Inexpressibility in Exp-Minus-Log (EML)
unprovable
14 points
1 comment
May 05, 2026
Related Discussions
Found 5 related stories in 81.7ms across 8,303 title embeddings via pgvector HNSW
- Not all elementary functions can be expressed with exp-minus-log mmastrac · 43 pts · April 15, 2026 · 61% similar
- EsoLang-Bench: Evaluating Genuine Reasoning in LLMs via Esoteric Languages matt_d · 84 pts · March 19, 2026 · 44% similar
- The unreasonable effectiveness of S-Expressions moigagoo · 16 pts · March 01, 2026 · 42% similar
- The case for zero-error horizons in trustworthy LLMs daigoba66 · 71 pts · April 02, 2026 · 42% similar
- ML supports existence of unrecognized transient astronomical phenomena solarist · 65 pts · April 24, 2026 · 42% similar
Discussion Highlights (1 comments)
unprovable
TL;DR - all numbers defined in EML are computable (mainly because exp and log are computable for computable complex inputs, and the primary input ('1') is ofc computable) - this isn't as obvious as first thought, and you need some machinery from computable analysis. Ultimately, you get the canonical example of Chaitin's \Omega_U is inexpressible in EML (it's left-c.e. but not computable). EML is also shown to be equivalent to the EL numbers due to Chow (1999). Additionally, the expressions for x*y, -x, and x^{-1} are optimal (there are no shorter EML expressions for those, by exhaustive search).