This paper is concerned with a two-sorted probabilistic language, denoted by $\textsf{QPL}$, which contains quantifiers over events and over reals, and can be viewed as an elementary language for reasoning about probability spaces. The fragment of $\textsf{QPL}$ containing only quantifiers over reals is a variant of the well-known ‘polynomial’ language from Fagin et al. (1990, Inform. Comput., 87, 78–128). We shall prove that the $\textsf{QPL}$-theory of the Lebesgue measure on $\left [ 0, 1 \right ]$ is decidable, and moreover, all (...) atomless spaces have the same $\textsf{QPL}$-theory. Also, we shall introduce the notion of elementary invariant for $\textsf{QPL}$ and use it to translate the semantics for $\textsf{QPL}$ into the setting of elementary analysis. This will allow us to obtain further decidability results as well as to provide exact complexity upper bounds for a range of interesting undecidable theories. (shrink)

This article reformulates the theory of computable physical models, previously introduced by the author, as a branch of applied model theory in first-order logic. It provides a semantic approach to the philosophy of science that incorporates aspects of operationalism and Popper’s degrees of falsifiability.

The “somewhat vague, intuitive” notion from computability theory of an effective procedure (method) or algorithm can be fairly precisely defined even if it is not sufficiently formal and precise to belong to mathematics proper (in a narrow sense)—and even if (as many have asserted) for that reason the Church–Turing thesis is unprovable. It is proved logically that the class of effective procedures is not decidable, i.e., that no effective procedure is possible for ascertaining whether a given procedure is effective. This (...) undecidability result is proved directly from the notion itself of an effective procedure, without reliance on any (partly) mathematical lemma, conjecture, or thesis invoking recursiveness or Turing-computability. In fact, there is no reliance on anything very mathematical. The proof does not even appeal to a precise definition of ‘effective procedure’. Instead, it relies solely and entirely on a basic grasp of the intuitive notion of an effective procedure. Though the result that effectiveness is undecidable is not surprising, it is also not without significance. It has the consequence, for example, that the solution to a decision problem, if it is to be complete, must be accompanied by a separate argument that the proposed ascertainment procedure invariably terminates with the correct verdict. (shrink)

This is a non-technical version of "The Decision Problem for Effective Procedures." The “somewhat vague, intuitive” notion from computability theory of an effective procedure (method) or algorithm can be fairly precisely defined, even if it does not have a purely mathematical definition—and even if (as many have asserted) for that reason, the Church–Turing thesis (that the effectively calculable functions on natural numbers are exactly the general recursive functions), cannot be proved. However, it is logically provable from the notion of an (...) effective procedure--without reliance on any (partially) mathematical thesis or conjecture concerning effective procedures, such as the Church–Turing thesis--that the class of effective procedures is undecidable, i.e., that no effective procedure is possible for ascertaining whether a given procedure is effective. The proof does not appeal to a precise definition of ‘effective procedure’. Instead, it relies solely and entirely on a basic grasp of the intuitive notion of such a procedure. Though this undecidability result itself is not surprising, it is also not without significance. It has the consequence, for example, that the solution to a decision problem, if it is to be complete, must be accompanied by a separate argument that the proposed ascertainment procedure is, in fact, a decision procedure, i.e., effective—for example, that it invariably terminates with the correct verdict. (shrink)

There has been a recent interest in hierarchical generalizations of classic incompleteness results. This paper provides evidence that such generalizations are readily obtainable from suitably formulated hierarchical versions of the principles used in the original proofs. By collecting such principles, we prove hierarchical versions of Mostowski’s theorem on independent formulae, Kripke’s theorem on flexible formulae, Woodin’s theorem on the universal algorithm, and a few related results. As a corollary, we obtain the expected result that the formula expressing “$\mathrm {T}$is$\Sigma _n$-ill” (...) is a canonical example of a$\Sigma _{n+1}$formula that is$\Pi _{n+1}$-conservative over$\mathrm {T}$. (shrink)

