Re: decidable
- From: "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 16 Jun 2006 16:18:36 -0700
bargiax wrote:
"MoeBlee" <jazzmobe@xxxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1150489607.451354.158510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
bargiax wrote:
In the section 1.4 Mendelson's book cites the decidability of a theory
saying that a formal theory is decidable if, given a statement A, there
exist a proof of A and we have an effective procedure (or algorithm) to
verify this.
You've mistated the definition of 'decidable theory'. Roughly put, a
theory is decidable iff there is an algorithm to determine, for any
given sentence of the language, whether or not the sentence is a
theorem of the theory.
Hmm... I read that the procedure is going to know wether a proof exists or
not. A theorem is the last proposition in a proof, right?
Yes, but you said "given a statement A, there exists a proof of A and
we have an algorithm to verify this". That entails that every statement
is a theorem and we have an algorithm to verify that every statement is
a theorem. You might have meant "given a statement A, if there exists a
proof of A then there exists an algorithm to verify that there is a
proof of A", and that would make more sense. But still, for a
decidability we need not just an algorithm to verify that a sentence
has a proof if it has a proof, but rather the algorithm should ALSO
verify that the sentence does not have a proof if it does not have a
proof.
MoeBlee
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: decidable
- From: bargiax
- Re: decidable
- References:
- decidable
- From: bargiax
- Re: decidable
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: decidable
- From: bargiax
- decidable
- Prev by Date: Re: decidable
- Next by Date: Re: decidable
- Previous by thread: Re: decidable
- Next by thread: Re: decidable
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|