Turing computation over a non-linguistic domain presupposes a notation for the domain. Accordingly, computability theory studies notations for various non-linguistic domains. It illuminates how different ways of representing a domain support different finite mechanical procedures over that domain. Formal definitions and theorems yield a principled classification of notations based upon their computational properties. To understand computability theory, we must recognize that representation is a key target of mathematical inquiry. We must also recognize that computability theory is an intensional enterprise: it (...) studies entities as represented in certain ways, rather than entities detached from any means of representing them. (shrink)

In this paper, we introduce a foundation for computable model theory of rational Pavelka logic and continuous logic, and prove effective versions of some related theorems in model theory. We show how to reduce continuous logic to rational Pavelka logic. We also define notions of computability and decidability of a model for logics with computable, but uncountable, set of truth values; we show that provability degree of a formula with respect to a linear theory is computable, and use this to (...) carry out an effective Henkin construction. Therefore, for any effectively given consistent linear theory in continuous logic, we effectively produce its decidable model. This is the best possible, since we show that the computable model theory of continuous logic is an extension of computable model theory of classical logic. We conclude with noting that the unique separable model of a separably categorical and computably axiomatizable theory is decidable. (shrink)

In this paper, the issues of computability and constructivity in the mathematics of physics are discussed. The sorts of questions to be addressed are those which might be expressed, roughly, as: Are the mathematical foundations of our current theories unavoidably non-constructive: or, Are the laws of physics computable?

This dissertation examines aspects of the interplay between computing and scientific practice. The appropriate foundational framework for such an endeavour is rather real computability than the classical computability theory. This is so because physical sciences, engineering, and applied mathematics mostly employ functions defined in continuous domains. But, contrary to the case of computation over natural numbers, there is no universally accepted framework for real computation; rather, there are two incompatible approaches --computable analysis and BSS model--, both claiming to formalise algorithmic (...) computation and to offer foundations for scientific computing. -/- The dissertation consists of three parts. In the first part, we examine what notion of 'algorithmic computation' underlies each approach and how it is respectively formalised. It is argued that the very existence of the two rival frameworks indicates that 'algorithm' is not one unique concept in mathematics, but it is used in more than one way. We test this hypothesis for consistency with mathematical practice as well as with key foundational works that aim to define the term. As a result, new connections between certain subfields of mathematics and computer science are drawn, and a distinction between 'algorithms' and 'effective procedures' is proposed. -/- In the second part, we focus on the second goal of the two rival approaches to real computation; namely, to provide foundations for scientific computing. We examine both frameworks in detail, what idealisations they employ, and how they relate to floating-point arithmetic systems used in real computers. We explore limitations and advantages of both frameworks, and answer questions about which one is preferable for computational modelling and which one for addressing general computability issues. -/- In the third part, analog computing and its relation to analogue (physical) modelling in science are investigated. Based on some paradigmatic cases of the former, a certain view about the nature of computation is defended, and the indispensable role of representation in it is emphasized and accounted for. We also propose a novel account of the distinction between analog and digital computation and, based on it, we compare analog computational modelling to physical modelling. It is concluded that the two practices, despite their apparent similarities, are orthogonal. (shrink)

We examine two very different approaches to formalising real computation, commonly referred to as “Computable Analysis” and “the BSS approach”. The main models of computation underlying these approaches—bit computation and BSS, respectively—have also been put forward as appropriate foundations for scientific computing. The two frameworks offer useful computability and complexity results about problems whose underlying domain is an uncountable space. Since typically the problems dealt with in physical sciences, applied mathematics, economics, and engineering are also defined in uncountable domains, it (...) is fitting that we choose between these two approaches a foundational framework for scientific computing. However, the models are incompatible as to their results. What is more, the BSS model is highly idealised and unrealistic; yet, it is the de facto implicit model in various areas of computational mathematics, with virtually no problems for the everyday practice. This paper serves three purposes. First, we attempt to delineate what the goal of developing foundations for scientific computing exactly is. We distinguish between two very different interpretations of that goal, and on the separate basis of each one, we put forward answers about the appropriateness of each framework. Second, we provide an account of the fruitfulness and wide use of BSS, despite its unrealistic assumptions. Third, according to one of our proposed interpretations of the scope of foundations, the target domain of both models is a certain mathematical structure. In a clear sense, then, we are using idealised models to study a purely mathematical structure. The third purpose is to point out and explain this intriguing phenomenon and attempt to make connections with the typical case of idealised models of empirical domains. (shrink)

Some have suggested that certain classical physical systems have undecidable long-term behavior, without specifying an appropriate notion of decidability over the reals. We introduce such a notion, decidability in (or d- ) for any measure , which is particularly appropriate for physics and in some ways more intuitive than Ko's (1991) recursive approximability (r.a.). For Lebesgue measure , d- implies r.a. Sets with positive -measure that are sufficiently "riddled" with holes are never d- but are often r.a. This explicates Sommerer (...) and Ott's (1996) claim of uncomputable behavior in a system with riddled basins of attraction. Furthermore, it clarifies speculations that the stability of the solar system (and similar systems) may be undecidable, for the invariant tori established by KAM theory form sets that are not d-. (shrink)

