Results 1  10
of
17
Computability and recursion
 BULL. SYMBOLIC LOGIC
, 1996
"... We consider the informal concept of “computability” or “effective calculability” and two of the formalisms commonly used to define it, “(Turing) computability” and “(general) recursiveness.” We consider their origin, exact technical definition, concepts, history, general English meanings, how they b ..."
Abstract

Cited by 45 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We consider the informal concept of “computability” or “effective calculability” and two of the formalisms commonly used to define it, “(Turing) computability” and “(general) recursiveness.” We consider their origin, exact technical definition, concepts, history, general English meanings, how they became fixed in their present roles, how they were first and are now used, their impact on nonspecialists, how their use will affect the future content of the subject of computability theory, and its connection to other related areas. After a careful historical and conceptual analysis of computability and recursion we make several recommendations in section §7 about preserving the intensional differences between the concepts of “computability” and “recursion.” Specifically we recommend that: the term “recursive ” should no longer carry the additional meaning of “computable” or “decidable;” functions defined using Turing machines, register machines, or their variants should be called “computable” rather than “recursive;” we should distinguish the intensional difference between Church’s Thesis and Turing’s Thesis, and use the latter particularly in dealing with mechanistic questions; the name of the subject should be “Computability Theory” or simply Computability rather than
Higher Order Logic
 In Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming
, 1994
"... Contents 1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 2 2 The expressive power of second order Logic : : : : : : : : : : : 3 2.1 The language of second order logic : : : : : : : : : : : : : 3 2.2 Expressing size : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 4 2.3 Definin ..."
Abstract

Cited by 24 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Contents 1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 2 2 The expressive power of second order Logic : : : : : : : : : : : 3 2.1 The language of second order logic : : : : : : : : : : : : : 3 2.2 Expressing size : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 4 2.3 Defining data types : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 6 2.4 Describing processes : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 8 2.5 Expressing convergence using second order validity : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 9 2.6 Truth definitions: the analytical hierarchy : : : : : : : : 10 2.7 Inductive definitions : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 13 3 Canonical semantics of higher order logic : : : : : : : : : : : : 15 3.1 Tarskian semantics of second order logic : : : : : : : : : 15 3.2 Function and re
Turing Oracle Machines, Online Computing, and Three Displacements in Computability Theory
, 2009
"... ..."
The history and concept of computability
 in Handbook of Computability Theory
, 1999
"... We consider the informal concept of a “computable ” or “effectively calculable” function on natural numbers and two of the formalisms used to define it, computability” and “(general) recursiveness. ” We consider their origin, exact technical definition, concepts, history, how they became fixed in th ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We consider the informal concept of a “computable ” or “effectively calculable” function on natural numbers and two of the formalisms used to define it, computability” and “(general) recursiveness. ” We consider their origin, exact technical definition, concepts, history, how they became fixed in their present roles, and how
ORDERINGS OF MONOMIAL IDEALS
, 2003
"... We study the set of monomial ideals in a polynomial ring as an ordered set, with the ordering given by reverse inclusion. We give a short proof of the fact that every antichain of monomial ideals is finite. Then we investigate ordinal invariants for the complexity of this ordered set. In particular ..."
Abstract

Cited by 5 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We study the set of monomial ideals in a polynomial ring as an ordered set, with the ordering given by reverse inclusion. We give a short proof of the fact that every antichain of monomial ideals is finite. Then we investigate ordinal invariants for the complexity of this ordered set. In particular, we give an interpretation of the height function in terms of the HilbertSamuel polynomial, and we compute upper and lower bounds on the maximal order type.
Turing degrees and the Ershov hierarchy
 in Proceedings of the Tenth Asian Logic Conference, Kobe, Japan, 16 September 2008, World Scienti…c
"... Abstract. An nr.e. set can be defined as the symmetric difference of n recursively enumerable sets. The classes of these sets form a natural hierarchy which became a wellstudied topic in recursion theory. In a series of groundbreaking papers, Ershov generalized this hierarchy to transfinite level ..."
Abstract

Cited by 4 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. An nr.e. set can be defined as the symmetric difference of n recursively enumerable sets. The classes of these sets form a natural hierarchy which became a wellstudied topic in recursion theory. In a series of groundbreaking papers, Ershov generalized this hierarchy to transfinite levels based on Kleene’s notations of ordinals and this work lead to a fruitful study of these sets and their manyone and Turing degrees. The Ershov hierarchy is a natural measure of complexity of the sets below the halting problem. In this paper, we survey the early work by Ershov and others on this hierarchy and present the most fundamental results. We also provide some pointers to concurrent work in the field. 1.
Barwise: Infinitary Logic and Admissible Sets. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 10
, 2004
"... ..."
(Show Context)
Parsimony hierarchies for inductive inference
 Journal of Symbolic Logic
"... Freivalds defined an acceptable programming system independent criterion for learning programs for functions in which the final programs were required to be both correct and “nearly” minimal size, i.e, within a computable function of being purely minimal size. Kinber showed that this parsimony requ ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Freivalds defined an acceptable programming system independent criterion for learning programs for functions in which the final programs were required to be both correct and “nearly” minimal size, i.e, within a computable function of being purely minimal size. Kinber showed that this parsimony requirement on final programs limits learning power. However, in scientific inference, parsimony is considered highly desirable. A limcomputable function is (by definition) one calculable by a total procedure allowed to change its mind finitely many times about its output. Investigated is the possibility of assuaging somewhat the limitation on learning power resulting from requiring parsimonious final programs by use of criteria which require the final, correct programs to be “notsonearly ” minimal size, e.g., to be within a limcomputable function of actual minimal size. It is shown that some parsimony in the final program is thereby retained, yet learning power strictly increases. Considered, then, are limcomputable functions as above but for which notations for constructive ordinals are used to bound the number of mind changes allowed regarding the output. This is a variant of an idea introduced by Freivalds and Smith. For this ordinal notation complexity bounded version of limcomputability, the power of
Kleene’s Amazing Second Recursion Theorem (Extended Abstract)
"... This little gem is stated unbilled and proved (completely) in the last two lines of §2 of the short note Kleene (1938). In modern notation, with all the hypotheses stated explicitly and in a strong form, it reads as follows: Theorem 1 (SRT). Fix a set V ⊆ N, and suppose that for each natural number ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
This little gem is stated unbilled and proved (completely) in the last two lines of §2 of the short note Kleene (1938). In modern notation, with all the hypotheses stated explicitly and in a strong form, it reads as follows: Theorem 1 (SRT). Fix a set V ⊆ N, and suppose that for each natural number n ∈ N = {0, 1, 2,...}, ϕ n: N n+1 ⇀ V is a recursive partial function of (n + 1) arguments with values in V so that the standard assumptions (1) and (2) hold with {e}(⃗x) = ϕ n e (⃗x) = ϕ n (e, ⃗x) (⃗x = (x1,..., xn) ∈ N n). (1) Every nary recursive partial function with values in V is ϕ n e for some e. (2) For all m, n, there is a recursive (total) function S = S m n: N m+1 → N such that {S(e, ⃗y)}(⃗x) = {e}(⃗y, ⃗x) (e ∈ N, ⃗y ∈ N m, ⃗x ∈ N n). Then, for every recursive, partial function f(e, ⃗y, ⃗x) of (1+m+n) arguments with values in V, there is a total recursive function ˜z(⃗y) of m arguments such that