A note on the Entscheidungsproblem
Abstract
In a recent paper the author has proposed a definition of the commonly used term “effectively calculable” and has shown on the basis of this definition that the general case of the Entscheidungsproblem is unsolvable in any system of symbolic logic which is adequate to a certain portion of arithmetic and is ω-consistent. The purpose of the present note is to outline an extension of this result to the engere Funktionenkalkul of Hilbert and Ackermann. In the author's cited paper it is pointed out that there can be associated recursively with every well-formed formula a recursive enumeration of the formulas into which it is convertible. This means the existence of a recursively defined function a of two positive integers such that, if y is the Gödel representation of a well-formed formula Y then a(x, y) is the Gödel representation of the x th formula in the enumeration of the formulas into which Y is convertible. Consider the system L of symbolic logic which arises from the engere Funktionenkalkül by adding to it: as additional undefined symbols, a symbol 1 for the number 1 (regarded as an individual), a symbol = for the propositional function = (equality of individuals), a symbol s for the arithmetic function x+1, a symbol a for the arithmetic function a described in the preceding paragraph, and symbols b1, b2, …, b k for the auxiliary arithmetic functions which are employed in the recursive definition of a; and as additional axioms, the recursion equations for the functions a, b1, b2, …, b k (expressed with free individual variables, the class of individuals being taken as identical with the class of positive integers), and two axioms of equality, x = x, and x = y →[F(x)→F(y)].
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Checking entailment between clauses is undecidable.
“whereas checking entailment between clauses is undecidable (Church 1936)”
From Learning programs by learning from failures (2021) · cites this paper as Church 1936
Checking entailment between clauses is undecidable.
“In other words, checking entailment between clauses is undecidable (Church, 1936).”
From Inductive Logic Programming At 30: A New Introduction (2022) · cites this paper as Church, 1936
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Learning programs by learning from failures
Cropper, A., & Morel, R. (2021) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-020-05934-z · Cited by 86 · see citing works
“However, whereas checking entailment between clauses is undecidable (Church 1936), checking subsumption between clauses is decidable, although, in general, deciding subsumption is a NP-complete problem (NienhuysCheng and de Wolf 1997).”
BackgroundInductive Logic Programming At 30: A New Introduction
Cropper, A., & Dumančić, S. (2022) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.1.13507 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
“In other words, checking entailment between clauses is undecidable (Church, 1936).”
BackgroundIntroduction to Neural Network Verification
Albarghouthi, A. (2021) · Foundations and Trends® in Programming Languages · doi:10.1561/2500000051 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
The Nature of Physical Computation
Shagrir, O. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197552384.001.0001 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
The Physical Meaning of the Holographic Principle
Fields, C., Glazebrook, J. F., & Marcianò, A. (2022) · Quanta · doi:10.12743/quanta.v11i1.206 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Logical reduction of metarules
Cropper, A., & Tourret, S. (2020) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-019-05834-x · Cited by 29 · see citing works
- Authors
- Church, A.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Church, Alonzo
- Venue
- Journal of Symbolic Logic
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1936-03
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 40-41
- ISSN
- 0022-4812 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-5886
- OpenAlex
- W2064811181
- Cited by
- 810
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 4.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Symbolic Logic (publishedVersion)
- Project Euclid (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computability, Logic, AI Algorithms
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, programming, and type systems
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Geometry and Topology › Advanced Topology and Set Theory
- Keywords
- Entscheidungsproblem, undecidability, Gödel numbering, recursive enumeration, recursive equations, arithmetic functions, mathematical logic, Hilbert's tenth problem
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review