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.

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.

An introduction to γ-recursion theory (or what to do in KP – Foundation)

1990 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 194-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert S. Lubarsky
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Mathematical Theory ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Reverse Mathematics ◽  
Peano Arithmetic ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Admissible Ordinals ◽  
Limited Induction ◽  
Well Foundedness

The program of reverse mathematics has usually been to find which parts of set theory, often used as a base for other mathematics, are actually necessary for some particular mathematical theory. In recent years, Slaman, Groszek, et al, have given the approach a new twist. The priority arguments of recursion theory do not naturally or necessarily lead to a foundation involving any set theory; rather, Peano Arithmetic (PA) in the language of arithmetic suffices. From this point, the appropriate subsystems to consider are fragments of PA with limited induction. A theorem in this area would then have the form that certain induction axioms are independent of, necessary for, or even equivalent to a theorem about the Turing degrees. (See, for examples, [C], [GS], [M], [MS], and [SW].)As go the integers so go the ordinals. One motivation of α-recursion theory (recursion on admissible ordinals) is to generalize classical recursion theory. Since induction in arithmetic is meant to capture the well-foundedness of ω, the corresponding axiom in set theory is foundation. So reverse mathematics, even in the context of a set theory (admissibility), can be changed by the influence of reverse recursion theory. We ask not which set existence axioms, but which foundation axioms, are necessary for the theorems of α-recursion theory.When working in the theory KP – Foundation Schema (hereinafter called KP−), one should really not call it α-recursion theory, which refers implicitly to the full set of axioms KP. Just as the name β-recursion theory refers to what would be α-recursion theory only it includes also inadmissible ordinals, we call the subject of study here γ-recursion theory. This answers a question by Sacks and S. Friedman, “What is γ-recursion theory?”

Minimal α-recursion theoretic degrees

1973 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. MacIntyre
Keyword(s):  
Recursive Function ◽  
Regular Cardinal ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Minimal Degree ◽  
The Other ◽  
Ordinal Numbers ◽  
Definition Of

This paper investigates the problem of extending the recursion theoretic construction of a minimal degree to the Kripke [2]-Platek [5] recursion theory on the ordinals less than an admissible ordinal α, a theory derived from the Takeuti [11] notion of a recursive function on the ordinal numbers. As noted in Sacks [7] when one generalizes the recursion theoretic definition of relative recursiveness to α-recursion theory for α > ω the two usual definitions give rise to two different notions of reducibility. We will show that whenever α is either a countable admissible or a regular cardinal of the constructible universe there is a subset of α whose degree is minimal for both notions of reducibility. The result is an excellent example of a theorem of ordinary recursion theory obtainable via two different constructions, one of which generalizes, the other of which does not. The construction which cannot be lifted to α-recursion theory is that of Spector [10]. We sketch the reasons for this in §3.

Forcing and reducibilities. III. Forcing in fragments of set theory

1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 1013-1034
Author(s):  
Piergiorgio Odifreddi
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Second Order ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Second Order Arithmetic ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Order Arithmetic ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Generic Set

We conclude here the treatment of forcing in recursion theory begun in Part I and continued in Part II of [31]. The numbering of sections is the continuation of the numbering of the first two parts. The bibliography is independent.In Part I our language was a first-order language: the only set we considered was the (set constant for the) generic set. In Part II a second-order language was introduced, and we had to interpret the second-order variables in some way. What we did was to consider the ramified analytic hierarchy, defined by induction as:A0 = {X ⊆ ω: X is arithmetic},Aα+1 = {X ⊆ ω: X is definable (in 2nd order arithmetic) over Aα},Aλ = ⋃α<λAα (λ limit),RA = ⋃αAα.We then used (a relativized version of) the fact that (Kleene [27]). The definition of RA is obviously modeled on the definition of the constructible hierarchy introduced by Gödel [14]. For this we no longer work in a language for second-order arithmetic, but in a language for (first-order) set theory with membership as the only nonlogical relation:L0 = ⊘,Lα+1 = {X: X is (first-order) definable over Lα},Lλ = ⋃α<λLα (λ limit),L = ⋃αLα.

