There exists a non-recursively enumerable set {n∈N: φ(n)} such that the formula φ(n) is short and can be easily translated into a first-order formula which uses only + and \cdot

14 April 2026, Version 5
This content is an early or alternative research output and has not been peer-reviewed by Cambridge University Press at the time of posting.

Abstract

We prove that the set T={n∈N: ∃p,q∈N ((2n=(p+q)(p+q+1)+2q) ∧ ∀(x_0,...,x_p)∈N^{p+1} ∃(y_0,...,y_p)∈{0,...,q}^{p+1} ((∀k∈{0,...,p} (1=x_k ⇒ 1=y_k)) ∧ (∀i,j,k∈{0,...,p} (x_i+x_j=x_k ⇒ y_i+y_j=y_k)) ∧ (∀i,j,k∈{0,...,p} (x_i \cdot x_j=x_k ⇒ y_i \cdot y_j=y_k))))} is not recursively enumerable. By using Gödel's β function, we prove that the formula that defines the set T can be easily translated into a first-order formula which uses only + and \cdot. The same properties has the set {n∈N: ∃p,q∈N ((2n=(p+q)(p+q+1)+2q) ∧ ∀(x_0,...,x_p)∈N^{p+1} ∃(y_0,...,y_p)∈{0,...,q}^{p+1} ((∀j,k∈{0,...,p} (x_j+1=x_k ⇒ y_j+1=y_k)) ∧ (∀i,j,k∈{0,...,p} (x_i \cdot x_j=x_k ⇒ y_i \cdot y_j=y_k))))}.

Keywords

computable function
eventual domination
Gödel's β function
limit-computable function
recursively enumerable set
undecidable decision problem

Comments

Comments are not moderated before they are posted, but they can be removed by the site moderators if they are found to be in contravention of our Commenting and Discussion Policy [opens in a new tab] - please read this policy before you post. Comments should be used for scholarly discussion of the content in question. You can find more information about how to use the commenting feature here [opens in a new tab] .
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy [opens in a new tab] and Terms of Service [opens in a new tab] apply.