Abstract
Let [\cdot] denote the integer part of the argument. We show that decision problems (1)-(3) are algorithmically undecidable when n∈N. (1) ∃p,q∈N ((n=2^p \cdot 3^q)∧∀(x_0,...,x_p)∈N^{p+1} ∃(y_0,...,y_p)∈{0,...,q}^{p+1} ∀i,j,k∈{0,...,p} (((x_j+1=x_k)⇒(y_j+1=y_k))∧((x_i \cdot x_j=x_k)⇒(y_i \cdot y_j=y_k)))). (2) ∀(x_0,...,x_{n−[\sqrt{n}]^2})∈N^{n+1−[\sqrt{n}]^2} ∃(y_0,...,y_{n−[\sqrt{n}]^2})∈{0,...,|n−[\sqrt{n}]^2−[\sqrt{n}]|}^{n+1-[\sqrt{n}]^2} ∀i,j,k∈{0,...,n−[\sqrt{n}]^2} (((x_j+1=x_k)⇒(y_j+1=y_k))∧((x_i \cdot x_j=x_k)⇒{y_i \cdot y_j=y_k))). (3) ∃(y_0,...,y_n)∈N^{n+1} ∀i,j,k∈{0,...,n} (((2^{2^{2^j \cdot 3^k}}+1 divides n) ⇒ (y_j+1=y_k))∧((2^{2^{2^i \cdot 3^j \cdot 5^{k+1}}}+1 divides n)⇒(y_i \cdot y_j=y_k))). For n∈N, let E_n={1=x_k, x_i+x_j=x_k, x_i \cdot x_j=x_k: i,j,k∈{0,...,n}}. For n∈N, f(n) denotes the smallest b∈N such that if a system of equations S⊆E_n has a solution in N^{n+1}, then S has a solution in {0,...,b}^{n+1}. The author proved earlier that the function f:N→N is computable in the limit and eventually dominates every computable function g:N→N. We present a short program in MuPAD which for n∈N prints the sequence {f_i(n)}_{i=0}^∞ of non-negative integers converging to f(n). For n∈N, β(n) denotes the smallest b∈N such that if a system of equations S⊆E_n has a unique solution in N^{n+1}, then this solution belongs to {0,...,b}^{n+1}. The author proved earlier that the function β:N→N of unknown computability is computable in the limit and eventually dominates every function δ:N→N with a single-fold Diophantine representation. We present a short program in MuPAD which for n∈N prints the sequence {β_i(n)}_{i=0}^∞ of non-negative integers converging to β(n).



![Author ORCID: We display the ORCID iD icon alongside authors names on our website to acknowledge that the ORCiD has been authenticated when entered by the user. To view the users ORCiD record click the icon. [opens in a new tab]](https://www.cambridge.org/engage/assets/public/coe/logo/orcid.png)