Undecidability of positive first-order definability on words
No public endorsements yet.
Loading review…
Sign in with ORCIDAbstract
This submission fully formalizes and proves in Lean Theorem 6.1 of Denis Kuperberg's Positive First-order Logic on Words and Graphs (LMCS, 2023): no algorithm decides whether the language of a finite automaton over a powerset alphabet is definable in positive first-order logic.
The supporting results are also fully formalized and proved: the positive Ehrenfeucht–Fraïssé game–formula correspondence, the bounded-game characterization of positive first-order definability, undecidability of uniform Turing-machine mortality, and the computable reduction from mortality to positive first-order definability. The submission contains seven concepts and five completed proofs, with no remaining statement obligations.
The number of letter predicates is part of the input; the undecidability result is uniform over finite powerset alphabets.
Concepts
- thm✓
Mortality - thm✓
PositiveGames - thm✓
Reduction - thm✓
Undecidability
- def
Automata - def
PositiveLogic - def
Words
Concept map
Proofs
Proof networkview on GitHub
Proof list
Lean sources for these proofs: proofs/ on GitHub
Proof code is not displayed; the archive records each proof's checked relationship between claims.
Related submissions
No other submission in the archive builds on this one, and this one builds on none.
Cite this
This is only the formalizers. The authors of the formalized results may be different (see References).
@misc{lax-503819,
author = {Denis Kuperberg and GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI)},
title = {Undecidability of positive first-order definability on words},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {Lax Archive, lax-503819},
url = {https://laxarchive.org/lax-503819/},
}
References
- Denis Kuperberg. Positive First-order Logic on Words and Graphs. Logical Methods in Computer Science 19(3):7:1–7:35, 2023. doi:10.46298/lmcs-19(3:7)2023 · lmcs.episciences.org/11660
- Philip K. Hooper. The Undecidability of the Turing Machine Immortality Problem. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 31(2):219–234, 1966. doi:10.2307/2269811 · jstor.org/stable/2269811
Discussion
Ask a question or add context. Endorsements and structured flags are kept in the review panel above.
0 comments