Congruence relations, filters, ideals, and definability in lattices of α-recursively enumerable sets

1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 405-418
Author(s):  
Manuel Lerman
Keyword(s):  
Congruence Relation ◽  
Lattice Theory ◽  
Elementary Theory ◽  
Finite Sets ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Set Inclusion ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Congruence Relations ◽  
Elementary Theories

Throughout this paper, α will denote an admissible ordinal. Let (α) denote the lattice of α-r.e. sets, i.e., the lattice whose elements are the α-r.e. sets, and whose ordering is given by set inclusion. Call a set A ∈ (α)α*-finite if it is α-finite and has ordertype < α* (the Σ1-projectum of α). The α*-finite sets form an ideal of (α), and factoring (α) by this ideal, we obtain the quotient lattice *(α).We will fix a language ℒ suitable for lattice theory, and discuss decidability in terms of this language. Two approaches have succeeded in making some progress towards determining the decidability of the elementary theory of (α). Each approach was first used by Lachlan for α = ω. The first approach is to relate the decidability of the elementary theory of (α) to that of a suitable quotient lattice of (α) by a congruence relation definable in ℒ. This technique was used by Lachlan [4, §1] to obtain the equidecidability of the elementary theories of (ω) and *(ω), and was generalized by us [6, Corollary 1.2] to yield the equidecidability of the elementary theories of (α) and *(α) for all α. Lachlan [3] then adopted a different approach.

Types of simple α-recursively enumerable sets

1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 419-426
Author(s):  
Manuel Lerman
Keyword(s):  
Lattice Theory ◽  
Regular Cardinal ◽  
Finite Sets ◽  
First Order ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Regular Cardinals ◽  
Constructible Sets ◽  
Set Inclusion ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets

Let α be an admissible ordinal, and let (α) denote the lattice of α-r.e. sets, ordered by set inclusion. An α-r.e. set A is α*-finite if it is α-finite and has ordertype less than α* (the Σ1 projectum of α). An a-r.e. set S is simple if (the complement of S) is not α*-finite, but all the α-r.e. subsets of are α*-finite. Fixing a first-order language ℒ suitable for lattice theory (see [2, §1] for such a language), and noting that the α*-finite sets are exactly those elements of (α), all of whose α-r.e. subsets have complements in (α) (see [4, p. 356]), we see that the class of simple α-r.e. sets is definable in ℒ over (α). In [4, §6, (Q22)], we asked whether an admissible ordinal α exists for which all simple α-r.e. sets have the same 1-type. We were particularly interested in this question for α = ℵ1L (L is Gödel's universe of constructible sets). We will show that for all α which are regular cardinals of L (ℵ1L is, of course, such an α), there are simple α-r.e. sets with different 1-types.The sentence exhibited which differentiates between simple α-r.e. sets is not the first one which comes to mind. Using α = ω for intuition, one would expect any of the sentences “S is a maximal α-r.e. set”, “S is an r-maximal α-r.e. set”, or “S is a hyperhypersimple α-r.e. set” to differentiate between simple α-r.e. sets. However, if α > ω is a regular cardinal of L, there are no maximal, r-maximal, or hyperhypersimple α-r.e. sets (see [4, Theorem 4.11], [5, Theorem 5.1] and [1,Theorem 5.21] respectively). But another theorem of (ω) points the way.

Congruence relations on lattices of recursively enumerable sets

2002 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 497-504
Author(s):  
Todd Hammond
Keyword(s):  
Computational Complexity ◽  
Equivalence Class ◽  
Equivalence Relation ◽  
Congruence Relation ◽  
Equivalence Classes ◽  
Complexity Classes ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Congruence Relations ◽  
Standard Enumeration

