An α-finite injury method of the unbounded type

1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
C. T. Chong
Keyword(s):  
Fine Structure ◽  
Initial Segment ◽  
Fundamental Importance ◽  
Upper Semilattice ◽  
The Past ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Background Material ◽  
A Priority ◽  
Admissible Ordinals ◽  
Priority Argument

Let α be an admissible ordinal. In this paper we study the structure of the upper semilattice of α-recursively enumerable degrees. Various results about the structure which are of fundamental importance had been obtained during the past two years (Sacks-Simpson [7], Lerman [4], Shore [9]). In particular, the method of finite priority argument of Friedberg and Muchnik was successfully generalized in [7] to an α-finite priority argument to give a solution of Post's problem for all admissible ordinals. We refer the reader to [7] for background material, and we also follow closely the notations used there.Whereas [7] and [4] study priority arguments in which the number of injuries inflicted on a proper initial segment of requirements can be effectively bounded (Lemma 2.3 of [7]), we tackle here priority arguments in which no such bounds exist. To this end, we focus our attention on the fine structure of Lα, much in the fashion of Jensen [2], and show that we can still use a priority argument on an indexing set of requirements just short enough to give us the necessary bounds we seek.

Almost local non-α-recursiveness

1974 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 552-562 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chi T. Chong
Keyword(s):  
Initial Segment ◽  
Continuum Hypothesis ◽  
General Question ◽  
Reflection Property ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Generalized Continuum ◽  
Background Material ◽  
Admissible Ordinals ◽  
Recursive Set

§1. Let α be an admissible ordinal which is also a limit of admissible ordinals (e.g. take any α such that α = α*, its projectum [5]). For any admissible γ ≦ α, let [γ) denote the initial segment of ordinals less than γ. A very general question that one might ask is the following: What conditions should one put on γ so that a certain statement true in Lα is ‘reflected’ to be true in Lγ? We cite some examples: (a) If β < γ < α, then Lα ⊨ “β cardinal” is ‘reflected’ to Lγ ⊨ “ β cardinal” (⊨ is just the satisfaction relation). (b) If β < γ < α and γ is a cardinal in Lα (called α-cardinal for short), then Lα ⊨ “β is not a cardinal” is ‘reflected’ to Lγ ⊨ “β is not a cardinal” This fact is used in Gödel's proof that V = L implies the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis. Our objective in this paper is to study a ‘reflection’ property of the following sort: Let A ⊆ [α) be an α-recursively enumerable (α-r.e.), non-α-recursive set. Under what conditions will A restricted to a smaller admissible ordinal γ be γ-r.e. and not γ-recursive?The notations used here are standard. Those that are not explained are adopted from the paper of Sacks and Simpson [5], to which we also refer the reader for background material.

Σn sets which are Δn-incomparable (uniformly)

1974 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Shore
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Direct Generalization ◽  
Natural Notion ◽  
A Priority ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Admissible Ordinals ◽  
Priority Argument

In this paper we will present an application of generalized recursion theory to (noncombinatorial) set theory. More precisely we will combine a priority argument in α-recursion theory with a forcing construction to prove a theorem about the interdefinability of certain subsets of admissible ordinals.Our investigation was prompted by G. Sacks and S. Simpson asking [6] if it is obvious that there are, for each Σn-admissible α, Σn (over Lα) subsets of α which are Δn-incomparable. If one understands “B is Δn in C” to mean that there are Σn/Lα reduction procedures which put out B and when one feeds in C, then the answer is an unqualified “yes.” In this sense “Δn in” is a direct generalization of “α-recursive in” (replace Σ1 by Σn in the definition) and so amenable to the methods of [7, §§3, 5]. Indeed one simply chooses a complete Σn−1 set A and mimics the construction of [6] as modified in [7, §5] to produce two α-A-r.e. sets B and C neither of which is α-A-recursive in the other. By the remarks on translation [7, §3] this will immediately give the desired result for this definition of “Δn in.”There is, however, the more obvious and natural notion of “Δn in” to be considered: B is Δn in C iff there are Σn and Πn formulas of ⟨Lα, C⟩ which define B.

