3
$\begingroup$

This is Richard Friedberg’s original 1957 proof of the Friedberg-Muchnik Theorem, the origin of the ground-breaking priority argument. (The result proven is that there are two recursively enumerable sets neither of which is Turing reducible to the other.) The paper is actually surprisingly understandable once you get past the notation, except for one part that I can’t quite make sense of. But first, let me write the construction in modern notation:

  • Definitions: $\Omega \left( x \right) $ denotes the number of prime factors of $x$. If $h:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$ is a function, then $\varphi^h_i(x)$ denotes the output (if it exists) of the $i^{th}$ Turing machine having access to $h$ as an oracle running on input $x$. And $\varphi^h_{i,t}(x)$ denotes th output (if it exists) of the same Turing machine running for only $t$ steps and having access to only the first $t$ values of $h$.

  • Stage $s=0$: Let $ f_{0} \left( x \right) =g_{0} \left( x \right) =1$ and $u_{0}(e) =v_{0}(e) =2^{e} $.

  • Stage $s=2n+1$: If $f_{s-1} \left( u_{s-1} \left( \Omega \left( n \right) \right) \right) =1$ and $ \varphi _{ \Omega \left( n \right) ,s}^{g_{s-1}} \left( u_{s-1} \left( \Omega \left( n \right) \right) \right) =1 $, then let $$f_s(x)=\begin{cases} 0 & x= u_{s-1} ( \Omega ( n ) ) \\ f_{s-1}(x)& otherwise \\ \end{cases}, g_{s} \left( x \right) =g_{s-1} \left( x \right) ,u_{s} \left( e \right) =u_{s-1} \left( e \right), v_s(e)=\begin{cases} 2^{e} \left( 2s+1 \right) & e \geq \Omega \left( n \right) \\ v_{s-1}(e)& otherwise \\ \end{cases} $$ If not, let $$f_{s} \left( x \right) =f_{s-1} \left( x \right) ,g_{s} \left( x \right) =g_{s-1} \left( x \right) ,u_{s} \left( e \right) =u_{s-1} \left( e \right) , v_{s} \left( e \right) =v_{s-1} \left( e \right)$$

  • Stage $s=2n+2$: If $g_{s-1} \left( u_{s-1} \left( \Omega \left( n \right) \right) \right) =1$ and $ \varphi _{ \Omega \left( n \right) ,s}^{f_{s-1}} \left( u_{s-1} \left( \Omega \left( n \right) \right) \right) =1 $, then let $$f_{s} \left( x \right) =f_{s-1} \left( x \right), g_s(x)=\begin{cases} 0 & x= u_{s-1} ( \Omega ( n ) ) \\ g_{s-1}(x)& otherwise \\ \end{cases}, u_s(e)=\begin{cases} 2^{e} \left( 2s+1 \right) & e > \Omega \left( n \right) \\ u_{s-1}(e)& otherwise \\ \end{cases}, v_{s} \left( e \right) =v_{s-1} \left( e \right) $$ If not, let $$f_{s} \left( x \right) =f_{s-1} \left( x \right) ,g_{s} \left( x \right) =g_{s-1} \left( x \right) ,u_{s} \left(e\right) =u_{s-1} \left( e \right) , v_{s} \left( e \right) =v_{s-1} \left( e \right)$$

  • End Result: Let $$ f \left( x \right) =\lim_{s \rightarrow \infty}f_{s} \left( x \right) ,g \left( x \right) =\lim_{s \rightarrow \infty}g_{s} \left( x \right) ,u \left( x \right) =\lim_{s \rightarrow \infty}u_{s} \left( x \right) ,v \left( x \right) =\lim_{s \rightarrow \infty}v_{s} \left( x \right) $$ And the theorem is that the set of all $x$ such that $f(x)=1$ and the set of all $x$ such that $g(x)=1$ are recursively enumerable sets neither of which is Turing reducible to the other.

Now the part I don’t understand is the proof of the following Lemma that Friedberg proves:

If $f(u(e))=0$, then $\varphi^g_e(u(e))=1$

(If you look at the paper, it’s one direction of Lemma II.) So can anyone explain how to prove this result, either explaining Friedberg’s proof of it or proving it some other way?

EDIT: The specific part of the proof of Lemma II I can’t make sense of is the sentence beginning with “No occurrence beginning with...”. I posted a question related to this on Math.SE But an alternate proof of this Lemma would also be fine with me.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ You don't define phi,, you don't talk about the place in the Lemma where you get stuck (I assume there is such a place), and you don't state the goal of the theorem in terms of the modem notation. It is hard to give you any help in these circumstances. Gerhard "Where Is The Priority Here?" Paseman, 2019.11.30. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 1, 2019 at 2:56
  • $\begingroup$ @GerhardPaseman You’re right, I made the changes you suggested. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 1, 2019 at 3:20
  • $\begingroup$ @GerhardPaseman Does my edit make things clearer? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 1, 2019 at 14:39
  • $\begingroup$ It seems to me that what Friedberg is trying to argue is that (in his notation) $f_2^{a-1}$ and $f_2$ agree on the first $e$ arguments (which is correct, as otherwise $x_1^a(e)$ would be increased at some later stage). However what I don't see is how this doesn't falsify the statement, because the relevant statement in Subcase 1.1 only guarantees the computation accesses the first $a$, not $e$, elements of the oracle. $\endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Commented Dec 3, 2019 at 10:58
  • $\begingroup$ I'll think about that $a$ and $e$ point, but in the mean time can you explain why $f_2^{a-1}$ and $f_2$ disagreeing on one of the first $e$ values implies that $x_1^a$ would be increased at some later stage? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 4, 2019 at 4:28

0

You must log in to answer this question.