Re: 'Recursively enumerable' sets
- From: magidin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Arturo Magidin)
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 23:05:43 +0000 (UTC)
In article <8741e38b-26bf-48be-abc8-fc2837fb3f6a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<sanchopancho80@xxxxxx> wrote:
I have read the term 'recursively enumerable set' and do not know
exactly what it means.
Perhaps the following make sense: A set X is recursively enumerable
iff there is an alphabet A (i.e. a finite set) such that X is a subset
of A* and the indicator function 1_X:A*--->{0,1} is a partial
recursive function. The same should work for the term 'recursive set'
with 'total recursive function'.
I confess I am not sure if this is equivalent. The notion I am
familiar with is that a set is recursively ennumerable if there is a
Turing machine that generates a list of the elements of the set, so
that any given element that is in the set will occur at some finite
step.
A set is decidable if there is a Turing machine which, given an input,
will determine whether the in put is in the set or not.
For subsets of N, the natural numbers (one of the most common settings
for the discussion), finite sets are always decidable; a set is
decidable if and only if its complement is decidable. A decidable set
is always recursively enumerable. And if both the set and its
complement are recursively enumerable, then the set is decidable
(given an input, start both the Turing machine that lists the set and
the one that lists the complement running. The input will eventually
appear in one of the two lists, and this determines whether the
element is or is not in the set).
However, there are sets that are recursively enumerable but whose
complement is not recursively enumerable.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursively_enumerable) states
that a set is 'recursively enumerable' iff there is a partial
recursive function f with f(x)=0 if x is an element of X and undefined
otherwise. But this makes no sense! Where does x come from?
x is a natural number; these discussions are, unless otherwise
specified, usually in the context of subsets of N. You have a Turing
machine that will eventually answer "yes" if x is in the set, but will
run without halting if x is not in the set. If you are sitting around
waiting for an answer, you do not know if the Turing machine has not
halted because it hasn't quite finished, or because it will never
halt...
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson)
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin-at-member-ams-org
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 'Recursively enumerable' sets
- From: tommy1729
- Re: 'Recursively enumerable' sets
- From: sanchopancho80
- Re: 'Recursively enumerable' sets
- References:
- 'Recursively enumerable' sets
- From: sanchopancho80
- 'Recursively enumerable' sets
- Prev by Date: Halting problem
- Next by Date: Re: yeah sure !!!
- Previous by thread: 'Recursively enumerable' sets
- Next by thread: Re: 'Recursively enumerable' sets
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|