The uniform regular set theorem in α-recursion theory

1978 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 270-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Maass
Keyword(s):  
Initial Segment ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Typical Situation ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Constructible Sets ◽  
Admissible Ordinals ◽  
Special Case

Several new features arise in the generalization of recursion theory on ω to recursion theory on admissible ordinals α, thus making α-recursion theory an interesting theory. One of these is the appearance of irregular sets. A subset A of α is called regular (over α), if we have for all β < α that A ∩ B ∈ Lα, otherwise A is called irregular (over α). So in the special case of ordinary recursion theory (α = ω) every subset of α is regular, but if α is not a cardinal of L we find constructible sets A ⊆ α which are irregular. The notion of regularity becomes essential, if we deal with α-recursively enumerable (α-r.e.) sets in priority constructions (α-r.e. is defined as Σ1 over Lα). The typical situation occurring there is that an α-r.e. set A is enumerated during some construction in which one tries to satisfy certain requirements. Often this construction succeeds only if we can insure that every initial segment A ∩ β of A is completely enumerated at some stage before α. This calls for making sure that A is regular because due to the admissibility of α an α-r.e. set A is regular iff for every (or equivalently for one) enumeration f of A (f is an enumeration of A iff f: α → A is α-recursive, total, 1-1 and onto) we have that is the image of the set σ under f).

A minimal degree not realizing least possible jump

1974 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 571-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard P. Sasso
Keyword(s):  
Lebesgue Measure ◽  
Minimal Degree ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Degree Constructions ◽  
A Priority ◽  
Combinatorial Device ◽  
Priority Argument ◽  
New System

The least possible jump for a degree of unsolvability a is its join a ∪ 0′ with 0′. Friedberg [1] showed that each degree b ≥ 0′ is the jump of a degree a realizing least possible jump (i.e., satisfying the equation a′ = a ∪ 0′). Sacks (cf. Stillwell [8]) showed that most (in the sense of Lebesgue measure) degrees realize least possible jump. Nevertheless, degrees not realizing least possible jump are easily found (e.g., any degree b ≥ 0′) even among the degrees <0′ (cf. Shoenfield [5]) and the recursively enumerable (r.e.) degrees (cf. Sacks [3]).A degree is called minimal if it is minimal in the natural partial ordering of degrees excluding least element 0. The existence of minimal degrees <0” was first shown by Spector [7]; Sacks [3] succeeded in replacing 0” by 0′ using a priority argument. Yates [9] asked whether all minimal degrees <0′ realize least possible jump after showing that some do by exhibiting minimal degrees below each r.e. degree. Cooper [2] subsequently showed that each degree b > 0′ is the jump of a minimal degree which, as corollary to his method of proof, realizes least possible jump. We show with the aid of a simple combinatorial device applied to a minimal degree construction in the manner of Spector [7] that not all minimal degrees realize least possible jump. We have observed in conjunction with S. B. Cooper and R. Epstein that the new combinatorial device may also be applied to minimal degree constructions in the manner of Sacks [3], Shoenfield [6] or [4] in order to construct minimal degrees <0′ not realizing least possible jump. This answers Yates' question in the negative. Yates [10], however, has been able to draw this as an immediate corollary of the weaker result by carrying out the proof in his new system of prioric games.

Integrability: From Statistical Systems to Gauge Theory

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Field Theory ◽  
Gauge Theory ◽  
Summer School ◽  
Condensed Matter ◽  
Theoretical Physics ◽  
Conformal Field ◽  
The Past ◽  
Background Material ◽  
Supersymmetric Gauge ◽  
Statistical Systems

This volume contains lectures delivered at the Les Houches Summer School ‘Integrability: from statistical systems to gauge theory’ held in June 2016. The School was focussed on applications of integrability to supersymmetric gauge and string theory, a subject of high and increasing interest in the mathematical and theoretical physics communities over the past decade. Relevant background material was also covered, with lecture series introducing the main concepts and techniques relevant to modern approaches to integrability, conformal field theory, scattering amplitudes, and gauge/string duality. The book will be useful not only to those working directly on integrablility in string and guage theories, but also to researchers in related areas of condensed matter physics and statistical mechanics.

α-degrees of α-theories

1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 677-682 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Metakides
Keyword(s):  
Initial Segment ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Infinite Length ◽  
Infinitary Logic ◽  
Admissible Set ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Limit Ordinal ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Further Development

Let α be a limit ordinal with the property that any “recursive” function whose domain is a proper initial segment of α has its range bounded by α. α is then called admissible (in a sense to be made precise later) and a recursion theory can be developed on it (α-recursion theory) by providing the generalized notions of α-recursively enumerable, α-recursive and α-finite. Takeuti [12] was the first to study recursive functions of ordinals, the subject owing its further development to Kripke [7], Platek [8], Kreisel [6], and Sacks [9].Infinitary logic on the other hand (i.e., the study of languages which allow expressions of infinite length) was quite extensively studied by Scott [11], Tarski, Kreisel, Karp [5] and others. Kreisel suggested in the late '50's that these languages (even which allows countable expressions but only finite quantification) were too large and that one should only allow expressions which are, in some generalized sense, finite. This made the application of generalized recursion theory to the logic of infinitary languages appear natural. In 1967 Barwise [1] was the first to present a complete formalization of the restriction of to an admissible fragment (A a countable admissible set) and to prove that completeness and compactness hold for it. [2] is an excellent reference for a detailed exposition of admissible languages.

