Talk:Post's theorem
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Comments 2006-10-25
editThe article has been sitting in a half-finished state for a while. I expanded it and set it up for further improvement.
- This article needs to be at an undergraduate level at the highest
- More references, especially at the undergrad level, are needed
- The notation should be kept as simple as possible (but not more simple than that).
- I think that a proof would be nice, and the proof is elementary anyway.
- More corollaries would be good.
Quantifier Blocks
editI believe the 'alternative' definition I added using quantifier blocks and bounded quantifiers should probably be the primary definition. However, I don't remember and need to get back to working on my thesis.Logicnazi (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Definition of
editThe definition of differs from the traditional one for since it would not allow bounded quantifiers. Since Post theorem doesn't say anything about relation this doesn't affect the theorem, but it seems misleading. Catrincm (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
T halts on input n at time n1 at most if and only if is satisfied
editWhat does it mean: "at most if and only if"? Is it equivalence or one-direction consequence?
Eugepros (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
- I think they mean to say that is true if and only if halts at or prior to time . Related to that, the assertion that can be a formula (only having bounded quantifiers) is almost certainly incorrect, or else it needs a citation. I've never seen any formalization of turing machines where the halting time function is . Obviously is , which is sufficient for Post's theorem, and it's even primitive recursive, but the idea that it could be seems implausible. Jade Vanadium (talk) 20:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)