Talk:Hilbert's tenth problem
|WikiProject Mathematics||(Rated B-class, Mid-priority)|
The article claims:
- The equation
- where is a polynomial of degree is solvable in rational numbers if and only if
- is solvable in natural numbers.
This cannot be true. x+1=0 is solvable in rational numbers, but x+z+1=0 is not solvable in natural numbers. 184.108.40.206 03:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect the intent was to solve the original equation over the positive rationals. But I've changed "naturals" to "integers" in the article. Ben Standeven 05:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- It didn't work that way either; in your version, the case z=0 caused problems. I think I've fixed it now. 220.127.116.11 12:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I removed this part that makes no sense : a) the term "non negative" appears randomly while we are talking about rings, and has nothing to do with the discussion which seems to be integers vs rational numbers b) the idea to change a rational equation in the integer equation only shows that if there was an algorithm for problems over Z there would also be an algorithm for problems over Q. Since there is no algorithm for problems over Z, what is the point of mentioning this ? c) This may confuse the reader to think that Hilbert's problem over Q is solved, while it is not cf for example http://math.mit.edu/~poonen/papers/aws2003.pdf Section 12 --18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Flaw in Article
There is no meaning for A student that knows about polinomials may understand the article until (s)he finds such a notation with no reference to its meaning and much less its discussion of "parameters"
"...with integer coefficients such that the set of values of a for which the equation
has solutions in natural numbers is not computable. So, not only is there no general algorithm for testing Diophantine equations for solvability, even for this one parameter family of equations, there is no algorithm ..."
For lack of refences (s)he simply gets lost.
- I've added a sentence to the intro, explaining this notation and the concept of Diophantine equations. That seems to be a prerequisite to understanding this article, so I don't think we need much detail.Ben Standeven (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
From the article:
- There exists a polynomial such that, given any Diophantine set there is a number such that
Extremely poor writing
The section Formulation begins as follows:
"The words "process" and "finite number of operations" have been taken to mean that Hilbert was asking for an algorithm. The term "rational integer" simply refers to the integers, positive, negative or zero: 0, ±1, ±2, ... . So Hilbert was asking for a general algorithm to decide whether a given polynomial Diophantine equation with integer coefficients has a solution in integers. Such an equation has the following form:
The answer to the problem is now known to be in the negative: no such general algorithm can exist."
No, the equation does not have the "following form" when the expression
is left unqualified.
It also does not have the "following form" at all, since a "Diophantine equation" does not necessarily have a 0 on one side of the equation.
It is equivalent to an equation of the form displayed when
is described as a polynomial with integer coefficients in the variables