Lower semicomputable function: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Lower semicomputability can be characterized using the idea of recursive enumerability as follows: <math>f : X \to \mathbf R</math> is lower semicomputable if and only if the set <math>\{(x,q) \in X \times \mathbf Q : f(x) > q\}</math> is recursively enumerable. | Lower semicomputability can be characterized using the idea of recursive enumerability as follows: <math>f : X \to \mathbf R</math> is lower semicomputable if and only if the set <math>\{(x,q) \in X \times \mathbf Q : f(x) > q\}</math> is recursively enumerable. | ||
Examples: | |||
* Every computable function is lower semicomputable (Why?) | |||
* Kolmogorov complexity? | |||
Revision as of 06:00, 25 July 2019
A function is lower semicomputable iff there exists a computable function such that:
- for all and all natural numbers , we have
- for all we have
The way to think of this is that given some fixed , the values are successive approximations of the value , and we have .
The definition says nothing about the rate of convergence, so for instance if we want to be within of the value of , there is not in general some way to find a large enough .
If we do not know the value of in advance, it is not possible to tell in general how far away is from . We would know that is at least as close to as , but it's not clear how much closer. In contrast, if a function is both lower and upper semicomputable, then we would have an approximation from above, say . Then , so we have an estimate that is off by at most .
Lower semicomputability can be characterized using the idea of recursive enumerability as follows: is lower semicomputable if and only if the set is recursively enumerable.
Examples:
- Every computable function is lower semicomputable (Why?)
- Kolmogorov complexity?