This paper challenges two orthodox theses: (a) that computational processes must be algorithmic; and (b) that all computed functions must be Turing-computable. Section 2 advances the claim that the works in computability theory, including Turing's analysis of the effective computable functions, do not substantiate the two theses. It is then shown (Section 3) that we can describe a system that computes a number-theoretic function which is not Turing-computable. The argument against the first thesis proceeds in two stages. It is first (...) shown (Section 4) that whether a process is algorithmic depends on the way we describe the process. It is then argued (Section 5) that systems compute even if their processes are not described as algorithmic. The paper concludes with a suggestion for a semantic approach to computation. (shrink)

We examine a case in which non-computable behavior in a model is revealed by computer simulation. This is possible due to differing notions of computability for sets in a continuous space. The argument originally given for the validity of the simulation involves a simpler simulation of the simulation, still further simulations thereof, and a universality conjecture. There are difficulties with that argument, but there are other, heuristic arguments supporting the qualitative results. It is urged, using this example, that absolute validation, (...) while highly desirable, is overvalued. Simulations also provide valuable insights that we cannot yet (if ever) prove. (shrink)

The dimension of a point x in Euclidean space is the algorithmic information density of x . Roughly speaking, this is the least real number dimdim such that r×dimr×dim bits suffice to specify x on a general-purpose computer with arbitrarily high precision 2−r2−r. The dimension spectrum of a set X in Euclidean space is the subset of [0,n][0,n] consisting of the dimensions of all points in X.The dimensions of points have been shown to be geometrically meaningful , and the dimensions (...) of points in self-similar fractals have been completely analyzed . Here we begin the more challenging task of analyzing the dimensions of points in random fractals. We focus on fractals that are randomly selected subfractals of a given self-similar fractal. We formulate the specification of a point in such a subfractal as the outcome of an infinite two-player game between a selector that selects the subfractal and a coder that selects a point within the subfractal. Our selectors are algorithmically random with respect to various probability measures, so our selector–coder games are, from the coder's point of view, games against nature.We determine the dimension spectra of a wide class of such randomly selected subfractals. We show that each such fractal has a dimension spectrum that is a closed interval whose endpoints can be computed or approximated from the parameters of the fractal. In general, the maximum of the spectrum is determined by the degree to which the coder can reinforce the randomness in the selector, while the minimum is determined by the degree to which the coder can cancel randomness in the selector. This constructive and destructive interference between the players' randomnesses is somewhat subtle, even in the simplest cases. Our proof techniques include van Lambalgen's theorem on independent random sequences, measure preserving transformations, an application of network flow theory, a Kolmogorov complexity lower bound argument, and a nonconstructive proof that this bound is tight. (shrink)

For any class of operators which transform unary total functions in the set of natural numbers into functions of the same kind, we define what it means for a real function to be uniformly computable or conditionally computable with respect to this class. These two computability notions are natural generalizations of certain notions introduced in a previous paper co-authored by Andreas Weiermann and in another previous paper by the same authors, respectively. Under certain weak assumptions about the class in question, (...) we show that conditional computability is preserved by substitution, that all conditionally computable real functions are locally uniformly computable, and that the ones with compact domains are uniformly computable. The introduced notions have some similarity with the uniform computability and its non-uniform extension considered by Katrin Tent and Martin Ziegler, however, there are also essential differences between the conditional computability and the non-uniform computability in question. (shrink)

In this paper we investigate conditions for Lp-computability which are in accordance with the classical Grzegorczyk notion of computability for a continuous function. For a given computable real number p ≥ 1 and a compact computable rectangle I ⊂ ℝq, we show that an Lp function f ∈ Lp is LP-computable if and only if f is sequentially computable as a linear functional and the Lp-modulus function of f is effectively continuous at the origin of ℝq.

The content of existence theorems in the calculus of variations has been explored and an effective treatment of semi-continuity has been achieved. An algorithm has been developed which captures the natural algorithmic content of the notion of a semi-continuous function and this is used to obtain an effective version of the “chattering lemma” of control theory and ordinary differential equations. This lemma reveals the main computational content of the theory of relaxed optimal control.

