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 Turing-machine acceptance problem is undecidable
Statement
The language of The Turing-machine acceptance problem is not decidable.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The acceptance language .
A language is decidable exactly when some deterministic Turing machine halts on every input and answers membership correctly, by Decidable and recognizable languages.
If a deterministic Turing machine decides , then there exists a deterministic one-tape machine with input alphabet such that, for every coded machine whose input alphabet contains , by A hypothetical decider for yields a diagonal self-application machine.
Every coded deterministic one-tape machine has one definite chosen code , by A fixed effective binary encoding of deterministic one-tape Turing machines.
Proof
Assume for contradiction that is decidable. Then [L1] gives a deterministic decider for . Apply [L2] to that and obtain the corresponding machine . Because itself has input alphabet , the diagonal equivalence from [L2] applies to .
Let , whose existence is guaranteed by [L3]. Substituting into [L2] yields . That is impossible.
The contradiction in step 2.1 discharges the assumption from step 1.1. Therefore is undecidable.
Depends on
Used by
- Building the diagonal machine against a hypothetical acceptance decider Example
- Using A_TM <=m nonemptiness to transfer undecidability and recognizability information Example
- Witness languages for the proper inclusions in the Chomsky hierarchy Example
- FALSE: undecidable means no individual instance can be answered False statement
- Turing reducibility is strictly weaker than computable many-one reducibility Proposition
- CFG universality is undecidable Theorem
- Every nontrivial extensional property of Turing-machine languages is undecidable Theorem
- Recognizable extensional properties are positively witnessed by finite information Theorem
- The halting problem is recognizable and undecidable Theorem
- The inclusions in the language-class ladder are proper Theorem
- The modified Post correspondence problem is undecidable Theorem
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
- A. M. Turing, On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem (standard reference, not scraped)
- EECS 376 Course Notes, Part 6: Computability (standard reference, not scraped)