- How to interpret constant in a fixed effect panel data regression when using Stata
- How to choose trades over time
- Memory coupons autocall
- Z̡̬a̧̯̔l̆̓g̛̘̟o̡ generator
- N-dimensional Circles!
- Recover the prime from the prime power
- Prime Time Travel
- Avoiding using `isset` when appending to an array variable
- Making My Code Reusable
- Fast and flexible Sudoku Solver in C++
- A device that reassures its owner by telling him that he would have died if he had done things differently
- How does Mrs. Norris communicate with Mr. Filch?
- Why are The Incredibles villains technologically-based?
- In Incredibles 2, why didn't anybody realize this?
- Why didn't the screens affect Elastigirl in the beginning of the Incredibles 2?
- Does Mickey Mouse exist in the Ducktales universe?
- How could Dumbledore have opposed the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery?
- Mongodb stores all data in a single shard
- Does PostgreSQL Logical Replication replicates data or query?
- Oracle 12c PDB Cloning with RMAN - Aux DB connection issues

# Does showing a problem and its complement are not Turing-decidable means that the language & its complement are not Turing-recognizable?

I was reading the Sipser's book on the Theory of Computation, 3rd edition and came up with a question. "Does showing a problem and its complement are not Turing-decidable means that the language & its complement are not Turing-recognizable?" I believe that the answer is NO, however, the Theorem 5.30 states something different.

There are two problems concerned in this question. One is $A_{TM} = \{

On Page 238, the Theorem 5.30 is stated as follows:

Theorem 5.30 $EQ_{TM}$ is neither Turing-recognizable nor co-Turing-recognizable.

The proof is by mapping reduction of $A_{TM}$ to $\overline{EQ_{TM}}$, and at the same time, reduction from $A_{TM}$ to $EQ_{TM}$. This way, it has shown:

$\overline{EQ_{TM}}$ is Turing-undecidable.

$EQ_{TM}$ is Turing-undecidable.

Note that this reduction does not show that either of $\overlin