Omitting types: application to recursion theory

1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Grilliot
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Model Theory ◽  
Significant Contribution ◽  
Hard Core ◽  
Completeness Theorem ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Omitting Types ◽  
Admissible Ordinals ◽  
Models Of Set Theory

Omitting-types theorems have been useful in model theory to construct models with special characteristics. For instance, one method of proving the ω-completeness theorem of Henkin [10] and Orey [20] involves constructing a model that omits the type {x ≠ 0, x ≠ 1, x ≠ 2,···} (i.e., {x ≠ 0, x ≠ 1, x ≠ 2,···} is not satisfiable in the model). Our purpose in this paper is to illustrate uses of omitting-types theorems in recursion theory. The Gandy-Kreisel-Tait Theorem [7] is the most well-known example. This theorem characterizes the class of hyperarithmetical sets as the intersection of all ω-models of analysis (the so-called hard core of analysis). The usual way to prove that a nonhyperarithmetical set does not belong to the hard core is to construct an ω-model of analysis that omits the type representing the set (Application 1). We will find basis results for and s — sets that are stronger than results previously known (Applications 2 and 3). The question of how far the natural hierarchy of hyperjumps extends was first settled by a forcing argument (Sacks) and subsequently by a compactness argument (Kripke, Richter). Another problem solved by a forcing argument (Sacks) and then by a compactness argument (Friedman-Jensen) was the characterization of the countable admissible ordinals as the relativized ω1's. Using omitting-types technique, we will supply a third kind of proof of these results (Applications 4 and 5). S. Simpson made a significant contribution in simplifying the proof of the latter result, with the interesting side effect that Friedman's result on ordinals in models of set theory is immediate (Application 6). One approach to abstract recursiveness and hyperarithmeticity on a countable set is to tenuously identify the set with the natural numbers. This approach is equivalent to other approaches to abstract recursion (Application 7). This last result may also be proved by a forcing method.

A splitting theorem for simple Π11 Sets

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 433-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C. Owings
Keyword(s):  
Analogous Result ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Splitting Theorem ◽  
One To One ◽  
Priority Argument ◽  
Recursive Set

As was first mentioned in [3, §5], if A is any – set, A is the union of two disjoint – sets B(0), B(1). In metarecursion theory this is proven as follows. Let ƒ be a one-to-one metarecursive function whose range is A, let R be an unbounded metarecursive set whose complement is also unbounded, and set B(0) = f(R), B(1) = f(). The corresponding fact of ordinary recursion theory, namely that any r.e. but not recursive set can be split into two other such sets, was proved by Friedberg [2, Theorem 1], using a clever priority argument. Sacks [7, Corollary 2] then showed that any r.e. but not recursive set is the union of two disjoint r.e. sets neither of which was recursive in the other, a much stronger result. In this paper we attempt to prove the analogous result for – sets A, but succeed only in the case A is simple; i.e., the complement of A contains no infinite subset. As a corollary we show the metadegrees are dense, a fact already announced by Sacks [8, Corollary 1], but only proven by him for nonzero metadegrees.

scholarly journals High-order metaphysics as high-order abstractions and choice in set theory

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vasil Dinev Penchev
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Axiom Of Choice ◽  
High Order ◽  
Precise Definition ◽  
The Other ◽  
Axiom Scheme ◽  
The One ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Axiom Of Choice ◽  
Comprehension Axiom

The link between the high-order metaphysics and abstractions, on the one hand, and choice in the foundation of set theory, on the other hand, can distinguish unambiguously the “good” principles of abstraction from the “bad” ones and thus resolve the “bad company problem” as to set theory. Thus it implies correspondingly a more precise definition of the relation between the axiom of choice and “all company” of axioms in set theory concerning directly or indirectly abstraction: the principle of abstraction, axiom of comprehension, axiom scheme of specification, axiom scheme of separation, subset axiom scheme, axiom scheme of replacement, axiom of unrestricted comprehension, axiom of extensionality, etc.

