scholarly journals EXACT PAIRS FOR THE IDEAL OF THEK-TRIVIAL SEQUENCES IN THE TURING DEGREES

2014 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 676-692 ◽  
Author(s):  
GEORGE BARMPALIAS ◽  
ROD G. DOWNEY
Keyword(s):  
Negative Answer ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Halting Problem ◽  
The Ideal ◽  
Computably Enumerable

AbstractTheK-trivial sets form an ideal in the Turing degrees, which is generated by its computably enumerable (c.e.) members and has an exact pair below the degree of the halting problem. The question of whether it has an exact pair in the c.e. degrees was first raised in [22, Question 4.2] and later in [25, Problem 5.5.8].We give a negative answer to this question. In fact, we show the following stronger statement in the c.e. degrees. There exists aK-trivial degreedsuch that for all degreesa, bwhich are notK-trivial anda > d, b > dthere exists a degreevwhich is notK-trivial anda > v, b > v. This work sheds light to the question of the definability of theK-trivial degrees in the c.e. degrees.

Promptness does not imply superlow cuppability

2009 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 1264-1272 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Diamondstone
Keyword(s):  
Explicit Construction ◽  
Negative Answer ◽  
Related Question ◽  
Truth Table ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Classical Theorem ◽  
Halting Problem ◽  
Simple Set ◽  
Complete Set

AbstractA classical theorem in computability is that every promptly simple set can be cupped in the Turing degrees to some complete set by a low c.e. set. A related question due to A. Nies is whether every promptly simple set can be cupped by a superlow c.e. set, i.e. one whose Turing jump is truth-table reducible to the halting problem ∅′. A negative answer to this question is provided by giving an explicit construction of a promptly simple set that is not superlow cuppable. This problem relates to effective randomness and various lowness notions.

Embedding the diamond in the Σ2 enumeration degrees

1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seema Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Negative Answer ◽  
Diamond Lattice ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Effective Algorithm ◽  
Finite Sets ◽  
Enumeration Degrees ◽  
Lower Case ◽  
One To One ◽  
Fixed Standard

Lachlan [5] has shown that it is not possible to embed the diamond lattice in the r.e. Turing degrees while preserving least and greatest elements; that is, there do not exist incomparable r.e. Turing degrees a and b such that a ∧ b = 0 and a ∨ b = 0′. Cooper [3] has compared the r.e. Turing degrees to the enumeration degrees below 0e′ and has asked if the two structures are elementarily equivalent.In this paper we show that such an embedding is possible in the Σ2enumeration degrees, which implies a negative answer to Cooper's question.Theorem. There are low enumeration degreesaandbsuch thata ∧ b = 0eanda ∨ b = 0e′.Lower case italic letters denote elements of ω while upper case italic letters denote subsets of ω. D, E and F are reserved for finite sets, and K for ′. If D = {x0, x1, …, xn} then the canonical index of D is , and the canonical index of is ∅. Dx denotes the set with canonical index x. {Wi}i∈ω is any fixed standard listing of the r.e. sets, and <·, ·> is any fixed recursive bijection from ω × ω to ω.Intuitively, A is enumeration reducible to B if there is an effective algorithm for producing an enumeration of A from any enumeration of B. There is a natural one-to-one correspondence between all such algorithms and the r.e. sets.

A hierarchy for the plus cupping Turing degrees

2003 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 972-988 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong Wang ◽  
Angsheng Li
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Computably Enumerable

AbstractWe say that a computably enumerable (c. e.) degree a is plus-cupping, if for every c.e. degree x with 0 < x ≤ a, there is a c. e. degree y ≠ 0′ such that x ∨ y = 0′. We say that a is n-plus-cupping, if for every c. e. degree x, if 0 < x ≤ a, then there is a lown c. e. degree I such that x ∨ I = 0′. Let PC and PCn be the set of all plus-cupping, and n-plus-cupping c. e. degrees respectively. Then PC1 ⊆ PC2 ⊆ PC3 = PC. In this paper we show that PC1 ⊂ PC2, so giving a nontrivial hierarchy for the plus cupping degrees. The theorem also extends the result of Li, Wu and Zhang [14] showing that LC1 ⊂ LC2, as well as extending the Harrington plus-cupping theorem [8].

scholarly journals Computing from projections of random points

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (01) ◽  
pp. 1950014
Author(s):  
Noam Greenberg ◽  
Joseph S. Miller ◽  
André Nies
Keyword(s):  
Cost Function ◽  
Random Sequence ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Orthogonal Projections ◽  
Open Set ◽  
Proper Subclass ◽  
The Family ◽  
Function Characterization ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Ideal

We study the sets that are computable from both halves of some (Martin–Löf) random sequence, which we call [Formula: see text]-bases. We show that the collection of such sets forms an ideal in the Turing degrees that is generated by its c.e. elements. It is a proper subideal of the [Formula: see text]-trivial sets. We characterize [Formula: see text]-bases as the sets computable from both halves of Chaitin’s [Formula: see text], and as the sets that obey the cost function [Formula: see text]. Generalizing these results yields a dense hierarchy of subideals in the [Formula: see text]-trivial degrees: For [Formula: see text], let [Formula: see text] be the collection of sets that are below any [Formula: see text] out of [Formula: see text] columns of some random sequence. As before, this is an ideal generated by its c.e. elements and the random sequence in the definition can always be taken to be [Formula: see text]. Furthermore, the corresponding cost function characterization reveals that [Formula: see text] is independent of the particular representation of the rational [Formula: see text], and that [Formula: see text] is properly contained in [Formula: see text] for rational numbers [Formula: see text]. These results are proved using a generalization of the Loomis–Whitney inequality, which bounds the measure of an open set in terms of the measures of its projections. The generality allows us to analyze arbitrary families of orthogonal projections. As it turns out, these do not give us new subideals of the [Formula: see text]-trivial sets; we can calculate from the family which [Formula: see text] it characterizes. We finish by studying the union of [Formula: see text] for [Formula: see text]; we prove that this ideal consists of the sets that are robustly computable from some random sequence. This class was previously studied by Hirschfeldt [D. R. Hirschfeldt, C. G. Jockusch, R. Kuyper and P. E. Schupp, Coarse reducibility and algorithmic randomness, J. Symbolic Logic 81(3) (2016) 1028–1046], who showed that it is a proper subclass of the [Formula: see text]-trivial sets. We prove that all such sets are robustly computable from [Formula: see text], and that they form a proper subideal of the sets computable from every (weakly) LR-hard random sequence. We also show that the ideal cannot be characterized by a cost function, giving the first such example of a [Formula: see text] subideal of the [Formula: see text]-trivial sets.

