Every proof I've read about this fact considers two cases: $A$ - finite and $A$ - infinite but this is undecidable problem. So, is there constructive proof?
Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)
|
1
1
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
11
|
Here is Goldstern's answer, transcribed to constructive mathematics. In constructive mathematics we do not speak of "recursive" but rather decidable subsets of $\mathbb{N}$. (Recall that a subset $X \subseteq Y$ is decidable if $\forall y \in Y. y \in X \lor y \not\in X$.) Also, your assumption that $A \neq \emptyset$ should be replaced with "$A$ is inhabited", i.e., $\exists n \in A . \top$, or else one is forced to use Markov principle unecessarily. Let us also observe that an inhabited decidable subset $A \subseteq \mathbb{N}$ has a minimal element. Indeed, given $k \in A$, we may find the least $j \leq k$ such that $j \in A$ by simply checking all of them. Suppose then that $A$ is a decidable inhabited subset of $\mathbb{N}$. We wish to enumerate the elements of $A$ in a non-decreasing order. Because $A$ is inhabited and decidable it has a minimal element $k \in A$. Now simply define an enumeration $e : \mathbb{N} \to A$ by $$e(n) = \max \lbrace i \in A \mid i \leq \max(n,k) \rbrace.$$ The maximum in the definition of $e$ exists because it is over a finite inhabited subset of $\mathbb{N}$. Clearly, $e(n) \in A$ for all $n$, and $e$ enumerates all of $A$ because $e(m) = m$ when $m \in A$. |
|||||
|
You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.
|
8
|
Given a program $P$ I can write a new program $f(P)$ that does the following:
So far I have only transformed a program $P$ into a new program $f(P)$ -- even constructivists or intuitionists will agree that my function $f$ is explicitly computable. Now assume that $P$ computes the characteristic function of a recursive set $A$ (and is in particular total and outputs only 0 and 1). Then I claim that (constructively):
Note: If there is an enumeration of $A$, then $A$ must be inhabited. I think that being nonempty (i.e., "from $A=\emptyset$ we can get a contradiction") is not enough. |
|||
|
|

