>and</strong> (7b) for p = 0 imply f i (a, 1) = c 1 , which with (7b) for p = 1 implies<br />

f i (a, 2) = c 2 , which with (7b) for p = 2 implies f i (a, 3) = c 3 , <strong>and</strong> so on up<br />

to f i (a, b) = c b = c, which is what needed to be proved to show Ɣ adequate for f i.<br />

Since every f i is either a basic function or obtained from earlier functions on our<br />

list by the processes covered by Lemma 11.3, the lemma implies that Ɣ is adequate<br />

for all the functions on our list, including f r = f . In particular, if f (m, n) = 0, then<br />

f r (m, n) = 0 is implied by Ɣ, <strong>and</strong> hence so is ∀y f r (m, y) = 0, which is D(m).<br />

Thus we have reduced the problem of determining whether for some n we have<br />

f (m, n) = 0 to the problem of determining whether Ɣ implies D(m). That is, we<br />

have established that if the decision problem for logical implication were solvable,<br />

the nullity problem for f would be solvable, which it is known, as we have said, that<br />

it is not, assuming Church’s thesis. Hence we have established the following result,<br />

assuming Church’s thesis.<br />

11.4 Theorem (Church’s theorem). The decision problem for logical implication is<br />

unsolvable.<br />

Problems<br />

11.1 The decision problem for validity is the problem of devising an effective procedure<br />

that, applied to any sentence, would in a finite amount of time enable<br />

one to determine whether or not it is valid. Show that the unsolvability of

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!