In this multi-disciplinary investigation we show how an evidence-based perspective of quantification---in terms of algorithmic verifiability and algorithmic computability---admits evidence-based definitions of well-definedness and effective computability, which yield two unarguably constructive interpretations of the first-order Peano Arithmetic PA---over the structure N of the natural numbers---that are complementary, not contradictory. The first yields the weak, standard, interpretation of PA over N, which is well-defined with respect to assignments of algorithmically verifiable Tarskian truth values to the formulas of PA under the interpretation. (...) The second yields a strong, finitary, interpretation of PA over N, which is well-defined with respect to assignments of algorithmically computable Tarskian truth values to the formulas of PA under the interpretation. We situate our investigation within a broad analysis of quantification vis a vis: * Hilbert's epsilon-calculus * Goedel's omega-consistency * The Law of the Excluded Middle * Hilbert's omega-Rule * An Algorithmic omega-Rule * Gentzen's Rule of Infinite Induction * Rosser's Rule C * Markov's Principle * The Church-Turing Thesis * Aristotle's particularisation * Wittgenstein's perspective of constructive mathematics * An evidence-based perspective of quantification. By showing how these are formally inter-related, we highlight the fragility of both the persisting, theistic, classical/Platonic interpretation of quantification grounded in Hilbert's epsilon-calculus; and the persisting, atheistic, constructive/Intuitionistic interpretation of quantification rooted in Brouwer's belief that the Law of the Excluded Middle is non-finitary. We then consider some consequences for mathematics, mathematics education, philosophy, and the natural sciences, of an agnostic, evidence-based, finitary interpretation of quantification that challenges classical paradigms in all these disciplines. (shrink)

We show that for every intermediate \ s-degree there exists an incomparable \ s-degree. As a consequence, for every intermediate \ Q-degree there exists an incomparable \ Q-degree. We also show how these results can be applied to provide proofs or new proofs of upper density results in local structures of s-degrees and Q-degrees.

A major theme in the study of degree structures of all types has been the question of the decidability or undecidability of their first order theories. This is a natural and fundamental question that is an important goal in the analysis of these structures. In this paper, we study decidability for theories of upper semilattices that arise from the theory of numberings. We use the following approach: given a level of complexity, say \, we consider the upper semilattice \ of (...) all \-computable numberings of all \-computable families of subsets of \. We prove that the theory of the semilattice of all computable numberings is computably isomorphic to first order arithmetic. We show that the theory of the semilattice of all numberings is computably isomorphic to second order arithmetic. We also obtain a lower bound for the 1-degree of the theory of the semilattice of all \-computable numberings, where \ is a computable successor ordinal. Furthermore, it is shown that for any of the theories T mentioned above, the \-fragment of T is hereditarily undecidable. Similar results are obtained for the structure of all computably enumerable equivalence relations on \, equipped with composition. (shrink)

We show how removing faith-based beliefs in current philosophies of classical and constructive mathematics admits formal, evidence-based, definitions of constructive mathematics; of a constructively well-defined logic of a formal mathematical language; and of a constructively well-defined model of such a language. -/- We argue that, from an evidence-based perspective, classical approaches which follow Hilbert's formal definitions of quantification can be labelled `theistic'; whilst constructive approaches based on Brouwer's philosophy of Intuitionism can be labelled `atheistic'. -/- We then adopt what may (...) be labelled a finitary, evidence-based, `agnostic' perspective and argue that Brouwerian atheism is merely a restricted perspective within the finitary agnostic perspective, whilst Hilbertian theism contradicts the finitary agnostic perspective. -/- We then consider the argument that Tarski's classic definitions permit an intelligence---whether human or mechanistic---to admit finitary, evidence-based, definitions of the satisfaction and truth of the atomic formulas of the first-order Peano Arithmetic PA over the domain N of the natural numbers in two, hitherto unsuspected and essentially different, ways. -/- We show that the two definitions correspond to two distinctly different---not necessarily evidence-based but complementary---assignments of satisfaction and truth to the compound formulas of PA over N. -/- We further show that the PA axioms are true over N, and that the PA rules of inference preserve truth over N, under both the complementary interpretations; and conclude some unsuspected constructive consequences of such complementarity for the foundations of mathematics, logic, philosophy, and the physical sciences. -/- . (shrink)

We consider the argument that Tarski's classic definitions permit an intelligence---whether human or mechanistic---to admit finitary evidence-based definitions of the satisfaction and truth of the atomic formulas of the first-order Peano Arithmetic PA over the domain N of the natural numbers in two, hitherto unsuspected and essentially different, ways: (1) in terms of classical algorithmic verifiabilty; and (2) in terms of finitary algorithmic computability. We then show that the two definitions correspond to two distinctly different assignments of satisfaction and truth (...) to the compound formulas of PA over N---I_PA(N; SV ) and I_PA(N; SC). We further show that the PA axioms are true over N, and that the PA rules of inference preserve truth over N, under both I_PA(N; SV ) and I_PA(N; SC). We then show: (a) that if we assume the satisfaction and truth of the compound formulas of PA are always non-finitarily decidable under I_PA(N; SV ), then this assignment corresponds to the classical non-finitary putative standard interpretation I_PA(N; S) of PA over the domain N; and (b) that the satisfaction and truth of the compound formulas of PA are always finitarily decidable under the assignment I_PA(N; SC), from which we may finitarily conclude that PA is consistent. We further conclude that the appropriate inference to be drawn from Goedel's 1931 paper on undecidable arithmetical propositions is that we can define PA formulas which---under interpretation---are algorithmically verifiable as always true over N, but not algorithmically computable as always true over N. We conclude from this that Lucas' Goedelian argument is validated if the assignment I_PA(N; SV ) can be treated as circumscribing the ambit of human reasoning about `true' arithmetical propositions, and the assignment I_PA(N; SC) as circumscribing the ambit of mechanistic reasoning about `true' arithmetical propositions. (shrink)

