Timeline for Strongly reducible but not effectively interpretable
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 14, 2018 at 23:51 | vote | accept | Rachael Alvir | ||
| Dec 20, 2018 at 18:43 | |||||
| Dec 14, 2018 at 22:28 | answer | added | Iskander Kalimullin | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 11, 2018 at 15:48 | answer | added | Gerhard Paseman | timeline score: -1 | |
| Aug 10, 2018 at 23:43 | history | edited | Noah Schweber | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 197 characters in body
|
| Aug 10, 2018 at 17:26 | comment | added | Noah Schweber | Since the notion of computable functor isn't broadly known I've taken the liberty of adding a bit of context; feel free to roll back if this isn't desired. Incidentally I suspect one can cook up an example by taking $A$ to be something like the Slaman-Wehner structure and $B$ to be some structure with no computable copy, since the strong reduction sort of works by magic/accident (I don't see a way an automorphism of a copy of some noncomputably-presentable structure can transfer to an automorphism of a Slaman-Wehner type structure). But I don't know this area very well, so that's just a guess. | |
| Aug 10, 2018 at 17:26 | history | edited | Noah Schweber | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 725 characters in body
|
| Aug 10, 2018 at 14:33 | comment | added | Rachael Alvir | Yes, exactly. This Turing functional can look both at the isomorphism itself and the diagrams of the two copies. | |
| Aug 10, 2018 at 14:31 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | Can you say more precisely what you mean by a computable functor? It should be accompanied by a Turing functional for the isomorphisms? | |
| Aug 10, 2018 at 12:55 | history | edited | Rachael Alvir | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Aug 10, 2018 at 12:50 | review | First posts | |||
| Aug 10, 2018 at 13:01 | |||||
| Aug 10, 2018 at 12:50 | history | asked | Rachael Alvir | CC BY-SA 4.0 |