ASPECTS REGARDING THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN IMPROVING DEFENSE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 323-330
Author(s):  
Gabriela-Florina NICOARĂ ◽  
Gergonia-Cristiana BOGĂȚEANU
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Resource Management ◽  
Technological Progress ◽  
Digital Systems ◽  
Constructive Approach ◽  
The Past ◽  
A Priority ◽  
High Level

Abstract: Regarding the society evolution dominated by a high-level technology, we consider this article a constructive approach. The aim of the paper is to highlight a few activities/places/spots in which competences of humans/soldiers interfere with different elements of the artificial intelligence. We deem that the technological progress in the past few years has been impressive. Nowadays, thousands of activities that were mostly or exclusively executed by people can be done faster and often with greater precision using digital systems. In this instance and considering the achievement of functional compatibility between Romanian Army and forces from NATO as being a priority, the development of the technology based on artificial intelligence is vital within the defense resource management.

Minimal degrees and the jump operator

1973 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. B. Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Minimal Degree ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Jump Operator ◽  
Upper Semilattice ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Original Number ◽  
Nonzero Degree ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Degrees Of Unsolvability

The jump a′ of a degree a is defined to be the largest degree recursively enumerable in a in the upper semilattice of degrees of unsolvability. We examine below some of the ways in which the jump operation is related to the partial ordering of the degrees. Fried berg [3] showed that the equation a = x′ is solvable if and only if a ≥ 0′. Sacks [13] showed that we can find a solution of a = x′ which is ≤ 0′ (and in fact is r.e.) if and only if a ≥ 0′ and is r.e. in 0′. Spector [16] constructed a minimal degree and Sacks [13] constructed one ≤ 0′. So far the only result concerning the relationship between minimal degrees and the jump operator is one due to Yates [17] who showed that there is a minimal predecessor for each non-recursive r.e. degree, and hence that there is a minimal degree with jump 0′. In §1, we obtain an analogue of Friedberg's theorem by constructing a minimal degree solution for a = x′ whenever a ≥ 0′. We incorporate Friedberg5s original number-theoretic device with a complicated sequence of approximations to the nest of trees necessary for the construction of a minimal degree. The proof of Theorem 1 is a revision of an earlier, shorter presentation, and incorporates many additions and modifications suggested by R. Epstein. In §2, we show that any hope for a result analogous to that of Sacks on the jumps of r.e. degrees cannot be fulfilled since 0″ is not the jump of any minimal degree below 0′. We use a characterization of the degrees below 0′ with jump 0″ similar to that found for r.e. degrees with jump 0′ by R. W. Robinson [12]. Finally, in §3, we give a proof that every degree a ≤ 0′ with a′ = 0″ has a minimal predecessor. Yates [17] has already shown that every nonzero r.e. degree has a minimal predecessor, but that there is a nonzero degree ≤ 0′ with no minimal predecessor (see [18]; or for the original unrelativized result see [10] or [4]).

scholarly journals Experimental methods for investigating protein adsorption kinetics at surfaces

1994 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeremy J. Ramsden
Keyword(s):  
Protein Adsorption ◽  
Adsorption Kinetics ◽  
Experimental Methods ◽  
Liquid Interface ◽  
Fundamental Importance ◽  
The Past ◽  
Strong Interest ◽  
Solid Liquid Interface ◽  
Solid Liquid

The adsorption of proteins at the solid-liquid interface is a process of fundamental importance in nature. Extensive reviews (MacRitchie, 1978; Andrade & Hlady, 1986; Norde, 1986) testify to the strong interest which has been shown in the problem during the past few decades. Norde & Lyklema (1978) have rightly pointed out that protein adsorption is scientifically intriguing; the phenomenology is complicated and includes many presently apparently irreconcilable observations.

The Human Comedy in Westminster: The House of Commons, 1604–1629

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 370-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Cogswell
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Importance ◽  
House Of Commons ◽  
Research Project ◽  
Quarter Century ◽  
The Past

AbstractThe completion of the House of Commons, 1604–1629, a sprawling research project involving over a dozen scholars who have toiled in the archival vineyards for the past quarter century, is a development of fundamental importance for the study of early Stuart history. This essay highlights some of its many findings and suggests some directions for further research, deploying the riches in these six volumes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document