1936 - CHURCH, A. An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory
1936 - CHURCH, A. An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory
1936 - CHURCH, A. An Unsolvable Problem of Elementary Number Theory
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Journal of Mathematics.
http://www.jstor.org
1 ->ab a(b),
2 ->Aab a(a(b)),
3 ->Aab a(a(a(b)))
4For example, the formulas Xab . b (a) and Xa . a (Xc . b (c) ) are in principal normal
form,and Xac . c(a), and Xbc. c(b), and Xa . a (Xa . b (a) ) are in normal form but not
in principal normal form. Use of the principal normal form was suggested by S. C.
Kleene as a means of avoiding the ambiguity of determination of the normal form
of a formula, which is troublesome in certain connections.
Observe that the formulas 1, 2, 3, . ..are all in principal normal form.
B Alonzo Church and J. B. Rosser, "Some properties of conversion,'?forthcoming
(abstract in Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 41, p. 332).
if it is
A function F of one positive integer is said to be A-definable
possible to find a formula F such that, if F (n) = r and m anid r are the
formulasforwhichthepositiveintegersm and r (writtenin Arabicnotation)
stand accordingto our abbreviationsintroducedabove,then {F}(m) conv r.
Similarly,a functionF of two positive integers is said to be A-definable
if it is possible to find a formulaF such that, wheneverF (m, n) - r, the
formula{F} (m, n) is convertible into r (in, n, r beingpositiveintegersand
m, n, r the corresponding formulas). And so on for functionsof threeor
morepositiveintegers.6
It is clear that, in the case of any A-definablefunctionof positive
integers,the process of reductionof formulasto normal formprovidesan
algorithmfor the effective calculationof particularvalues of the function.
" Cf. S. C. Kleene, " A theoryof positive integers in formal logic," American Journal
of Mathematics, vol. 57 (1935), pp. 153-173 and 219-244, where the X-definabilityof a
number of familiar functionsof positive integers, and of a number of important general
classes of functions,is established. Kleene uses the term definable,or for;mallydefinable,
in the sense in which we are here using X-definable.
7Kurt Oidel, " tber formal unentscheidbare Siitze der Principia Mathematica und
verwandter Systeme I," Monatshefte fi4r Mathematik und Physik, vol. 38 (1931),
pp. 173-198.
8 This is merely a special case of the now familiar remark that, in view of the
G4idel representation'and the ideas associated with it, symbolic logic in general can
be regarded, mathematically, as a branch of elementary number theory. This remark
is essentially due to Hilbert (cf. for example, Verhandlungen des dritteni-nternationalen
Mathematiker-Kongresses in Heidelberg, 19X)4, p. 185; also Paul Bernays in Die
Naturwissenschaften, vol. 10 (1922), pp. 97 and 98) but is most clearly formulated
in terms of the G,6delrepresentation.
found.'0
We call an infinitesequenceof positiveintegersrecursiveif the function
P such thatF(n7) is the n-thtermof the sequenceis recursive.
We call a propositionalfunctionof positive integersrecursiveif the
functionwhosevalue is 2 or 1, accordingto whetherthe propositionalfunction
is true or false,is recursive. By a recursivepropertyof positiveintegerswe
shall mean a recursivepropositionalfunctionof one positiveinteger,and by
a recursiverelation betweenpositive integerswe shall mean a recursive
propositionalfunctionof two or morepositiveintegers.
9 This definitionis closely related to, and was suggested by, a definitionof recursive
functions which was proposed by Kurt Godel, in lectures at Princeton, N. J., 1934, and
,credited by him in part to an unpublished suggestion of Jacques Herbrand. The
principal features in which the present definitionof recursiveness differsfrom G8del's
are due to S. C. Kleene.
In a forthcomingpaper by Kleene to be entitled, " General recursive functions of
natural numbers," (abstract in Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 41),
several definitions of recursiveness will be discussed and equivalences amongfthem
obtained. In particular, it follows readily from Kleene's results in that paper that
every function recursive in the present sense is also recursive in the sense of G6del
(1934) and conversely.
10The reader may object that this algorithm cannot be held to provide an effective
calculation of the required particular value of Fi unless the proof is constructive that
the required equation f,,i (kli, k2, . . , k i) = ki will ultimately be found. But if so
this merely means that he should take the existential quantifier which appears in our
definitionof a set of recursion equations in a constructive sense. What the criterion
of constructiveness shall be is left to the reader.
The same remark applies in connection with the existence of an algorithm for
calculating the values of a X-definablefunction of positive integers.
i2(1, 2) =- 2, g2(x,1)
-X i2(f2(x,1), 2),
i2(S(X)5 2) 15 g2(X., S(y) ) i2(ft(X5 S(y) ), g2(X5 Y) ),
i2(X, ) ='3, h2(S(x), y) x,
i2(x,S(S(y))) == 3, h2(g2(x,y),x) j2(g2 (X, y), y),
j2 (1, y) y, f,(x) == h2 (1, x),
j2(S(x), y) = x,
12Since this result was obtained, it has been pointed out to the author by S. C.
Kleene that it can be proved more simply by using the methods of the latter in American
Journal of Mathematics, vol. 57 (1935), p. 231 et seq. His proof will be given in his
forthcomingpaper already referredto.
8
15This theorem was firstproposed by the present author, with the outline of proof
here indicated. Details of its proof are due to Kleene and will be given by him in his
forthcomingpaper, " X-definabilityand recursiveness."
