Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T08:40:26.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Complexity bounds on proofs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

William S. Hatcher
Affiliation:
Université Laval, Québec G1K 7P4, Canada
Bernard R. Hodgson
Affiliation:
Université Laval, Québec G1K 7P4, Canada

Extract

In a recent article in this Journal (see [3]), J.P. Jones states and proves a theorem which purports to give an “absolute epistemological upper bound on the complexity of mathematical proofs” for recursively axiomatizable theories. However, Jones' statement of this result is misleading, and in fact defective, as can be seen by a close analysis of it. Such an analysis is the object of the present note.

The main point is that Jones' “epistemological bound” can in no way be considered a computational bound on the complexity of proofs. Not only is the “proof-theoretic interpretation of the number 243” contained in Jones' article objectionable but, more fundamentally, there is in a strong sense no way one can hope to recover anything like the full force suggested by Jones' original statement of the theorem.

We wish to insist that our comments concern only the difficulties surrounding Jones' Corollary 1 on p. 338 of his article and not his ingenious construction of universal Diophantine representations of r.e. sets presented in the same article.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Davis, M., Matijasevič, Y. and Robinson, J., Hilbert's tenth problem. Diophantine equations: positive aspects of a negative solution, Mathematical developments arising from Hilbert problems. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 28, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1976, pp. 323378.Google Scholar
[2]Jones, J.P., Sato, D., Wada, H. and Wiens, D., Diophantine representation of the set of prime numbers, American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 83 (1976), pp. 449464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Jones, J.P., Three universal representations of recursively enumerable sets, this Journal, vol. 43 (1978), pp. 335351.Google Scholar