Math 114L

Homework 2 Solutions Spring 2011 1.7.2

Let be nitely satisable and complete, and let be as given in the problem. We show by induction on that () = T i . Base Case: If is a sentence symbol, () = () = T i by the denition of . Inductive Case for : If () = T then () = F , so by IH, , and since is complete, we must have . If () = F then () = T , so by IH, ; if then {, } is a nite unsatisable subset of , and since this is impossible, . Inductive Case for : If ( ) = T then () = ( ) = T , so by IH {, } ; if then ( ) , and so {, , ( )} is a nite unsatisable subset of , and since this is impossible, . If ( ) = F and () = F then by IH, , so . If we had then {, } would be a nite unsatisable subset of , and since there are none, . If ( ) = F and () = T then ( ) = F , and a similar argument applies. The other inductive cases are simialr.

1.7.3
Suppose Corollary 17A holds and that is not satisable. If were unsatisable, we would have A1 A1 . By the corollary, there must be a nite 0 such that 0 A1 A1 , and therefore 0 is a nite unsatisable subset of , so is not nitely satisable. This is the contrapositive of the compactness theorem, and therefore equivalent to the compactness theorem.

1.7.10
a Let be the set of tautological consequences of . Consider the following procedure: For an expression , rst check if is a w. By Theorem 17B, there is an eective procedure for this, so in a nite number of steps, this will produce yes if is a w, no if is not. If no, we will output no. If yes, we will continue as follows. 1

 is eectively enumerable, so we have an eective way to enumerate , {0 , 1 , 2 , . . .}. Let n = {i | i n}. Since each n is nite, there is an eective procedure for determining whether n . We successively check if 0 , then if 0 , then if 1 , then if 1 , and so on. If we nd some n such that n , we output yes, if we nd some n such that n , we output no. By assumption, either |= or |= but not both, so at some n, we will have either n |= or n |= , so this procedure always eventually stops with the correct answer. b Suppose that there is such that |= and |= . Then is unsatisable, so for every w . Therefore we take the decision procedure which outputs yes on every w. Otherwise, there is no such , so we are in the case of part a. (Note that the procedure here is non-uniform, in the sense that we cant decide, given a description of , which of the two prcedures to use. But that doesnt change the fact that the set is decidable, we just dont know how to decide it!)

1.7.11
a Let A and B be eectively enumerable. By Theorem 17E, they are both semidecidable. Let C = A B and let be an expression. We dovetail the two semidecision procedures: we rst spend 1 minute checking if A, then 1 minute checking if B , then 2 minutes checking if A, then 2 minutes checking if B , and so on. If either A or B , this process will eventually stop, and we output yes. If A B , this process runs forever. This is a semidecision procedure, so C is eectively enumerable. b Again, let A and B be eectively enumerable, and note that by Theorem 17E they are each semidecidable. Given an expression , rst run the semidecision procedure checking if A. If the procedure runs forever, A, so A B , and we run forever. Otherwise, the semidecision procedure eventually tells us A. Then we run the semidecision procedure for B . If this procedure runs forever, B , so A B , and we run forever. If this procedure stops, we output yes, since A and B .

1.7.12
a = {A1 , A1 } b = {A1 , A2 , (A1 A2 )} c = {A1 , A2 , A3 , (A1 A2 A3 )}