arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2406.08493

Countability versus Computability

Abstract

The concept of {\em countable sets} is attributed to Georg Cantor, who established the distinction between countable and uncountable sets in 1874. The concept of {\em computable sets} emerged in the 1930s through the foundational work on computing models by \Godel, Church, and Turing. In this paper, we investigate the connection between countability and computability. A {\em counting bijection} of a set $S$ is a bijection from the set of natural numbers to $S$. We say $S$ is {\em enumerable} if it is either finite or admitting a computable counting bijection. Our initial investigation shows that a set $S$ is enumerable if and only if it is computable. This equivalence offers new insights into set theory and computability theory. We further show that a set is countable if and only if it admits a {\em counting order}, which is a well order satisfying the {\em proximal} property. Based on this concept, we provide a procedure whose existence gives a necessary and sufficient condition for a set to be countable. This procedure is an algorithm if and only if the set is computable. A counting bijection $f$ is {\em increasing} if $f(x)>f(y)$ whenever $x>y$. We prove that an infinite set $S$ of natural numbers is definable in first-order arithmetic if and only if $S$ has an increasing counting bijection. This result has a significant implication: the standard proof that every set $S$ of natural numbers is countable is invalid. This is because the existing proof establishes that $S$ has an increasing counting bijection, which (by our result) would imply that $S$ is definable in first-order arithmetic. This leads to a contradiction with Tarski's undefinability theorem when $S$ is the set of \Godel\ numbers of the true arithmetic sentences.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Hantao Zhang. 2024-03-26. Countability versus Computability. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.08493

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

The Computational Complexity of Holant Problems on 4-regular Graphs from the Stable Subgroup Sequence of $SL(2,\mathbb{C})$

The Holant framework provides a general setting for studying counting problems and includes graph homomorphisms (\#GH) and counting constraint satisfaction problems (\#CSP) as special cases. Over the past twenty years, a series of computational complexity dichotomies have been established for Holant problems, but the classification for complex-valued signatures is still open. The main obstacle is the case in which all signatures have even arity. In this paper, we establish a dichotomy for Holant problems with a complex-valued 4-ary signature, which is a key base case for the full classification of Holant problems. We present a new strategy by introducing Schur's theorem, the classification of finite subgroups of $\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C})$ and stable subgroup sequences into the proof. These new techniques are of independent interest.

cs.CC

Topology inside NC$^1$

We show that ACC$^0$ is precisely what can be computed with constant-width circuits of polynomial size and polylogarithmic genus. This extends a characterization given by Hansen, showing that planar constant-width circuits also characterize ACC$^0$. Thus polylogarithmic genus provides no additional computational power in this model. We consider other generalizations of planarity, including crossing number and thickness. We show that constant-width circuits of polynomial size and thickness two already suffice to capture all of NC$^1$.

cs.CC