Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 96
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.


    ARSLANOV, MARAT 2016. Splitting and non-splitting in the difference hierarchy. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, p. 1.

    Baltag, Alexandru Gierasimczuk, Nina and Smets, Sonja 2016. On the Solvability of Inductive Problems: A Study in Epistemic Topology. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 215, p. 81.

    Gerla, Giangiacomo 2016. Comments on some theories of fuzzy computation. International Journal of General Systems, Vol. 45, Issue. 4, p. 372.

    Kelly, Kevin T. Genin, Konstantin and Lin, Hanti 2016. Realism, rhetoric, and reliability. Synthese, Vol. 193, Issue. 4, p. 1191.

    Kelly, Kevin T. 2016. Readings in Formal Epistemology.

    McCarthy, Timothy 2016. Gödel's Third Incompleteness Theorem. Dialectica, Vol. 70, Issue. 1, p. 87.

    Randall, Allan F. 2016. Quantum Probability as an Application of Data Compression Principles. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 214, p. 29.

    Dershowitz, Nachum and Falkovich, Evgenia 2015. Cellular Automata are Generic. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 179, p. 17.

    Ebbs, Gary 2015. Satisfying Predicates: Kleene's Proof of the Hilbert–Bernays Theorem. History and Philosophy of Logic, Vol. 36, Issue. 4, p. 346.

    Kaså, Martin 2015. A Logic for Trial and Error Classifiers. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, Vol. 24, Issue. 3, p. 307.

    Zhang, Ruibin Gao, Hailong Zhu, Wenting Hu, Wei and Ye, Rui 2015. Calculation of permissible load capacity and establishment of total amount control in the Wujin River Catchment—a tributary of Taihu Lake, China. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Vol. 22, Issue. 15, p. 11493.

    Higuchi, K. and Kihara, T. 2014. Inside the Muchnik degrees I: Discontinuity, learnability and constructivism. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, Vol. 165, Issue. 5, p. 1058.

    Lempp, S. 2014. A survey of results on the d.c.e. and n-c.e. degrees. Lobachevskii Journal of Mathematics, Vol. 35, Issue. 4, p. 313.

    Nayebi, Aran 2014. Practical Intractability: A Critique of the Hypercomputation Movement. Minds and Machines, Vol. 24, Issue. 3, p. 275.

    Cooper, S. Barry and Leeuwen, Jan Van 2013. Alan Turing: His Work and Impact.

    Ishida, Masato 2013. A Peircean Reply to Quine's Two Problems. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, Vol. 49, Issue. 3, p. 322.

    Jung, Achim and Rowe, Jonathan E. 2013. Convergence of preference functions. Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 488, p. 66.

    Arslanov, M. M. 2012. Model-theoretic properties of turing degrees in the Ershov difference hierarchy. Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics, Vol. 278, Issue. S1, p. 57.

    Dershowitz, Nachum 2012. The Generic Model of Computation. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 88, p. 59.


Trial and error predicates and the solution to a problem of Mostowski*

  • Hilary Putnam (a1)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 March 2014

The purpose of this paper is to present two groups of results which have turned out to have a surprisingly close interconnection. The first two results (Theorems 1 and 2) were inspired by the following question: we know what sets are “decidable” — namely, the recursive sets (according to Church's Thesis). But what happens if we modify the notion of a decision procedure by (1) allowing the procedure to “change its mind” any finite number of times (in terms of Turing Machines: we visualize the machine as being given an integer (or an n-tuple of integers) as input. The machine then “prints out” a finite sequence of “yesses” and “nos”. The last “yes” or “no” is always to be the correct answer.); and (2) we give up the requirement that it be possible to tell (effectively) if the computation has terminated? I.e., if the machine has most recently printed “yes”, then we know that the integer put in as input must be in the set unless the machine is going to change its mind; but we have no procedure for telling whether the machine will change its mind or not.

The sets for which there exist decision procedures in this widened sense are decidable by “empirical” means — for, if we always “posit” that the most recently generated answer is correct, we will make a finite number of mistakes, but we will eventually get the correct answer. (Note, however, that even if we have gotten to the correct answer (the end of the finite sequence) we are never sure that we have the correct answer.)

Hide All

This work was supported in part by the U.S. Army, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, and the Office of Naval Research.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Journal of Symbolic Logic
  • ISSN: 0022-4812
  • EISSN: 1943-5886
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-symbolic-logic
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *