- Word problem for groups
In

mathematics , especially in the area ofabstract algebra known ascombinatorial group theory , the**word problem**for a recursively presented group "G" is the algorithmic problem of deciding whether two words represent the same element. Although it is common to speak of the word problem for the group "G" strictly speaking it is a presentation of the group that does or does not have solvable word problem. Given two finite presentations "P" and "Q" of a group "G", "P" has solvable word problemif and only if "Q" does. So in this case no confusion is caused by speaking of the word problem for "G". When the group is recursively presented but not finitely presented, the distinction becomes important.The related but different

**uniform word problem**for a class "K" of recursively presented groups is the algorithmic problem of deciding, given as input a presentation "P" for a group "G" in the class "K" and two words in the generators of "G", whether the words represent the same element of "G". Some authors require the class "K" to be definable by arecursively enumerable set of presentations.**History**Throughout the history of the subject, computations in groups have been carried out using various

normal form s. These usually implicitly solve the word problem for the groups in question. In 1911Max Dehn proposed that the word problem was an important area of study in its own right, harv|Dehn|1911, together with theconjugacy problem and thegroup isomorphism problem . In 1912 he gave an algorithm that solves both the word and conjugacy problem for thefundamental group s of closed orientable two-dimensional manifolds of genus greater than or equal to "2", harv|Dehn|1912. Subsequent authors have greatly extendedDehn's algorithm and applied it to a wide range of group theoreticdecision problem s. [*cite journal|last=Greendlinger|first=Martin|year=1959|month=June|title=Dehn's algorithm for the word problem|journal=Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics|volume=13|issue=1|pages=67–83|doi=10.1002/cpa.3160130108*] [*cite journal|last=Lyndon|first=Roger C.|date=September 1966|title=On Dehn's algorithm|journal=Mathematische Annalen|volume=166|issue=3|pages=208–228|doi=10.1007/BF01361168*] [*cite journal|last=Schupp|first=Paul E.|date=June 1968|title=On Dehn's algorithm and the conjugacy problem|journal=Mathematische Annalen|volume=178|issue=2|pages=119–130|doi=10.1007/BF01350654*]It was shown by

Pyotr Sergeyevich Novikov in 1955 that there exists a finitely generated (in fact, a finitely presented) group $G$ such that the word problem for $G$ isundecidable . [*cite journal|last=Novikov|first=Pyotr S.|authorlink=Pyotr Sergeyevich Novikov|year=1955|title=On the algorithmic unsolvability of the word problem in group theory|journal=*] It follows immediately that the uniform word problem is also undecidable. A much simpler proof was obtained by Boone in 1958. [Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics |volume=44|pages=1–143 ru icon*cite journal|last=Boone|first=William W.|year=1958|title=The word problem|journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences|volume=44|issue=10|pages=1061–1065|url=http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/44/10/1061.pdf|doi=10.1073/pnas.44.10.1061*]The word problem was one of the first examples of an unsolvable problem to be found not in

mathematical logic or thetheory of algorithms , but in one of the central branches of classical mathematics, algebra. As a result of its unsolvability, several other problems in combinatorial group theory have been shown to be unsolvable as well.It is important to realize that the word problem is in fact solvable for many groups "G". For example,

polycyclic group s have solvable word problem since the normal form of an arbitrary word in a polycyclic presentation is readily computable; other algorithms for groups may, in suitable circumstances, also solve the word problem, see theTodd-Coxeter algorithm [*J.A. Todd and H.S.M. Coxeter. "A practical method for enumerating coset of a finite abstract group", "Proc, Edinburgh Math Soc." (2),*] and the**5**, 25---34. 1936Knuth-Bendix completion algorithm . [*D. Knuth and P. Bendix. "Simple word problems in universal algebras." "Computational Problems in Abstract Algebra" (Ed. J. Leech) pages 263--297, 1970.*] On the other hand the fact that a particular algorithm does not solve the word problem for a particular group does not show that the group has unsolvable word problem. For instance Dehn's algorithm does not solve the word problem for the fundamental group of thetorus . However this group is the direct product of two infinite cyclic groups and so has solvable word problem.**A more concrete description**In more concrete terms, the uniform word problem can be expressed as a

rewriting question, forliteral string s, harv|Rotman|1994. For a presentation "P" of a group "G", "P" will specify a certain number of generators:"x", "y", "z", ...

for "G". We need to introduce one letter for "x" and another (for convenience) for the group element represented by "x"

^{−1}. Call these letters (twice as many as the generators) the alphabet "A" for our problem. Then each element in "G" is represented in "some way" by a product:"abc ... pqr"

of symbols from "A", of some length, multiplied in "G". The string of length 0 (

null string ) stands for theidentity element "e" of "G". The crux of the whole problem is to be able to recognise "all" the ways "e" can be represented, given some relations.The effect of the "relations" in "G" is to make various such strings represent the same element of "G". In fact the relations provide a list of strings that can be either introduced where we want, or cancelled out whenever we see them, without changing the 'value', i.e. the group element that is the result of the multiplication.

For a simple example, take the presentation <"x"|"x"³>. Writing "y" for the inverse of "x", we have possible strings combining any number of "x" and "y" symbols. Whenever we see "xxx", or "xy" or "yx" we may strike these out. We should also remember to strike out "yyy"; this says that since the cube of "x" is the identity element of "G", so is the cube of the inverse of "x". Under these conditions the word problem becomes easy. First reduce strings to "e", "x", "xx", "y" or "yy". Then note that we may also multiply by "xxx", so we can convert "yy" to "x". The result is that we can "prove" that the word problem here, for what is the

cyclic group of order three, is solvable.This is not, however, the typical case. For the example, we have a

canonical form available that reduces any string to one of length at most three, by decreasing the length monotonically. In general, it is not true that one can get a canonical form for the elements, by stepwise cancellation. One may have to use relations to expand a string many-fold, in order eventually to find a cancellation that brings the length right down.The upshot is, in the worst case, that the relation between strings that says they are equal in "G" is not "

decidable ".**Examples**The following groups have soluble word problem:

*Automatic group s, including:

**Finite group s

**Polycyclic group s

**Negatively curved group s

**Euclidean group s

**Coxeter group s

**Braid group s

**Geometrically finite group s.

*Finitely generated recursively absolutely presented groups, [*H.Simmons, "The word problem for absolute presentations." "J. London Math. Soc." (2) 6, 275-280 1973*] including:

**Finitely presented simple groups.

*Finitely presentedresidually finite groups

*One relator groups, including:

**Fundamental groups of closed orientable two-dimensional manifolds.

*Combable groupsExamples with insoluble word problems are also known:

*Given a recursively enumerable set "A" of positive integers that has insoluble membership problem, $langle\; a,b,c,d\; |\; a^nba^n\; =\; c^ndc^n\; :\; n\; in\; A\; angle$ is a finitely generated group with a recursively enumerable presentation whose word problem is insoluble harv|Collins|Zieschang|1990|p=149

*Every finitely generated group with an r.e. presentation and insoluble word problem is a subgroup of a finitely presented group with insoluble word problemharv|Collins|Zieschang|1993|loc=Cor. 7.2.6

*The number of relators in a finitely presented group with insoluble word problem may be as low as 14 by harv|Collins|1969 or even 12 by harv|Borisov|1969, harv|Collins|1972.

*An explicit example of a reasonable short presentation with insoluble word problem is given in harv|Collins|1986 [*We use the corrected version from [*] ::$egin\{array\}\{lllll\}langle\; a,b,c,d,e,p,q,r,t,k\; |\; \backslash \; p^\{10\}a\; =\; ap,\; pacqr\; =\; rpcaq,\; ra=ar,\; \backslash p^\{10\}b\; =\; bp,\; p^2adq^2r\; =\; rp^2daq^2,\; rb=br,\; \backslash p^\{10\}c\; =\; cp,\; p^3bcq^3r\; =\; rp^3cbq^3,\; rc=cr,\; \backslash p^\{10\}d\; =\; dp,\; p^4bdq^4r\; =\; rp^4dbq^4,\; rd=dr,\; \backslash p^\{10\}e\; =\; ep,\; p^5ceq^5r\; =\; rp^5ecaq^5,\; re=er,\; \backslash aq^\{10\}\; =\; qa,\; p^6deq^6r\; =\; rp^6edbq^6,\; pt=tp,\; \backslash bq^\{10\}\; =\; qb,\; p^7cdcq^7r\; =\; rp^7cdceq^7,\; qt=tq,\; \backslash cq^\{10\}\; =\; qc,\; p^8ca^3q^8r\; =\; rp^8a^3q^8,\; \backslash dq^\{10\}\; =\; qd,\; p^9da^3q^9r\; =\; rp^9a^3q^9,\; \backslash eq^\{10\}\; =\; qe,\; a^\{-3\}ta^3k\; =\; ka^\{-3\}ta^3\; angle\; end\{array\}$*http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~eclark/algctlg/groups.html John Pedersen's A Catalogue of Algebraic Systems*]**Partial solution of the word problem**The word problem for a recursively presented group can be partially solved in the following sense:

:Given a recursive presentation $P=langle\; X|R\; angle$ for a group "G", define:::$S=\{langle\; u,v\; angle\; :\; u\; mbox\{\; and\; \}\; v\; mbox\{\; are\; words\; in\; \}\; X\; mbox\{\; and\; \}\; u=v\; mbox\{\; in\; \}\; G\; \}$ :then there is a partial recursive function $f\_P$ such that:::$f\_P(langle\; u,v\; angle)\; =\; left\{egin\{matrix\}\; 0\; mbox\{if\}\; langle\; u,v\; angle\; in\; S\; \backslash mbox\{undefined/does\; not\; halt\}\; mbox\{if\}\; langle\; u,v\; angle\; otin\; Send\{matrix\}\; ight.$

More informally, there is an algorithm that halts if "u=v", but does not do so otherwise.

It follows that to solve the word problem for "P" it is sufficient to construct a recursive function g such that:::$g(langle\; u,v\; angle)\; =\; left\{egin\{matrix\}\; 0\; mbox\{if\}\; langle\; u,v\; angle\; otin\; S\; \backslash mbox\{undefined/does\; not\; halt\}\; mbox\{if\}\; langle\; u,v\; angle\; in\; Send\{matrix\}\; ight.$

However "u=v" in "G" if and only if "uv

^{-1}=1" in "G". It follows that to solve the word problem for "P" it is sufficient to construct a recursive function "h" such that:::$h(x)\; =\; left\{egin\{matrix\}\; 0\; mbox\{if\}\; x\; eq1\; mbox\{in\}\; G\; \backslash mbox\{undefined/does\; not\; halt\}\; mbox\{if\}\; x=1\; mbox\{in\}\; Gend\{matrix\}\; ight.$The following will be proved as an example of the use of this technique:

* A finitely presented residually finite group has solvable word problem.

Suppose $G=langle\; H|\; R\; angle$ is a finitely presented, residually finite group.

Let "S" be the group of all permutations of

**N**, the natural numbers, that fixes all but finitely many numbers then:

# "S" is locally finite and contains a copy of every finite group.

# The word problem in "S" is solvable by calculating products of permutations.

# There is a recursive enumeration of all mappings of the finite set "X" into "S".

# Since "G" is residually finite, if "w" is a word in the generators "X" of "G" then "w"$e$"1" in "G" if and only of some mapping of "X" into "S" induces a homomorphism such that "w"$e$"1" in "S"Given these facts, algorithm defined by the following pseudoode:

:For every mapping of "X" into "S"::If every relator in "R" is satisfied in "S":::If "w"$e$"1" in "S"::::return 0:::End if::End if:End for

defines a recursive function "h" such that:::$h(x)\; =\; left\{egin\{matrix\}\; 0\; mbox\{if\}\; x\; eq\; 1\; mbox\{in\}\; G\; \backslash mbox\{undefined/does\; not\; halt\}\; mbox\{if\}\; x=1\; mbox\{in\}\; Gend\{matrix\}\; ight.$

This shows that "G" has solvable word problem.

**Unsolvability of the uniform word problem**The criterion, given above for the solvability of the word problem in a single group can be extended to a criterion for the uniform solvability of the word problem for a class of finitely presented groups by a straightforward argument. The result is:

:To solve the uniform word problem for a class $K$ of groups it is sufficient to find a recursive function $f(P,w),$ that takes a finite presentation $P,$ for a group $G,$and a word $w,$ in the generators of $G$ such that whenever in $Gin\; K,$:

:::$f(P,w)\; =\; left\{egin\{matrix\}\; 0\; mbox\{if\}\; w\; eq1\; mbox\{in\}\; G\; \backslash mbox\{undefined/does\; not\; halt\}\; mbox\{if\}\; w=1\; mbox\{in\}\; Gend\{matrix\}\; ight.$

Boone and Rogers have proved:

:There is no uniform

partial algorithm which solves the word problem in all finitely presented groups with solvable word problem.In other words the uniform word problem for the class of all finitely presented groups with solvable word problem is unsolvable. This has some interesting consequences. For instance the

Higman embedding theorem can be used to construct a group containing an isomorphic copy of every finitely presented group with solvable word problem. It seems natural to ask whether this group can have solvable word problem. But it is a consequence of the Boone-Rogers result that::There is no universal solvable word problem group. That is, if $G$ is a finitely presented group which contains an isomorphic copy of every finitely presented group with solvable word problem, then $G$ itself must have unsolvable word problem.

**Remark:**Suppose $G\; =\; langle\; Xmid\; R\; angle$ is a finitely presented group with solvable word problem and $H,$ is a finite subset $G,$. Let $H^*\; =\; langle\; H\; angle$, be the group generated by $H,$. Then the word problem in $H^*,$ is solvable: given two words $h,\; k,$ in the generators $H,$ of $H^*,$, write them as words in $X,$ and compare them using the solution to the word problem in $G,$. It is easy to think that this demonstrates a uniform solution the word problem for the class $K,$ (say) of finitely generated groups that can be embedded in $G,$. If this were the case the non-existence of a universal solvable word problem group would follow easily from Boone-Rogers. However, solution just exhibited for the word problem for groups in $K,$ is not uniform. To see this consider a group $J=langle\; Y\; mid\; T\; anglein\; K$, in order to use the above argument to solve the word problem in $J,$, it is first necessary to exhibit a mapping $e:Y\; ightarrow\; G$ that extends to an embedding $e^*:J\; ightarrow\; G$. If there were a recursive function that mapped (finitely generated) presentations of groups in $K,$ to embeddings into $G,$, then a uniform solution the word problem in $K,$ could indeed be constructed. But there is no reason, in general, to suppose that such a recursive function exists. However, it turns out that, using a more sophisicated argument, the word problem in $J,$ can be solved "without" using an embedding $e:J\; ightarrow\; G$. Instead an "enumeration of homomorphisms" is used, and since such enumeration can be constructed uniformly, it results in a uniform solution to the word problem in $K,$.**Proof that there is no universal solvable word problem group**Suppose $G,$ were a universal solvable word problem group. Given a finite presentation $P=langle\; Xmid\; R\; angle,$ of a group $H,$, a recursively enumeration:

::$h\_1,h\_2,dots\; h\_n,dots.$

of all the homomorphisms $h:H\; ightarrow\; G$ can be constructed as follows:

First enumerate all mappings $h^\{dagger\}:X\; ightarrow\; G$. Not all of these mappings extend to homomorphisms, but, since $h^\{dagger\}(R)$, is finite, it is possible to distinguish between homomorphism and non-homomorphisms by using the solution to the word problem in $G,$. "Weeding out" it non-homomorphisms gives the required recursive enumeration.

If $H,$ has solvable word problem, then at least one of these homomorphism must be an embedding. So given a word $w,$ in the generators of $H,$:

::$mbox\{If\}\; w\; e\; 1\; mbox\{in\}\; H,\; h\_n(w)\; e\; 1\; mbox\{in\}\; G\; mbox\{for\; some\}\; h\_n$::$mbox\{If\}\; w=\; 1\; mbox\{in\}\; H,\; h\_n(w)=\; 1\; mbox\{in\}\; G\; mbox\{for\; all\}\; h\_n$

Consider the algorithm described by the pseudocode:

::Let "n"="0"::Let "repeat"=TRUE::while ("repeat"=TRUE):::increase "n" by "1":::if (solution to word problem in "G" reveals "h

_{n}(w)"$e$"1" in "G")::::Let "repeat"=FALSE::output 0.This describes a recursive function:

::$f(w)\; =\; left\{egin\{matrix\}\; 0\; mbox\{if\}\; w\; eq1\; mbox\{in\}\; H\; \backslash mbox\{undefined/does\; not\; halt\}\; mbox\{if\}\; w=1\; mbox\{in\}\; Hend\{matrix\}\; ight.$

The function $f,$ clearly depends on the presention $P,$. Considering it to be a funcion of the two variables, a recursive function $f(P,w),$ has been constructed that takes a finite presentation $P,$ for a group $G,$ and a word $w,$ in the generators of $G$ such that whenever $G,$ has soluble word problem:

::$f(P,w)\; =\; left\{egin\{matrix\}\; 0\; mbox\{if\}\; w\; eq1\; mbox\{in\}\; H\; \backslash mbox\{undefined/does\; not\; halt\}\; mbox\{if\}\; w=1\; mbox\{in\}\; Hend\{matrix\}\; ight.$

But this uniformly solves the word problem for the class of all finitley presented groups with solvable word problem contradicting Boone-Rogers. This contradiction proves $G,$ cannot exist.

