Simplicity of recursively enumerable sets

1967 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert W. Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Original Definition ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Simple Sets

In §1 is given a characterization of strongly hypersimple sets in terms of weak arrays which is in appearance more restrictive than the original definition. §1 also includes a new characterization of hyperhypersimple sets. This one is interesting because in §2 a characterization of dense simple sets is shown which is identical in all but the use of strong arrays instead of weak arrays. Another characterization of hyperhypersimple sets, in terms of descending sequences of sets, is given in §3. Also a theorem showing strongly contrasting behavior for simple sets is presented. In §4 a r-maximal set which is not contained in any maximal set is constructed.

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.

Variations on promptly simple sets

1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 138-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Maass
Keyword(s):  
Recursive Function ◽  
Splitting Property ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Simple Sets

In this paper we answer the question of whether all low sets with the splitting property are promptly simple. Further we try to make the role of lowness properties and prompt simplicity in the construction of automorphisms of the lattice of r.e. (recursively enumerable) sets more perspicuous. It turns out that two new properties of r.e. sets, which are dual to each other, are essential in this context: the prompt and the low shrinking property.In an earlier paper [4] we had shown (using Soare's automorphism construction [10] and [12]) that all r.e. generic sets are automorphic in the lattice ℰ of r.e. sets under inclusion. We called a set A promptly simple if Ā is infinite and there is a recursive enumeration of A and the r.e. sets (We)e∈N such that if We is infinite then there is some element (or equivalently: infinitely many elements) x of We such that x gets into A “promptly” after its appearance in We (i.e. for some fixed total recursive function f we have x ∈ Af(s), where s is the stage at which x entered We). Prompt simplicity in combination with lowness turned out to capture those properties of r.e. generic sets that were used in the mentioned automorphism result. In a following paper with Shore and Stob [7] we studied an ℰ-definable consequence of prompt simplicity: the splitting property.

scholarly journals Automorphisms of the lattice of recursively enumerable sets: promptly simple sets

1992 ◽  
Vol 332 (2) ◽  
pp. 555-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Cholak ◽  
R. Downey ◽  
M. Stob
Keyword(s):  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Simple Sets

Characterization of recursively enumerable sets

1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 507-511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesse B. Wright
Keyword(s):  
Transitive Closure ◽  
Successor Function ◽  
Function Composition ◽  
Recursive Functions ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Abstract Setting ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Bracket Operation

AbstractLet N, O and S denote the set of nonnegative integers, the graph of the constant 0 function and the graph of the successor function respectively. For sets P, Q, R ⊆ N2 operations of transposition, composition, and bracketing are defined as follows: P∪ = {〈x, y〉 ∣ 〈y, x〉 ∈ P}, PQ = {〈x, z〉 ∣ ∃y〈x, y〉 ∈ P & 〈y, z〉 ∈ Q}, and [P, Q, R] = ⋃n ∈ M(Pn Q Rn).Theorem. The class of recursively enumerable subsets of N2 is the smallest class of sets with O and S as members and closed under transposition, composition, and bracketing.This result is derived from a characterization by Julia Robinson of the class of general recursive functions of one variable in terms of function composition and “definition by general recursion.” A key step in the proof is to show that if a function F is defined by general recursion from functions A, M, P and R then F = [P∪, A∪M, R].The above definitions of the transposition, composition, and bracketing operations on subsets of N2 can be generalized to subsets of X2 for an arbitrary set X. In this abstract setting it is possible to show that the bracket operation can be defined in terms of K, L, transposition, composition, intersection, and reflexive transitive closure where K: X → X and L: X → X are functions for decoding pairs.

Decidability of the two-quantifier theory of the recursively enumerable weak truth-table degrees and other distributive upper semi-lattices

1996 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 880-905 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Ambos-Spies ◽  
Peter A. Fejer ◽  
Steffen Lempp ◽  
Manuel Lerman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Procedure ◽  
Finite Lattice ◽  
Truth Table ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Finite Lattices ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Weak Truth Table Degrees ◽  
Quantifier Theory ◽  
The Ideal

AbstractWe give a decision procedure for the ∀∃-theory of the weak truth-table (wtt) degrees of the recursively enumerable sets. The key to this decision procedure is a characterization of the finite lattices which can be embedded into the r.e.wtt-degrees by a map which preserves the least and greatest elements: a finite lattice has such an embedding if and only if it is distributive and the ideal generated by its cappable elements and the filter generated by its cuppable elements are disjoint.We formulate general criteria that allow one to conclude that a distributive upper semi-lattice has a decidable two-quantifier theory. These criteria are applied not only to the weak truth-table degrees of the recursively enumerable sets but also to various substructures of the polynomial many-one (pm) degrees of the recursive sets. These applications to thepmdegrees require no new complexity-theoretic results. The fact that thepm-degrees of the recursive sets have a decidable two-quantifier theory answers a question raised by Shore and Slaman in [21].

On degrees of unsolvability and complexity properties

1975 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 529-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Marques
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degree ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Complete Sets ◽  
Turing Complete ◽  
Degrees Of Unsolvability

In this paper we present two theorems concerning relationships between degrees of unsolvability of recursively enumerable sets and their complexity properties.The first theorem asserts that there are nonspeedable recursively enumerable sets in every recursively enumerable Turing degree. This theorem disproves the conjecture that all Turing complete sets are speedable, which arose from the fact that a rather inclusive subclass of the Turing complete sets, namely, the subcreative sets, consists solely of effectively speedable sets [2]. Furthermore, the natural construction to produce a nonspeedable set seems to lower the degree of the resulting set.The second theorem says that every speedable set has jump strictly above the jump of the recursive sets. This theorem is an expected one in view of the fact that all sets which are known to be speedable jump to the double jump of the recursive sets [4].After this paper was written, R. Soare [8] found a very useful characterization of the speedable sets which greatly facilitated the proofs of the results presented here. In addition his characterization implies that an r.e. degree a contains a speed-able set iff a′ > 0′.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document