We determine the computational complexity of the Hahn-Banach Extension Theorem. To do so, we investigate some basic connections between reverse mathematics and computable analysis. In particular, we use Weak König's Lemma within the framework of computable analysis to classify incomputable functions of low complexity. By defining the multivalued function Sep and a natural notion of reducibility for multivalued functions, we obtain a computational counterpart of the subsystem of second-order arithmetic WKL0. We study analogies and differences between WKL0 and the class (...) of Sep-computable multivalued functions. Extending work of Brattka, we show that a natural multivalued function associated with the Hahn-Banach Extension Theorem is Sep-complete. (shrink)

For semi-continuous real functions we study different computability concepts defined via computability of epigraphs and hypographs. We call a real function f lower semi-computable of type one, if its open hypograph hypo is recursively enumerably open in dom × ℝ; we call f lower semi-computable of type two, if its closed epigraph Epi is recursively enumerably closed in dom × ℝ; we call f lower semi-computable of type three, if Epi is recursively closed in dom × ℝ. We show that (...) type one and type two semi-computability are independent and that type three semi-computability plus effectively uniform continuity implies computability, which is false for type one and type two instead of type three. We show also that the integral of a type three semi-computable real function on a computable interval is not necessarily computable. (shrink)

1. One theory or many? In 2004 a very interesting and readable article by Lenore Blum, entitled “Computing over the reals: Where Turing meets Newton,” appeared in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society. It explained a basic model of computation over the reals due to Blum, Michael Shub and Steve Smale (1989), subsequently exposited at length in their influential book, Complexity and Real Computation (1997), coauthored with Felipe Cucker. The ‘Turing’ in the title of Blum’s article refers of course (...) to Alan Turing, famous for his explication of the notion of mechanical computation on discrete data such as the integers. The ‘Newton’ there has to do to with the well known numerical method due to Isaac Newton for approximating the zeros of continuous functions under suitable conditions that is taken to be a paradigm of scientific computing. Finally, the meaning of “Turing meets Newton” in the title of Blum’s article has another, more particular aspect: in connection with the problem of controlling errors in the numerical solution of linear equations and inversion of matrices,Turing (1948) defined a notion of condition for the relation of changes in the output of a computation due to small changes in the input that is analogous to Newton’s definition of the derivative. The thrust of Blum’s 2004 article was that the BSS model of computation on the reals is the appropriate foundation for scientific computing in general. By way of response, two years later another very interesting and equally readable article appeared in the Notices, this time by Mark Braverman and Stephen Cook (2006) entitled “Computing over the reals: Foundations for scientific computing,” in which the authors argued that the requisite foundation is provided by a quite different “bit computation” model, that is in fact prima facie incompatible with the BSS model. The bit computation model goes back to ideas due to Stefan Banach and Stanislaw Mazur in the latter part of the 1930s, but the first publication was not made until Mazur (1963).. (shrink)

In this paper we develop a point-free approach to the study of topological spaces and functions on them, establish platforms for both and present some findings on recursive points. In the first sections of the paper, we obtain conditions under which our approach leads to the generation of ideal objects with which mathematicians work. Next, we apply the effective version of our approach to the real numbers, and make exact connections to the classical approach to recursive reals. In the succeeding (...) sections of the paper, we introduce machinery to produce functions on topological spaces and find succinct conditions which will be effectivized in our sequel. (shrink)

The basic motivation behind this work is to tie together various computational complexity classes, whether over different domains such as the naturals or the reals, or whether defined in different manners, via function algebras (Real Recursive Functions) or via Turing Machines (Computable Analysis). We provide general tools for investigating these issues, using two techniques we call approximation and lifting. We use these methods to obtain two main theorems. First, we provide an alternative proof of the result from Campagnolo et al. (...) (J Complex 18:977–1000, 2002), which precisely relates the Kalmar elementary computable functions to a function algebra over the reals. Second, we build on that result to extend a result of Bournez and Hainry (Theor Comput Sci 348(2–3):130–147, 2005), which provided a function algebra for the ${\mathcal{C}}^2$ real elementary computable functions; our result does not require the restriction to ${\mathcal{C}}^2$ functions. In addition to the extension, we provide an alternative approach to the proof. Their proof involves simulating the operation of a Turing Machine using a function algebra. We avoid this simulation, using a technique we call lifting, which allows us to lift the classic result regarding the elementary computable functions to a result on the reals. The two new techniques bring a different perspective to these problems, and furthermore appear more easily applicable to other problems of this sort. (shrink)

On countable structures computability is usually introduced via numberings. For uncountable structures whose cardinality does not exceed the cardinality of the continuum the same can be done via representations. Which representations are appropriate for doing real number computations? We show that with respect to computable equivalence there is one and only one equivalence class of representations of the real numbers which make the basic operations and the infinitary normed limit operator computable. This characterizes the real numbers in terms of the (...) theory of effective algebras or computable structures, and is reflected by observations made in real number computer arithmetic. Demanding computability of the normed limit operator turns out to be essential: the basic operations without the normed limit operator can be made computable by more than one class of representations. We also give further evidence for the well-known non-appropriateness of the representation to some base b by proving that strictly less functions are computable with respect to these representations than with respect to a standard representation of the real numbers. Furthermore we consider basic constructions of representations and the countable substructure consisting of the computable elements of a represented, possibly uncountable structure. For countable structures we compare effectivity with respect to a numbering and effectivity with respect to a representation. Special attention is paid to the countable structure of the computable real numbers. (shrink)