One way to study and understand the notion of truth is to examine principles that we are willing to associate with truth, often because they conform to a pre-theoretical or to a semi-formal characterization of this concept. In comparing different collections of such principles, one requires formally precise notions of inter-theoretic reduction that are also adequate to compare these conceptual aspects. In this work I study possible ways to make precise the relation of conceptual equivalence between notions of truth associated (...) with collections of principles of truth. In doing so, I will consider refinements and strengthenings of the notion of relative truth-definability proposed by Fujimoto (2010): in particular I employ suitable variants of notions of equivalence of theories considered in Visser (2006) and Friedman & Visser (2014) to show that there are better candidates than mutual truth-definability for the role of sufficient condition for conceptual equivalence between the semantic notions associated with the theories. In the concluding part of the paper, I extend the techniques introduced in the first and show that there is a precise sense in which ramified truth (either disquotational or compositional) does not correspond to iterations of comprehension. (shrink)

A set A is m-reducible to B if and only if there is a polynomial-time computable function f such that, for all x, x∈ A if and only if f ∈ B. Two sets are: 1-equivalent if and only if each is m-reducible to the other by one-one reductions; p-invertible equivalent if and only if each is m-reducible to the other by one-one, polynomial-time invertible reductions; and p-isomorphic if and only if there is an m-reduction from one set to the (...) other that is one-one, onto, and polynomial-time invertible. In this paper we show the following characterization. Theorem The following are equivalent: P = PSPACE. Every two 1-equivalent sets are p-isomorphic. Every two p-invertible equivalent sets are p-isomorphic. (shrink)

I develop a theory of counterfactuals about relative computability, i.e. counterfactuals such as 'If the validity problem were algorithmically decidable, then the halting problem would also be algorithmically decidable,' which is true, and 'If the validity problem were algorithmically decidable, then arithmetical truth would also be algorithmically decidable,' which is false. These counterfactuals are counterpossibles, i.e. they have metaphysically impossible antecedents. They thus pose a challenge to the orthodoxy about counterfactuals, which would treat them as uniformly true. What’s more, I (...) argue that these counterpossibles don’t just appear in the periphery of relative computability theory but instead they play an ineliminable role in the development of the theory. Finally, I present and discuss a model theory for these counterfactuals that is a straightforward extension of the familiar comparative similarity models. (shrink)

Osvald Demuth studied constructive analysis from the viewpoint of the Russian school of constructive mathematics. In the course of his work he introduced various notions of effective null set which, when phrased in classical language, yield a number of major algorithmic randomness notions. In addition, he proved several results connecting constructive analysis and randomness that were rediscovered only much later.In this paper, we trace the path that took Demuth from his constructivist roots to his deep and innovative work on the (...) interactions between constructive analysis, algorithmic randomness, and computability theory. We will focus specifically on Demuth’s work on the differentiability of Markov computable functions and his study of constructive versions of the Denjoy alternative, Demuth’s independent discovery of the main notions of algorithmic randomness, as well as the development of Demuth randomness, and the interactions of truth-table reducibility, algorithmic randomness, and semigenericity in Demuth’s work. (shrink)

We prove the following three theorems on the enumeration degrees of ∑20 sets. Theorem A: There exists a nonzero noncuppable ∑20 enumeration degree. Theorem B: Every nonzero Δ20enumeration degree is cuppable to 0′e by an incomplete total enumeration degree. Theorem C: There exists a nonzero low Δ20 enumeration degree with the anticupping property.

In this paper we define the concept of a system function language which is a language generated by a system function. We identify system function languages with recursively enumerable sets which are non-simple and co-infinite. We then define restricted system function languages and identify them with recursive sets which are co-infinite. Finally we state and prove some independence and dependence relationships between system function languages and some of the more well-known decision problems. MSC: 03D05, 03D20, 03D25.

