User:IssaRice/Computability and logic/Diagonalization lemma: Difference between revisions

From Machinelearning
Line 21: Line 21:


Let <math>B</math> be <math>A(\mathrm{diag}(x))</math>, and let <math>G</math> be <math>B(\ulcorner B\urcorner)</math>.
Let <math>B</math> be <math>A(\mathrm{diag}(x))</math>, and let <math>G</math> be <math>B(\ulcorner B\urcorner)</math>.
Then <math>G</math> is <math>A(\mathrm{diag}(\ulcorner \ulcorner B\urcorner\urcorner))</math>.

Revision as of 02:39, 8 February 2019

Rogers's fixed point theorem

Let f be a total computable function. Then there exists an index e such that φeφf(e).

(simplified)

Define d(x)=φx(x) (this is actually slightly wrong, but it brings out the analogy better).

Consider the function fd. This is partial recursive, so fdφi for some index i.

Now φf(d(i))φφi(i) since fdφi. This is equivalent to φd(i) by definition of d. Thus, we may take e=d(i) to complete the proof.

Diagonalization lemma

(semantic version)

Let A be a formula with one free variable. Then there exists a sentence G such that G iff A(G).

Define diag(x) to be C(C) where x=C. In other words, given a number x, the function diag finds the formula with that Godel number, then diagonalizes it (i.e. substitutes the Godel number of the formula into the formula itself), then returns the Godel number of the resulting sentence.

Let B be A(diag(x)), and let G be B(B).

Then G is A(diag(B)).