Can bounded quantification define divisibility and primality?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mafaz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Primitive
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of bounded quantification in relation to defining divisibility and primality within the framework of primitive recursive (PR) functions. Participants explore the implications of bounded search and quantification on PR relations, as well as the necessary conditions for proving these properties.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that bounded search on a PR condition yields a PR function, allowing for the expression of divisibility and primality.
  • It is proposed that the function $\min_{x\le n}R(x,y_1,\ldots,y_p)$ can be defined for a PR relation $R$, which can then be used to derive quotient, remainder, and greatest common divisor.
  • One participant emphasizes the need for intermediate definitions to prove that divisibility is PR, suggesting that a textbook on PR functions should be consulted for foundational understanding.
  • Another participant mentions that bounded existential quantification can define divisibility and primality, referencing earlier posts regarding bounded minimization.
  • There is a request for clarification on the specific functions related to quotient and remainder, indicating a need for further explanation on these concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and approach to proving divisibility and primality as PR functions. There is no consensus on the specific methods or definitions to be used, and multiple competing views on how to proceed with the proofs remain evident.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of intermediate definitions and the foundational knowledge required to engage with the topic effectively. There are references to specific functions and relations that are considered PR, but the discussion does not resolve the complexities involved in proving these properties.

Mafaz
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Attachments

  • 3Q.png
    3Q.png
    35.8 KB · Views: 151
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi, and welcome to the forum!

Its easiest to prove first that bounded search on a primitive recursive (PR) condition produces a PR function. I means that if the characteristic function of a relation $R(x)$ is PR, then the function that, given $n$, returns the smallest $k\le n$ such that $R(k)$ holds or $n+1$ if no such $k$ exists is PR. More generally $R$ may have parameters $y_1,\ldots,y_p$. Let's denote the bounded search function by $\min_{x\le n}R(x,y_1,\ldots,y_p)$. Then quotient, remainder and greatest common divisor can be obtained in this way because they return a number that is smaller than one of the arguments. It is also possible to show that bounded quantifications $\exists x\le n\,R(x,y_1,\ldots,y_p)$ and $\forall x\le n\,R(x,y_1,\ldots,y_p)$ on a PR relation $R$ are PR. This allows expressing divisibility and primality. For example,
\[
\text{Prime}(x)\iff 1<x\land \forall u\le x-1\;\forall v\le x-1\,uv\ne x.
\]

Several of your examples are described in the book "Computability and Logic" by G. Boolos, J. Burgess and R. Jeffrey, fifth edition, chapters 6 and 7. It requires some reading, but it has a lot of detailed examples.

If you have further questions, please post them here.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Hi, and welcome to the forum!

Its easiest to prove first that bounded search on a primitive recursive (PR) condition produces a PR function. I means that if the characteristic function of a relation $R(x)$ is PR, then the function that, given $n$, returns the smallest $k\le n$ such that $R(k)$ holds or $n+1$ if no such $k$ exists is PR. More generally $R$ may have parameters $y_1,\ldots,y_p$. Let's denote the bounded search function by $\min_{x\le n}R(x,y_1,\ldots,y_p)$. Then quotient, remainder and greatest common divisor can be obtained in this way because they return a number that is smaller than one of the arguments. It is also possible to show that bounded quantifications $\exists x\le n\,R(x,y_1,\ldots,y_p)$ and $\forall x\le n\,R(x,y_1,\ldots,y_p)$ on a PR relation $R$ are PR. This allows expressing divisibility and primality. For example,
\[
\text{Prime}(x)\iff 1<x\land \forall u\le x-1\;\forall v\le x-1\,uv\ne x.
\]

Several of your examples are described in the book "Computability and Logic" by G. Boolos, J. Burgess and R. Jeffrey, fifth edition, chapters 6 and 7. It requires some reading, but it has a lot of detailed examples.

If you have further questions, please post them here.
thanks but I have difficulty to prove especially prime and divisibility . Actually I need to follow the question and to have base and inductive case.

Would please help me.
 
Mafaz said:
Actually I need to follow the question and to have base and inductive case.
The usual way of proving that divisibility is PR goes through defining several intermediate PR functions. Perhaps you expect me to write the precise definition of $\mathit{div}(x,y)$ right away, but I'd rather not for two reasons: as I said, this requires intermediate definitions, and you need to show some work, too (see https://mathhelpboards.com/rules/ 11).

First you need to get a textbook that discusses PR functions and study why some some usual functions such as addition, multiplication, factorial, predecessor and subtraction are PR. Also read what PR relations are and why their class is closed under conjunction, disjunction and negation. Next we need to prove that finite sums and bounded existential quantifier on a PR condition is again PR. Perhaps this is also discussed in your textbook. For example, if $$g(n,y)=\sum_{x=0}^n f(x,y)$$ where $f(x,y)$ is PR, then $g(n,y)$ is also PR because
\begin{align*}
g(0,y)&=f(0,y)\\
g(n+1,y)&=g(n,y)+f(n+1,y)
\end{align*}
Now try proving that if $R(x,y)$ is a PR relation, then $P(n,y)=\exists x\le n\,R(x,y)$ is also a PR relation.
 
Thanks for your reply.
So what is this example ?
Is it for qoueint or reminder ?
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
The usual way of proving that divisibility is PR goes through defining several intermediate PR functions. Perhaps you expect me to write the precise definition of $\mathit{div}(x,y)$ right away, but I'd rather not for two reasons: as I said, this requires intermediate definitions, and you need to show some work, too (see https://mathhelpboards.com/rules/ 11).

First you need to get a textbook that discusses PR functions and study why some some usual functions such as addition, multiplication, factorial, predecessor and subtraction are PR. Also read what PR relations are and why their class is closed under conjunction, disjunction and negation. Next we need to prove that finite sums and bounded existential quantifier on a PR condition is again PR. Perhaps this is also discussed in your textbook. For example, if $$g(n,y)=\sum_{x=0}^n f(x,y)$$ where $f(x,y)$ is PR, then $g(n,y)$ is also PR because
\begin{align*}
g(0,y)&=f(0,y)\\
g(n+1,y)&=g(n,y)+f(n+1,y)
\end{align*}
Now try proving that if $R(x,y)$ is a PR relation, then $P(n,y)=\exists x\le n\,R(x,y)$ is also a PR relation.
Thanks but what is this function for?
 
Bounded existential quantification can be used to define divisibility and primality, and bounded minimization from post #2, which is similar, can be used to define the rest of the functions in post #1.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K