We study the Lindenbaum algebra ${\fancyscript{A}}$ (WKL o, RCA o) of sentences in the language of second-order arithmetic that imply RCA o and are provable from WKL o. We explore the relationship between ${\Sigma^1_1}$ sentences in ${\fancyscript{A}}$ (WKL o, RCA o) and ${\Pi^0_1}$ classes of subsets of ω. By applying a result of Binns and Simpson (Arch. Math. Logic 43(3), 399–414, 2004) about ${\Pi^0_1}$ classes, we give a specific embedding of the free distributive lattice with countably many generators into ${\fancyscript{A}}$ (...) (WKL o, RCA o). (shrink)

An effectively closed set, or ${\Pi^{0}_{1}}$ class, may viewed as the set of infinite paths through a computable tree. A numbering, or enumeration, is a map from ω onto a countable collection of objects. One numbering is reducible to another if equality holds after the second is composed with a computable function. Many commonly used numberings of ${\Pi^{0}_{1}}$ classes are shown to be mutually reducible via a computable permutation. Computable injective numberings are given for the family of ${\Pi^{0}_{1}}$ classes and (...) for the subclasses of decidable and of homogeneous ${\Pi^{0}_{1}}$ classes. However no computable numberings exist for small or thin classes. No computable numbering of trees exists that includes all computable trees without dead ends. (shrink)

R. Shore proved that every recursively enumerable set can be split into two nowhere simple sets. Splitting theorems play an important role in recursion theory since they provide information about the lattice ϵ of all r. e. sets. Nowhere simple sets were further studied by D. Miller and J. Remmel, and we generalize some of their results. We characterize r. e. sets which can be split into two effectively nowhere simple sets, and r. e. sets which can be split into (...) two r. e. non-nowhere simple sets. We show that every r. e. set is either the disjoint union of two effectively nowhere simple sets or two noneffectively nowhere simple sets. We characterize r. e. sets whose every nontrivial splitting is into nowhere simple sets, and r. e. sets whose every nontrivial splitting is into effectively nowhere simple sets. R. Shore proved that for every effectively nowhere simple set A, the lattice L* is effectively isomorphic to ϵ*, and that there is a nowhere simple set A such that L* is not effectively isomorphic to ϵ*. We prove that every nonzero r. e. Turing degree contains a noneffectively nowhere simple set A with the lattice L* effectively isomorphic to ϵ*. (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)

Enumeration reducibility is a notion of relative computability between sets of natural numbers where only positive information about the sets is used or produced. Extending e‐reducibility to partial functions characterises relative computability between partial functions. We define a polynomial time enumeration reducibility that retains the character of enumeration reducibility and show that it is equivalent to conjunctive non‐deterministic polynomial time reducibility. We define the polynomial time e‐degrees as the equivalence classes under this reducibility and investigate their structure on the recursive (...) sets, showing in particular that the pe‐degrees of the computable sets are dense and do not form a lattice, but that minimal pairs exist. We define a jump operator and use it to produce a characterisation of the polynomial hierarchy. (shrink)

We study the structure of Σ11 equivalence relations on hyperarithmetical subsets of ω under reducibilities given by hyperarithmetical or computable functions, called h-reducibility and FF-reducibility, respectively. We show that the structure is rich even when one fixes the number of properly equation imagei.e., Σ11 but not equation image equivalence classes. We also show the existence of incomparable Σ11 equivalence relations that are complete as subsets of ω × ω with respect to the corresponding reducibility on sets. We study complete Σ11 (...) equivalence relations and show that existence of infinitely many properly Σ11 equivalence classes that are complete as Σ11 sets is necessary but not sufficient for a relation to be complete in the context of Σ11 equivalence relations. (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?

We begin by distinguishing computationalism from a number of other theses that are sometimes conflated with it. We also distinguish between several important kinds of computation: computation in a generic sense, digital computation, and analog computation. Then, we defend a weak version of computationalism—neural processes are computations in the generic sense. After that, we reject on empirical grounds the common assimilation of neural computation to either analog or digital computation, concluding that neural computation is sui generis. Analog computation requires continuous (...) signals; digital computation requires strings of digits. But current neuroscientific evidence indicates that typical neural signals, such as spike trains, are graded like continuous signals but are constituted by discrete functional elements (spikes); thus, typical neural signals are neither continuous signals nor strings of digits. It follows that neural computation is sui generis. Finally, we highlight three important consequences of a proper understanding of neural computation for the theory of cognition. First, understanding neural computation requires a specially designed mathematical theory (or theories) rather than the mathematical theories of analog or digital computation. Second, several popular views about neural computation turn out to be incorrect. Third, computational theories of cognition that rely on non-neural notions of computation ought to be replaced or reinterpreted in terms of neural computation. (shrink)

It is shown that the Fodor's interpretation of the frame problem is the central indication that his version of the Modularity Thesis is incompatible with computationalism. Since computationalism is far more plausible than this thesis, the latter should be rejected.

We survey the theory of Mucnik and Medvedev degrees of subsets of $^{\omega}{\omega}$with particular attention to the degrees of $\Pi_{1}^{0}$ subsets of $^{\omega}2$. Sections 1-6 present the major definitions and results in a uniform notation. Sections 7-6 present proofs, some more complete than others, of the major results of the subject together with much of the required background material.