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

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

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 lim-computable 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 "not-so-nearly" minimal size, e.g., to be within a lim-computable 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 lim-computable 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 lim-computability, the power of the resultant learning criteria form finely graded, infinitely ramifying, infinite hierarchies intermediate between the computable and the lim-computable cases. Some of these hierarchies, for the natural notations determining them, are shown to be optimally tight.

1. Background on infinitary logic 2 1.1. Expressive power of Lω1ω 2 1.2. The back-and-forth construction 3

Abstract not found

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 n-ary 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

Abstract not found

Abstract not found