Let {We}e∈ω be a standard enumeration of the recursively enumerable (r. e.) subsets of ω = {0, 1, 2, …}. The lattice of recursively enumerable sets, is the structure ({We}e∈ω, ∪, ∩). is the sublattice of consisting of the recursive sets.Suppose is a lattice of subsets of ω. ≡ is said to be a congruence relation on if ≡ is an equivalence relation on and if for all U, U′ ∈ and V, V ∈ , if U ≡ U′ and V ≡ V′ then U ∪ U′ ≡ V ∪ V′ and U ∩ U′ ≡ V ∩ V′. [U] = {V ∈ | V ≡ U} is the equivalence class of U. If ≡ is a congruence relation on , the elements of the quotient lattice / ≡ are the equivalence classes of ≡. [U] ∪ [V] is defined as [U ∪ V], and [U] ∩ [V] is defined as [U ∩ V].The quotient lattices of (or of some sublattice ) correspond naturally with the congruence relations which give rise to them, and in turn the congruence relations of sublattices of can be characterized in part by their computational complexity. The aim of the present paper is to characterize congruence relations in some of the most important complexity classes.

Rice Theorems for ∑n-1 Sets

1977 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 794-805 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Finite Sets ◽  
Index Set ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
The Difference

In [3] Hay proves generalizations of Rice's Theorem and the Rice-Shapiro Theorem for differences of recursively enumerable sets (d.r.e. sets). The original Rice Theorem [5, p. 3G4, Corollary B] says that the index set of a class C of r.e. sets is recursive if and only if C is empty or C contains all r.e. sets. The Rice-Shapiro Theorem conjectured by Rice [5] and proved independently by McNaughton, Shapiro, and Myhill [4] says that the index set of a class C of r.e. sets is r.e. if and only if C is empty or C consists of all r.e. sets which extend some element of a canonically enumerable class of finite sets. Since a d.r.e. set is a difference of r.e. sets, a d.r.e. set has an index associated with it, namely, the pair of indices of the r.e. sets of which it is the difference.

Types of simple α-recursively enumerable sets

1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 681-694
Author(s):  
Anne Leggett ◽  
Richard A. Shore
Keyword(s):  
Lattice Theory ◽  
Lattice Structure ◽  
Sufficient Conditions ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Countable Ordinal ◽  
Congruence Relations ◽  
General Program ◽  
Simple Sets

One general program of α-recursion theory is to determine as much as possible of the lattice structure of (α), the lattice of α-r.e. sets under inclusion. It is hoped that structure results will shed some light on whether or not the theory of (α) is decidable with respect to a suitable language for lattice theory. Fix such a language ℒ.Many of the basic results about the lattice structure involve various sorts of simple α-r.e. sets (we use definitions which are definable in ℒ over (α)). It is easy to see that simple sets exist for all admissible α. Chong and Lerman [1] have found some necessary and some sufficient conditions for the existence of hhsimple α-r.e. sets, although a complete determination of these conditions has not yet been made. Lerman and Simpson [9] have obtained some partial results concerning r-maximal α-r.e. sets. Lerman [6] has shown that maximal α-r.e. sets exist iff a is a certain sort of constructibly countable ordinal. Lerman [5] has also investigated the congruence relations, filters, and ideals of (α). Here various sorts of simple sets have also proved to be vital tools. The importance of simple α-r.e. sets to the study of the lattice structure of (α) is hence obvious.Lerman [6, Q22] has posed the following problem: Find an admissible α for which all simple α-r.e. sets have the same 1-type with respect to the language ℒ. The structure of (α) for such an α would be much less complicated than that of (ω). Lerman [7] showed that such an α could not be a regular cardinal of L. We show that there is no such admissible α.

1-reducibility inside an m-degree with a maximal set

1992 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 1046-1056
Author(s):  
E. Herrmann
Keyword(s):  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Set Inclusion ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets

AbstractThe structure of the 1-degrees included in an m-degree with a maximal set together with the 1-reducibility relation is characterized. For this a special sublattice of the lattice of recursively enumerable sets under the set-inclusion is used.