16 This theorem can be proved as a straightforward application of the methods
introduced by Kleene in the American Journal of Mathematics (loc. cit.). In the form
here given it was first obtained by Kleene. The related result had previously been
obtained by J. B. Rosser that, if we modify the definitionof well-formedby omitting
the requirement that M contain x as a free variable in order that Xx[M] be well-
formed,then every recursive function of positive integers is X-definablein the resulting
modifiedsense.
17 This result was obtained independently by the present author and S. C. Kleene
how the notion of an algorithm can be given any exact meaning at all.
20 As a matter of fact, in known systems of symbolic logic, e. g. in that of Principia
Mathematica, the stronger statement holds, that the relation of immediate consequence
(unmittelbare Folge) is recursive. Cf. G,8del,loc. cit., p. 185. In any case where the
relation of immediate consequence is recursive it is possible to find a set of rules
of procedure, equivalent to the original ones, such that each rule is a (one-valued)
recursive operation, and the complete set of rules is recursively enumerable.
21 The author is here indebted to Godel, who, in his 1934 lectures already referred
to, proposed substantially these conditions, but 'in terms of the more restricted notion
of recursiveness which he had employed in 1931, and using the condition that the
relation of immediate consequence be recursive instead of the present conditions on the
rules of procedure.
22 We confine ourselves for convenience to the case of functions of one positive
23
These two problems,in the forms, (1) to find an effectivemethod of determining
of any two formulas A and B whether A conv B, (2) to find an effectivemethod of
determining of any formula C whether it has a normal form, were both proposed by
Kleene to the author, in the course of a discussion of the properties of the p-function,
about 1932. Some attempts towards solution of (1) by means of numerical invariants
were actually made by Kleene at about that time.
We define,
e-> An b(4 (b (a (n), 3(n) )),( (n), 3(n))).
Then if n is one of the formulas1, 2, 3, , e(n) is convertible into one
of the formulas1, 2, 3, * in accordancewith the followingrules: (1) if
b(a (n), 3(n) ) conva formulawhichstandsforthe G6del representation of a
formulawhichhas no normalform,e(n) conv1, (2) if b(an(n), 3(n) ) conva
formulawhichstandsforthe Giidelrepresentation of a formulawhichhas a
principalnormalformwhichis not oneoftheformulas1, 2, 3, *, e(n) conv1,
(3) if b(a (n), 3(n) ) conva formulawhichstandsforthe Gozdelrepresentation
of a formulawhichhas a principalnormalformwhichis one of the formulas
2, 3, . -.-, e(n) conv the next following formula in the list 1, 2, 3,* - - .
By TheoremIII, since e(1) has a normal form,the formulae has a
normalform. Let 0, be theformulawhichstandsforthe G,6delrepresentation
of e. Then, if n is any one of the formulas1, 2, 3, * * , ($ is not convertible
into the formulaa (n), because b (6Y,3(n)) is, by the definitionof Ii, con-
vertibleinto the formulawhichstands for the Goidelrepresentation of e(n),
while b(a (n), 3(n) ) is, by the precedingparagraph,convertibleilto the
formulastandsforthe Godel representation of a formuladefinitely not con-
e
vertibleinto (n) (TheoremII). But, by our definition of a, it must be true
.
of one of the formulasn in the list 1, 2, 3, * that a(n) conv
Thus, sinceour assumptionto the contraryhas led to a contradiction, the
theoremmustbe true.
In order to presentthe essential ideas withoutany attemptat exact
statement,the precedingproofmay be outlinedas follows. We are to deduce
a contradictionfromthe assumptionthat it is effectively determinableof
everywell-formedformulawhetheror not it has a normal form. If this
assumptionholds,it is effectively determinableof everywell-formed formula
whetheror not it is convertibleinto one of the formulas1, 2, 3, . . *; for,
givena well-formed formulaR, we can firstdeterminewhetheror not it has
a normal form,and if it has we can obtain the principalnormal formby
enumeratingthe formulasinto whichR is convertible(Theorem XII) and
pickingout the firstformulain principalnormalformwhich occursin the
enumeration,and we can then determinewhetherthe principalnormalform
is one of the formulas1, 2, 3, . Let A1,A2,A3, be an effectiveenumera-
tion of the well-formed formulaswhichhave a normalform(TheoremXV).
Let E be a functionof one positiveinteger,definedby the rule that,where
m and n are the formulaswhich stand for the positiveintegersm and n
respectively, E (n) = 1 if {An}(n) is not convertible into one of the formulas
1,2,3< *, and E(n) =m + 1 if {An}(n) conv m and m is one of the
formulas1, 2, 3, . The functionE is effectively calculable and is there-
24
This corollary was proposed by J. B. Rosser.
The outline of proof here given for it is open to the objection, recently called to
the author's attention by Paul Bernays, that it ostensibly requires a non-constructive
use of the principle of excluded middle. This objection is met by a revision of the
proof, the revised proof to consist in taking any recursive enumeration of formulas
which have no normal form and showing that this enumeration is not a complete
enumeration of such formulas, by constructing a formula e (n) such that (1) the
supposition that e(n) occurs in the enumeration leads to contradiction (2) the sup-
position that e(n) has a normal form leads to contradiction.
25 Cf. the remarks of the author in The American Mathematical Monthly, vol. 41