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).

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.

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.

scholarly journals The Role of True Finiteness in the Admissible Recursively Enumerable Degrees

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 398-410
Author(s):  
Noam Greenberg
Keyword(s):  
Partially Ordered Sets ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Ordered Sets ◽  
First Order ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Order Language ◽  
Replacement Scheme ◽  
Admissible Ordinals ◽  
Models Of Arithmetic

AbstractWhen attempting to generalize recursion theory to admissible ordinals, it may seem as if all classical priority constructions can be lifted to any admissible ordinal satisfying a sufficiently strong fragment of the replacement scheme. We show, however, that this is not always the case. In fact, there are some constructions which make an essential use of the notion of finiteness which cannot be replaced by the generalized notion of α-finiteness. As examples we discuss both codings of models of arithmetic into the recursively enumerable degrees, and non-distributive lattice embeddings into these degrees. We show that if an admissible ordinal α is effectively close to ω (where this closeness can be measured by size or by cofinality) then such constructions may be performed in the α-r.e. degrees, but otherwise they fail. The results of these constructions can be expressed in the first-order language of partially ordered sets, and so these results also show that there are natural elementary differences between the structures of α-r.e. degrees for various classes of admissible ordinals α. Together with coding work which shows that for some α, the theory of the α-r.e. degrees is complicated, we get that for every admissible ordinal α, the α-r.e. degrees and the classical r.e. degrees are not elementarily equivalent.

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.

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.

A representation of recursively enumerable sets through Horn formulas in higher recursion theory

2016 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan A. Nido Valencia ◽  
Julio E. Solís Daun ◽  
Luis M. Villegas Silva
Keyword(s):  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Horn Formulas ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets

scholarly journals The infinite injury priority method

1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 513-530 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert I. Soare
Keyword(s):  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Powerful Method ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Priority Method

One of the most important and distinctive tools in recursion theory has been the priority method whereby a recursively enumerable (r.e.) set A is constructed by stages to satisfy a sequence of conditions {Rn}n∈ω called requirements. If n < m, requirement Rn is given priority over Rm and action taken for Rm at some stage s may at a later stage t > s be undone for the sake of Rn thereby injuring Rm at stage t. The first priority method was invented by Friedberg [2] and Muchnik [11] to solve Post's problem and is characterized by the fact that each requirement is injured at most finitely often.Shoenfield [20, Lemma 1], and then independently Sacks [17] and Yates [25] invented a much more powerful method in which a requirement may be injured infinitely often, and the method was applied and refined by Sacks [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] and Yates [25], [26] to obtain many deep results on r.e. sets and their degrees. In spite of numerous simplifications and variations this infinite injury method has never been as well understood as the finite injury method because of its apparently greater complexity.The purpose of this paper is to reduce the Sacks method to two easily understood lemmas whose proofs are very similar to the finite injury case. Using these lemmas we can derive all the results of Sacks on r.e. degrees, and some by Yates and Robinson as well, in a manner accessible to the nonspecialist. The heart of the method is an ingenious observation of Lachlan [7] which is combined with a further simplification of our own.

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.

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?”

scholarly journals Formalization of the MRDP Theorem in the Mizar System

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-221
Author(s):  
Karol Pąk
Keyword(s):  
Normal Form ◽  
Linear Equations ◽  
Negative Solution ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Set ◽  
Pell’S Equation ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Finite Products ◽  
Special Case ◽  
Martin Davis

Summary This article is the final step of our attempts to formalize the negative solution of Hilbert’s tenth problem. In our approach, we work with the Pell’s Equation defined in [2]. We analyzed this equation in the general case to show its solvability as well as the cardinality and shape of all possible solutions. Then we focus on a special case of the equation, which has the form x2 − (a2 − 1)y2 = 1 [8] and its solutions considered as two sequences $\left\{ {{x_i}(a)} \right\}_{i = 0}^\infty ,\left\{ {{y_i}(a)} \right\}_{i = 0}^\infty$ . We showed in [1] that the n-th element of these sequences can be obtained from lists of several basic Diophantine relations as linear equations, finite products, congruences and inequalities, or more precisely that the equation x = yi(a) is Diophantine. Following the post-Matiyasevich results we show that the equality determined by the value of the power function y = xz is Diophantine, and analogously property in cases of the binomial coe cient, factorial and several product [9]. In this article, we combine analyzed so far Diophantine relation using conjunctions, alternatives as well as substitution to prove the bounded quantifier theorem. Based on this theorem we prove MDPR-theorem that every recursively enumerable set is Diophantine, where recursively enumerable sets have been defined by the Martin Davis normal form. The formalization by means of Mizar system [5], [7], [4] follows [10], Z. Adamowicz, P. Zbierski [3] as well as M. Davis [6].

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document