Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

The combinatorial equivalence of a computability theoretic question

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2012.13588 v1 pith:MQMZOMAD submitted 2020-12-25 math.LO math.CO

The combinatorial equivalence of a computability theoretic question

classification math.LO math.CO
keywords questioncombinatorialcomputabilityequivalentgeneralizationhales-jewettinfinitenatural
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We show that a question of Miller and Solomon -- that whether there exists a coloring $c:d^{<\omega}\rightarrow k$ that does not admit a $c$-computable variable word infinite solution, is equivalent to a natural, nontrivial combinatorial question. The combinatorial question asked whether there is an infinite sequence of integers such that each of its initial segment satisfies a Ramsian type property. This is the first computability theoretic question known to be equivalent to a natural, nontrivial question that does not concern complexity notions. It turns out that the negation of the combinatorial question is a generalization of Hales-Jewett theorem. We solve some special cases of the combinatorial question and obtain a generalization of Hales-Jewett theorem on some particular parameters.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Enhancing Factual Accuracy and Citation Generation in LLMs via Multi-Stage Self-Verification

    cs.CL 2025-09 reject novelty 3.0

    The paper proposes a four-stage self-verification prompting method but explicitly labels its experimental results as fabricated, so it cannot support its claimed gains.