1976
DOI: 10.1090/pspum/028.2/0432534
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hilbert’s tenth problem: Diophantine equations: positive aspects of a negative solution

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
125
0
4

Year Published

1978
1978
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 224 publications
(130 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
125
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Matijasevich. (See [3] and [4].) Since the time when this result was obtained, similar questions have been raised for other fields and rings.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 59%
“…Matijasevich. (See [3] and [4].) Since the time when this result was obtained, similar questions have been raised for other fields and rings.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 59%
“…QFPAbit) by in- Note that those results only hold for fixed-size bit-vector logics. For example, allowing multiplication (in combination with addition) makes non-fixed-size bit-vector logics undecidable [22]. We are not aware of any complexity results concerning non-fixed-size bit-vector logics with slicing or shift by constant.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is only in this case that Peerose is justified in somewhat loosely defining the Entscheidungsproblem as referring to "all the problems of mathematics" (p. 34). Penrose's conflation of the Entscheidungsproblem with Hilbert's 10 th problem of 1900, which merely asked for an algorithm for the solvability of Diophantine equations, is likewise justified after the fact: It is a corollary of the methods used to give a negative solution to Hilbert's tenth problem that the question of whether any given Turing machine will eventually halt, and hence the Entscheidungsproblem, can be encoded as a Diophantine problem (Davis et al 1976 What minds can do, Penrose claims, is to see or judge that certain mathematical propositions are true by "Insight" rather than mechanical proof-Penrose then argues that there could be no algorithm, or at any rate no practical algorithm, for Insight. This Ignores an Independently plausible possibility: The algorithms that minds use for judging mathematical truth are not algorithms "for" Insight -but they nevertheless work very well.…”
Section: Is Mathematical Insight Algorithmic? Martin Davismentioning
confidence: 99%