Immunoferritin localization of intracellular antigens in positively stained frozen sections

1978 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-169
Author(s):  
K. T. Tokuyasu
Keyword(s):  
Surface Tension ◽  
Water Surface ◽  
Thin Layers ◽  
The Other ◽  
Positive Staining ◽  
Frozen Sections ◽  
The Past ◽  
Ultrathin Frozen Sections ◽  
Definition Of

During the past investigations of immunoferritin localization of intracellular antigens in ultrathin frozen sections, we found that the degree of negative staining required to delineate u1trastructural details was often too dense for the recognition of ferritin particles. The quality of positive staining of ultrathin frozen sections, on the other hand, has generally been far inferior to that attainable in conventional plastic embedded sections, particularly in the definition of membranes. As we discussed before, a main cause of this difficulty seemed to be the vulnerability of frozen sections to the damaging effects of air-water surface tension at the time of drying of the sections.Indeed, we found that the quality of positive staining is greatly improved when positively stained frozen sections are protected against the effects of surface tension by embedding them in thin layers of mechanically stable materials at the time of drying (unpublished).

Review of the genus Astragalus section Helmia (Fabaceae)

2019 ◽  
pp. 120-131
Author(s):  
M. S. Knyazev
Keyword(s):  
Identification Key ◽  
The Other ◽  
Taxonomic Review ◽  
Narrow Scope ◽  
A Priority ◽  
Astragalus Sect

A taxonomic review of species and intraspecific taxa of the Astragalus L. section Helmia Bunge is presented. We treat the section Helmia in a traditional, narrow scope, including only 9 species and subspecies: A. helmii Fisch. ex DC., A. tergeminus (Knjaz., Kulikov et E. G. Philippov) Knjaz., A. permiensis C. A. Mey. ex Rupr., A. depauperatus Ledeb. (= A. chakassiensis Polozhij), A. kasachstanicus Golosk. subsp. kasachstanicus, A. kasachstanicus subsp. coloratus Knjaz., A. gregorii B. Fedtsch. et Basil. (= A. tuvinicus Timokhina), A. heptapotamicus Sumnev., A. ionae Palib. ex Gontsch. et Popov. With regard to the other 16 species of sect. Helmia in its widest sense, as accepted in the monograph by D. Podlech and Sh. Zarre (2013), we believe it more correct to attribute them to other sections. The rank of A. helmii var. tergeminus Knjaz., Kulikov et E. G. Philippov is raised to the species, A. tergeminus (Knjaz., Kulikov et E. G. Philippov) Knjaz. It is shown that A. gregorii is a priority name of A. tuvinicus. The epitype of A. permiensis C. A. Mey. ex Rupr. is designated. An identification key and a map of distribution for all species and subspecies of Astragalus sect. Helmia are presented.

scholarly journals Language Family Engineering with Product Lines of Multi-level Models

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan de Lara ◽  
Esther Guerra
Keyword(s):  
Software Engineering ◽  
Arbitrary Number ◽  
Formal Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Language Family ◽  
Top Down ◽  
Product Lines ◽  
Modelling Languages ◽  
Multi Level ◽  
Definition Of

AbstractModelling is an essential activity in software engineering. It typically involves two meta-levels: one includes meta-models that describe modelling languages, and the other contains models built by instantiating those meta-models. Multi-level modelling generalizes this approach by allowing models to span an arbitrary number of meta-levels. A scenario that profits from multi-level modelling is the definition of language families that can be specialized (e.g., for different domains) by successive refinements at subsequent meta-levels, hence promoting language reuse. This enables an open set of variability options given by all possible specializations of the language family. However, multi-level modelling lacks the ability to express closed variability regarding the availability of language primitives or the possibility to opt between alternative primitive realizations. This limits the reuse opportunities of a language family. To improve this situation, we propose a novel combination of product lines with multi-level modelling to cover both open and closed variability. Our proposal is backed by a formal theory that guarantees correctness, enables top-down and bottom-up language variability design, and is implemented atop the MetaDepth multi-level modelling tool.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document