Thu, 15 May 2003 10:23:21 +0300
> Of course there is. A language is just a subset of the power set of
> some symbol alphabet. So, for example, the set of all halting TMs
> (encoded appropriately) forms a language.
It is not a power set. A language is a subset of the word monoid generated
by the alphabet by applying reccurent production of the alphabet (the star
> > Is there a known proof that one needs at least a TM to recognize all
> > decidable languages?
> Here's my working definition of "decidable language":
> A language L is decidable for some class of automata C if
> there is an automaton in C which recognises L and halts
> for all inputs.
I always thought in a similar fashion. But literature insists that the
decidability is always measured with respect to a Turing Machine. Thus, I
was unable to communicate to many other people on the usenet.