Sets $A$ and $B$. $B$ is finite (have inite number of elements), $A$ is undecidable. Can $A$ $\cup$ $B$ be decidable? I have and idea, but i'm not sure that it's correct. What if $A \cup B$ is decidable. Then if $x \in N$ we can discover belogns it to $A \cup B$ or not. If yes then we need to prove that we can't discover if it's belongs to $A$. But we will start comparing $x$ with elements from $B$ and we will do that in finite amount of time because $B$ is finite. Then if $x$ not in B we can say that $x$ in A and "return 1" Seems like i have to prove that we can say that $x \notin A$. So now $A$ is decidable - contradiction. But i'm not sure how to prove fact that if $x \in B$ it's dont in $A$ because it may be. I hope my thought are understandable.
2026-02-23 21:17:30.1771881450
Prove decidability. Sets A and B. B is finite (have inite number of elements), A is undecidable. Can $A$ $cup$ $B$ be decidable?
130 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in COMPUTABILITY
- Are all infinite sets of indices of computable functions extensional?
- Simple applications of forcing in recursion theory?
- Proof of "Extension" for Rice's Theorem
- How to interpret Matiyasevich–Robinson–Davis–Putnam in term of algebraic geometry or geometry?
- Does there exist a weakly increasing cofinal function $\kappa \to \kappa$ strictly below the diagonal?
- Why isn't the idea of "an oracle for the halting problem" considered self-contradictory?
- is there any set membership of which is not decidable in polynomial time but semidecidable in P?
- The elementary theory of finite commutative rings
- Is there any universal algorithm converting grammar to Turing Machine?
- Is the sign of a real number decidable?
Related Questions in TURING-MACHINES
- Has the effort to confirm $\Sigma(5)$ and the search for new champions with $6$ states been stopped?
- Pop-up cards Turing complete?
- How does a cellular automaton "know" when to halt?
- Is the halting problem also undecideable for turing machines always writing a $1$ on the tape?
- Proof of "Extension" for Rice's Theorem
- Do we need enumeration to find the maximal number of steps a special Turing machine can make?
- Deciding wether a language is regular, in the arithmetic hierarchy
- Can a machine exist making more steps than the current record, which is no busy beaver?
- Can the halting problem for bounded Turing machines be efficiently decided?
- Can we efficiently determine the function $f(n,s)$?
Related Questions in DECIDABILITY
- Deciding wether a language is regular, in the arithmetic hierarchy
- SAT preserving conversion of statement to existential one
- The elementary theory of finite commutative rings
- Is the sign of a real number decidable?
- Relation between the monadic and two-variable fragment of first order logic
- Literature about decidable and undecidable theories
- Flaw in self-referential proof that all languages are undecidable
- A recursively enumerable theory without a decidable set of axioms.
- Proving decidability of $(\mathbb N, +)$ with Quantifier elimination and evaluating basic formulas
- Showing that Presburger arithmetic is decidable by deciding if $\mathbb N \models \varphi$, but does it give provability in the axioms?
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
The key is this: like $B$, the set $B\setminus A$ is also finite, hence decidable. Thus you can get a decision procedure for $A$ from one for $A\cup B$ as follows:
(I'll add that the fact that any finite set is decidable, no matter how complicated its definition, is often a point of a confusion. For instance the set that is $\emptyset$ if the Riemann hypothesis is true and $\{0\}$ if it is false is decidable. The thing is, we are only concerned about the existence of a decision procedure, not if we can actually determine concretely what the decision procedure actually is. We know if the Riemann hypothesis is true then there is one decision procedure (always say "no"), and if it is false, there is another decision procedure (only say "yes" if $x=0$, otherwise, say "no"), so either way, one exists, and that's good enough, regardless if we actually have any way of deciding whether the Riemann hypothesis is true or not.)