Recursive isomorphism types of recursive Boolean algebras

1981 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 572-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. B. Remmel
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Recursive Function ◽  
Boolean Algebras ◽  
Isomorphism Type ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Main Question ◽  
Partial Recursive Function ◽  
Recursive Isomorphism ◽  
Infinite Set ◽  
The Ideal

A Boolean algebra is recursive if B is a recursive subset of the natural numbers N and the operations ∧ (meet), ∨ (join), and ¬ (complement) are partial recursive. Given two Boolean algebras and , we write if is isomorphic to and if is recursively isomorphic to , that is, if there is a partial recursive function f: B1 → B2 which is an isomorphism from to . will denote the set of atoms of and () will denote the ideal generated by the atoms of .One of the main questions which motivated this paper is “To what extent does the classical isomorphism type of a recursive Boolean algebra restrict the possible recursion theoretic properties of ?” For example, it is easy to see that must be co-r.e. (i.e., N − is an r.e. set), but can be immune, not immune, cohesive, etc? It follows from a result of Goncharov [4] that there exist classical isomorphism types which contain recursive Boolean algebras but do not contain any recursive Boolean algebras such that is recursive. Thus the classical isomorphism can restrict the possible Turing degrees of , but what is the extent of this restriction? Another main question is “What is the recursion theoretic relationship between and () in a recursive Boolean algebra?” In our attempt to answer these questions, we were led to a wide variety of recursive isomorphism types which are contained in the classical isomorphism type of any recursive Boolean algebra with an infinite set of atoms.

scholarly journals Computably enumerable Turing degrees and the meet property

2015 ◽  
Vol 144 (4) ◽  
pp. 1735-1744 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedict Durrant ◽  
Andy Lewis-Pye ◽  
Keng Meng Ng ◽  
James Riley
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Computably Enumerable

Embedding finite lattices into the ideals of computably enumerable turing degrees

2001 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 1791-1802
Author(s):  
William C. Calhoun ◽  
Manuel Lerman
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Sufficient Condition ◽  
Necessary And Sufficient Condition ◽  
Finite Lattices ◽  
Necessary And Sufficient ◽  
Lattice Of Ideals ◽  
Computably Enumerable

Abstract.We show that the lattice L20 is not embeddable into the lattice of ideals of computably enumerable Turing degrees (ℐ), We define a structure called a pseudolattice that generalizes the notion of a lattice, and show that there is a Π2 necessary and sufficient condition for embedding a finite pseudolattice into ℐ.

scholarly journals Randomness, lowness and degrees

2008 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 559-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Barmpalias ◽  
Andrew E. M. Lewis ◽  
Mariya Soskova
Keyword(s):  
Random Number ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Computably Enumerable

AbstractWe say that A ≤LRB if every B-random number is A-random. Intuitively this means that if oracle A can identify some patterns on some real γ, oracle B can also find patterns on γ. In other words, B is at least as good as A for this purpose. We study the structure of the LR degrees globally and locally (i.e., restricted to the computably enumerable degrees) and their relationship with the Turing degrees. Among other results we show that whenever ∝ is not GL2 the LR degree of ∝ bounds degrees (so that, in particular, there exist LR degrees with uncountably many predecessors) and we give sample results which demonstrate how various techniques from the theory of the c.e. degrees can be used to prove results about the c.e. LR degrees.

scholarly journals Definable Encodings in the Computably Enumerable Sets

2000 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A. Cholak ◽  
Leo A. Harrington
Keyword(s):  
Computability Theory ◽  
Finite Sets ◽  
Warm Up ◽  
Computably Enumerable Sets ◽  
Disjoint Sets ◽  
New Form ◽  
Historical Remarks ◽  
Equivalent Class ◽  
The Ideal ◽  
Computably Enumerable

The purpose of this communication is to announce some recent results on the computably enumerable sets. There are two disjoint sets of results; the first involves invariant classes and the second involves automorphisms of the computably enumerable sets. What these results have in common is that the guts of the proofs of these theorems uses a new form of definable coding for the computably enumerable sets.We will work in the structure of the computably enumerable sets. The language is just inclusion, ⊆. This structure is called ε.All sets will be computably enumerable non-computable sets and all degrees will be computably enumerable and non-computable, unless otherwise noted. Our notation and definitions are standard and follow Soare [1987]; however we will warm up with some definitions and notation issues so the reader need not consult Soare [1987]. Some historical remarks follow in Section 2.1 and throughout Section 3.We will also consider the quotient structure ε modulo the ideal of finite sets, ε*. ε* is a definable quotient structure of ε since “Χ is finite” is definable in ε; “Χ is finite” iff all subsets of Χ are computable (it takes a little computability theory to show if Χ is infinite then Χ has an infinite non-computable subset). We use A* to denote the equivalent class of A under the ideal of finite sets.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document