**Algebraic structure and the word problem**There are a number of results that relate solvability of the word problem and algebraic structure. The most significant of these is the

Boone-Higman theorem ::A finitely presented group has solvable word problem if and only if it can be embedded in a

simple group that can be embedded in a finitely presented group.It is widely believed that it should be possible do the construction so that the simple group itself is finitely presented. If so one would expect it to be difficult to prove as the mapping from presentations to simple groups would have to be non-recursive.

The following has been proved by

Bernhard Neumann andA Macintyre :::A finitely presented group has solvable word problem if and only if it can be embedded in every

algebraically closed group What is remarkable about this is that the algebraically closed groups are so wild that none of them has a recursive presentation.

The oldest result relating algebraic structure to solvability of the word problem is

Kuznetsov 's theorem::A recursively presented simple group has "S" solvable word problem.

To prove this let $langle\; X\; |\; R\; angle$ be a recursive presentation for "S". Choose $a\; in\; S$ such that $a\; eq\; 1$ in $S$.

If "w" is a word on the generators "X" of "S", then let:

::$S\_w\; =\; langle\; X\; |\; Rcup\; \{w\}\; angle$

There is a recursive function $f\_\{langle\; X\; |\; Rcup\; \{w\}\; angle\}$ such that:

::$f\_\{langle\; X\; |\; Rcup\; \{w\}\; angle\}(x)\; =\; left\{egin\{matrix\}\; 0\; mbox\{if\}\; x=1\; mbox\{in\}\; S\_w\backslash mbox\{undefined/does\; not\; halt\}\; mbox\{if\}\; x\; eq\; 1\; mbox\{in\}\; S\_wend\{matrix\}\; ight.$

Write:

::$g(w,\; x)\; =\; f\_\{langle\; X\; |\; Rcup\; \{w\}\; angle\}(x)$

Then because the construction of "f" was uniform, this is a recursive function of two variables.

It follows that:

::$h(w)=g(w,\; a)$

is recursive. By construction:

::$h(w)\; =\; left\{egin\{matrix\}0\; mbox\{if\}\; a=1\; mbox\{in\}\; S\_w\backslash mbox\{undefined/does\; not\; halt\}\; mbox\{if\}\; a\; eq\; 1\; mbox\{in\}\; S\_wend\{matrix\}\; ight.$

Since $S$ is a simple group, its only quotient groups are itself and the trivial group. Since $a\; eq\; 1$ in $S$, we see $a=1$ in $S\_w$ if and only if $S\_w$ is trivial if and only if $w\; e\; 1$ in $S$. Therefore:

::$h(w)\; =\; left\{egin\{matrix\}0\; mbox\{if\}\; w\; e\; 1\; mbox\{in\}\; S\backslash mbox\{undefined/does\; not\; halt\}\; mbox\{if\}\; w=1\; mbox\{in\}\; Send\{matrix\}\; ight.$

The existence of such a function is sufficient to prove the word problem is solvable for "S".

This proof does not prove the existence of a uniform algorithm for solving the word problem for this class of groups. The non-uniformity resides in choosing a non-trivial element of the simple group. There is no reason to suppose that there is a recursive function that maps a presentation of a simple groups to a non-trivial lement of the group. However, in the case of a finitely presented group we know that not all the generators can be trivial (Any individual generator could be, of course). Using this fact it is possible to modify the proof to show:

:The word problem is uniformly solvable for the class of finitely presented simple groups.

**ee also***

SQ universal group **Notes****References***planetmath reference|id=8301|title=Word problem

* Boone, Cannonito, Lyndon. "Word Problems: Decision Problem in Group Theory." Netherlands: North-Holland. 1973.

* W. W. Boone and G. Higman, "An algebraic characterization of the solvability of the word problem", "J. Austral. Math. Soc."**18**, 41-53 (1974)

* W. W. Boone and H. Rogers Jr., "On a problem of J.H.C. Whitehead and a problem of Alonzo Church", "Math. Scand."**19**, 185-192 (1966).'

