How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
The complement of the halting problem is not recognizable
Statement
The complement of is not recognizable.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The halting language .
The language is recognizable and undecidable, by The halting problem is recognizable and undecidable.
A language is decidable if and only if both it and its complement are recognizable, by A language is decidable if and only if it and its complement are recognizable.
Proof
Suppose for contradiction that the complement of were recognizable. Then both and its complement would be recognizable, by [L1].
Applying [L2] to step 1.1 would make decidable. That contradicts the undecidability clause of [L1].
Therefore the complement of is not recognizable.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
10 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Stan Nelson, Computability: Undecidable Problems (standard reference, not scraped)
- John Watrous, Introduction to the Theory of Computing, Lecture 17: More undecidable languages; reductions (standard reference, not scraped)