Apoloniusz Tyszka

Let F(x,n) denote the formula ∃ab ∀i⩽n ∃swpq ∀jv ∃eg {(s+w)^2+3w+s=2i ∧ ⟨[j=w ∨ v=q] ∨ [j=3i ∧ v=p+q] ∨ [j=s ∧ (v=p ∨ (i=n ∧ v=q+x))] ∨ [j=3i+1 ∧ v=pq] ⇒ a=v+e+ejb ∧ v+g=b⟩} from J. P. Jones' article in vol. 43 of J. Symbolic Logic. From the results of Jones' article, it follows that the set {n∈N: ¬F(n,n)} is co-recursively enumerable and not recursively enumerable. We prove that the set W={n∈N: ∃p,q∈N ((2n=(p+q)(p+q+1)+2q) ∧ ∀(x_0,...,x_p)∈N^{p+1} ∃(y_0,...,y_p)∈{0,...,q}^{p+1} ((∀i,j,k∈{0,...,p} (x_j+1=x_k ⇒ y_j+1=y_k)) ∧ (∀i,j,k∈{0,...,p} (x_i \cdot x_j=x_k ⇒ y_i \cdot y_j=y_k))))} is co-recursively enumerable and not recursively enumerable. Let β:N^3→N denote Gödel's β function. For x_1,x_2,x_3∈N, β(x_1,x_2,x_3) equals the remainder after integer division of x_1 by 1+(x_3+1) \cdot x_2. We prove that the set W consists of all n∈N such that ∀u,v∈N ∃a,b,p,q∈N ((2n=(p+q)(p+q+1)+2q) ∧ ∀i,j,k∈{0,...,p} ((β(a,b,i)⩽q) ∧ (β(u,v,j)+1=β(u,v,k) ⇒ β(a,b,j)+1=β(a,b,k)) ∧ (β(u,v,i) \cdot β(u,v,j)=β(u,v,k) ⇒ β(a,b,i) \cdot β(a,b,j)=β(a,b,k)))). We express the above formula in Peano arithmetic.

Yuri Matiyasevich's theorem states that the set of all Diophantine equations which have a solution in non-negative integers is not recursive. Craig Smoryński's theorem states that the set of all Diophantine equations which have at most finitely many solutions in non-negative integers is not recursively enumerable. Let R be a subring of Q with or without 1. By H_{10}(R), we denote the problem of whether there exists an algorithm which for any given Diophantine equation with integer coefficients, can decide whether or not the equation has a solution in R. We prove that a positive solution to H_{10}(R) implies that the set of all Diophantine equations with a finite number of solutions in R is recursively enumerable. We show the converse implication for every infinite set R \subseteq Q such that there exist computable functions \tau_1,\tau_2:N \to Z which satisfy (\forall n \in N \tau_2(n) \neq 0) \wedge ({\frac{\tau_1(n)}{\tau_2(n)}: n \in N}=R). This implication for R=N guarantees that Smoryński's theorem follows from Matiyasevich's theorem. Harvey Friedman conjectures that the set of all polynomials of several variables with integer coefficients that have a rational solution is not recursive. Harvey Friedman conjectures that the set of all polynomials of several variables with integer coefficients that have only finitely many rational solutions is not recursively enumerable. These conjectures are equivalent by our results for R=Q.

Let f(1)=2, f(2)=4, and let f(n+1)=f(n)! for every integer n≥2. Edmund Landau's conjecture states that the set P(n^2+1) of primes of the form n^2+1 is infinite. Landau's conjecture implies the following unproven statement Φ: card(P(n^2+1))<ω ⇒ P(n^2+1)⊆[2,f(7)]. Let B denote the system of equations: {x_j!=x_k: i,k∈{1,...,9}}∪{x_i⋅x_j=x_k: i,j,k∈{1,...,9}}. The system of equations {x_1!=x_1, x_1 \cdot x_1=x_2, x_2!=x_3, x_3!=x_4, x_4!=x_5, x_5!=x_6, x_6!=x_7, x_7!=x_8, x_8!=x_9} has exactly two solutions in positive integers x_1,...,x_9, namely (1,...,1) and (f(1),...,f(9)). No known system S⊆B with a finite number of solutions in positive integers x_1,...,x_9 has a solution (x_1,...,x_9)∈(N\{0})^9 satisfying max(x_1,...,x_9)>f(9). For every known system S⊆B, if the finiteness/infiniteness of the set {(x_1,...,x_9)∈(N\{0})^9: (x_1,...,x_9) solves S} is unknown, then the statement ∃ x_1,...,x_9∈N\{0} ((x_1,...,x_9) solves S)∧(max(x_1,...,x_9)>f(9)) remains unproven. Let Λ denote the statement: if the system of equations {x_2!=x_3, x_3!=x_4, x_5!=x_6, x_8!=x_9, x_1 \cdot x_1=x_2, x_3 \cdot x_5=x_6, x_4 \cdot x_8=x_9, x_5 \cdot x_7=x_8} has at most finitely many solutions in positive integers x_1,...,x_9, then each such solution (x_1,...,x_9) satisfies x_1,...,x_9≤f(9). The statement Λ is equivalent to the statement Φ. It heuristically justifies the statement Φ . This justification does not yield the finiteness/infiniteness of P(n^2+1). We present a new heuristic argument for the infiniteness of P(n^2+1), which is not based on the statement Φ. Algorithms always terminate. We explain the distinction between existing algorithms (i.e. algorithms whose existence is provable in ZFC) and known algorithms (i.e. algorithms whose definition is constructive and currently known). Assuming that the infiniteness of a set X⊆N is false or unproven, we define which elements of X are classified as known. No known set X⊆N satisfies Conditions (1)-(4) and is widely known in number theory or naturally defined, where this term has only informal meaning. *** (1) A known algorithm with no input returns an integer n satisfying card(X)<ω ⇒ X⊆(-∞,n]. (2) A known algorithm for every k∈N decides whether or not k∈X. (3) No known algorithm with no input returns the logical value of the statement card(X)=ω. (4) There are many elements of X and it is conjectured, though so far unproven, that X is infinite. (5) X is naturally defined. The infiniteness of X is false or unproven. X has the simplest definition among known sets Y⊆N with the same set of known elements. *** Conditions (2)-(5) hold for X=P(n^2+1). The statement Φ implies Condition (1) for X=P(n^2+1). The set X={n∈N: the interval [-1,n] contains more than 29.5+\frac{11!}{3n+1}⋅sin(n) primes of the form k!+1} satisfies Conditions (1)-(5) except the requirement that X is naturally defined. 501893∈X. Condition (1) holds with n=501893. card(X∩[0,501893])=159827. X∩[501894,∞)= {n∈N: the interval [-1,n] contains at least 30 primes of the form k!+1}. We present a table that shows satisfiable conjunctions of the form #(Condition 1) ∧ (Condition 2) ∧ #(Condition 3) ∧ (Condition 4) ∧ #(Condition 5), where # denotes the negation ¬ or the absence of any symbol. No set X⊆N will satisfy Conditions (1)-(4) forever, if for every algorithm with no input, at some future day, a computer will be able to execute this algorithm in 1 second or less. The physical limits of computation disprove this assumption.