*Citation | last1=Borisov | first1=V. V. | title=Simple examples of groups with unsolvable word problem | id=MathSciNet | id = 0260851 | year=1969 | journal=Akademiya Nauk SSSR. Matematicheskie Zametki | issn=0025-567X | volume=6 | pages=521–532

* | year=1969 | journal=Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik | volume=15 | pages=305–324 | doi=10.1002/malq.19690152001

* | year=1972 | journal=Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society | issn=0024-6093 | volume=4 | pages=145–147 | doi=10.1112/blms/4.2.145

* | year=1986 | journal=Illinois Journal of Mathematics | issn=0019-2082 | volume=30 | issue=2 | pages=230–234

* | year=1990 | pages=166

*Citation | last1=Dehn | first1=Max | author1-link=Max Dehn | title=Über unendliche diskontinuierliche Gruppen | doi=10.1007/BF01456932 | id=MathSciNet | id = 1511645 | year=1911 | journal=Mathematische Annalen | issn=0025-5831 | volume=71 | issue=1 | pages=116–144

*Citation | last1=Dehn | first1=Max | author1-link=Max Dehn | title=Transformation der Kurven auf zweiseitigen Flächen | doi=10.1007/BF01456725 | id=MathSciNet | id = 1511705 | year=1912 | journal=Mathematische Annalen | issn=0025-5831 | volume=72 | issue=3 | pages=413–421

* A. V. Kuznetsov, "Algorithms as operations in algebraic systems", "Izvestia Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser Mat" (1958)

* C. F. Miller. "Decision problems for groups -- survey and reflections." In "Algorithms and Classification in Combinatorial Group Theory", pages 1--60. Springer, 1991.

*Citation | last1=Rotman | first1=Joseph | title=An introduction to the theory of groups | publisher=Springer-Verlag | location=Berlin, New York | isbn=978-0-387-94285-8 | year=1994

* J. Stillwell. "The word problem and the isomorphism problem for groups." "Bulletin AMS"**6**(1982), pp 33-56.

*Wikimedia Foundation.
2010.*

### Look at other dictionaries:

**Word problem (mathematics)**— In mathematics and computer science, a word problem for a set S with respect to a system of finite encodings of its elements, is the algorithmic problem of deciding whether two given representatives represent the same element of the set.… … Wikipedia**Word problem (mathematics education)**— Abstract algebra has an unrelated term word problem for groups. In mathematics education, the term word problem is often used to refer to any mathematical exercise where significant background information on the problem is presented as text… … Wikipedia**Word problem (computability)**— In computability theory, the word problem is a decision problem concerning formal languages. The problem is to construct an algorithm to decide for a given word if it belongs to a formal language or not.Word problemGiven a formal language L… … Wikipedia**Word problem**— The term word problem has several meanings: * word problem (mathematics education) is a type of textbook problem designed to help students apply abstract mathematical concepts to real world situations * word problem (mathematics) is the word… … Wikipedia**Word (group theory)**— In group theory, a word is any written product of group elements and their inverses. For example, if x , y , and z are elements of a group G , then xy , z 1 xzz , and y 1 zxx 1 yz 1 are words in the set { x , y , z }. Words play an important role … Wikipedia**Word-sense disambiguation**— Disambiguation redirects here. For other uses, see Disambiguation (disambiguation). In computational linguistics, word sense disambiguation (WSD) is an open problem of natural language processing, which governs the process of identifying which… … Wikipedia**Word of Knowledge**— A Word of Knowledge is a spiritual gift mentioned in 1 Corinthians 12:8 but not in any other New Testament list of Spiritual Gifts. Among apostolic and prophetic Christians it is often taught to be a gift of knowledge given by the Holy Spirit to… … Wikipedia**Undecidable problem**— In computability theory and computational complexity theory, an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which it is impossible to construct an algorithm that leads to a yes or no answer the problem is not decidable.A decision problem is any … Wikipedia**Burnside's problem**— The Burnside problem, posed by William Burnside in 1902 and one of the oldest and most influential questions in group theory, asks whether a finitely generated group in which every element has finite order must necessarily be a finite group. In… … Wikipedia**Conjugacy problem**— In abstract algebra, the conjugacy problem for a group G with a given presentation is the decision problem of determining, given two words x and y in G, whether or not they represent conjugate elements of G. That is, the problem is to determine… … Wikipedia