Nowhere simple sets and the lattice of recursively enumerable sets

1978 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 322-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Shore
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Classification Scheme ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Boolean Algebras ◽  
The Other ◽  
Finite Sets ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Simple Sets ◽  
Invariant Properties

Ever since Post [4] the structure of recursively enumerable sets and their classification has been an important area in recursion theory. It is also intimately connected with the study of the lattices and of r.e. sets and r.e. sets modulo finite sets respectively. (This lattice theoretic viewpoint was introduced by Myhill [3].) Key roles in both areas have been played by the lattice of r.e. supersets, , of an r.e. set A (along with the corresponding modulo finite sets) and more recently by the group of automorphisms of and . Thus for example we have Lachlan's deep result [1] that Post's notion of A being hyperhypersimple is equivalent to (or ) being a Boolean algebra. Indeed Lachlan even tells us which Boolean algebras appear as —precisely those with Σ3 representations. There are also many other simpler but still illuminating connections between the older typology of r.e. sets and their roles in the lattice . (r-maximal sets for example are just those with completely uncomplemented.) On the other hand, work on automorphisms by Martin and by Soare [8], [9] has shown that most other Post type conditions on r.e. sets such as hypersimplicity or creativeness which are not obviously lattice theoretic are in fact not invariant properties of .In general the program of analyzing and classifying r.e. sets has been directed at the simple sets. Thus the subtypes of simple sets studied abound — between ten and fifteen are mentioned in [5] and there are others — but there seems to be much less known about the nonsimple sets. The typologies introduced for the nonsimple sets begin with Post's notion of creativeness and add on a few variations. (See [5, §8.7] and the related exercises for some examples.) Although there is a classification scheme for r.e. sets along the simple to creative line (see [5, §8.7]) it is admitted to be somewhat artificial and arbitrary. Moreover there does not seem to have been much recent work on the nonsimple sets.

Three theorems on recursive enumeration. I. Decomposition. II. Maximal set. III. Enumeration without duplication

1958 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard M. Friedberg
Keyword(s):  
Finite Number ◽  
Finite Sets ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Prime Factors

In this paper we shall prove three theorems about recursively enumerable sets. The first two answer questions posed by Myhill [1].The three proofs are independent and can be presented in any order. Certain notations will be common to all three. We shall denote by “Re” the set enumerated by the procedure of which e is the Gödel number. In describing the construction for each proof, we shall suppose that a clerk is carrying out the simultaneous enumeration of R0, R1, R2, …, in such a way that at each step only a finite number of sets have begun to be enumerated and only a finite number of the members of any set have been listed. (One plan the clerk can follow is to turn his attention at Step a to the enumeration of Re where e+1 is the number of prime factors of a. Then each Re receives his attention infinitely often.) We shall denote by “Rea” the set of numbers which, at or before Step a, the clerk has listed as members of Re. Obviously, all the Rea are finite sets, recursive uniformly in e and a. For any a we can determine effectively the highest e for which Rea is not empty, and for any a, e we can effectively find the highest member of Rea, just by scanning what the clerk has done by Step a. Additional notations will be introduced in the proofs to which they pertain.

A hierarchy of families of recursively enumerable degrees

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 1160-1170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence V. Welch
Keyword(s):  
Finite Sets ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Similar Theorem ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Complete Set ◽  
Image Position

Certain investigations have been made concerning the nature of classes of recursively enumerable sets, and the relation of such classes to the recursively enumerable indices of their sets. For instance, a theorem of Rice [3, Theorem XIV(a), p. 324] states that if A is the complete set of indices for a class of recursively enumerable sets (that is, if there is a class of recursively enumerable sets such that and if A is recursive, then either A = ⌀ or A = ω. A relate theorem by Rice and Shapiro [3, Theorem XIV(b), p. 324] can be stated as follows:Let be a class of recursively enumerable sets, and let A be the complete set of indices for . Then A is r.e. if and only if there is an r.e. set D of canonical indices of finite sets Du, u ∈ D, such thatA somewhat similar theorem of Yates is the following: Let be a class of recursively enumerable sets which contains all finite sets. Let A be the complete set of indices for . Then there is a uniform recursive enumeration of the sets in if and only if A is recursively enumerable in 0(2)—that is, if and only if A is Σ3. A corollary of this is that if C is any r.e. set such that C(2)≡T⌀(2), there is a uniform recursive enumeration of all sets We such that We ≤TC [9, Theorem 9, p. 265].

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document