Recursion theory on orderings. I. A model theoretic setting

1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 383-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Metakides ◽  
J.B. Remmel
Keyword(s):  
Algebraic Closure ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Boolean Algebras ◽  
Vector Spaces ◽  
Formal Definition ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
Partial Orderings ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Algebraically Closed Fields

In [6], Metakides and Nerode introduced the study of the lattice of recursively enumerable substructures of a recursively presented model as a means to understand the recursive content of certain algebraic constructions. For example, the lattice of recursively enumerable subspaces,, of a recursively presented vector spaceV∞has been studied by Kalantari, Metakides and Nerode, Retzlaff, Remmel and Shore. Similar studies have been done by Remmel [12], [13] for Boolean algebras and by Metakides and Nerode [9] for algebraically closed fields. In all of these models, the algebraic closure of a set is nontrivial. (The formal definition of the algebraic closure of a setS, denoted cl(S), is given in §1, however in vector spaces, cl(S) is just the subspace generated byS, in Boolean algebras, cl(S) is just the subalgebra generated byS, and in algebraically closed fields, cl(S) is just the algebraically closed subfield generated byS.)In this paper, we give a general model theoretic setting (whose precise definition will be given in §1) in which we are able to give constructions which generalize many of the constructions of classical recursion theory. One of the main features of the modelswhich we study is that the algebraic closure of setis just itself, i.e., cl(S) = S. Examples of such models include the natural numbers under equality 〈N, = 〉, the rational numbers under the usual ordering 〈Q, ≤〉, and a large class ofn-dimensional partial orderings.

Recursion theory in a lower semilattice

1992 ◽  
Vol 57 (3) ◽  
pp. 892-911 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Feldman
Keyword(s):  
Lower Bound ◽  
Partial Order ◽  
Algebraic Structure ◽  
Algebraic Closure ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Vector Spaces ◽  
Algebraic Structures ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
Algebraically Closed Fields

In §3 we construct a universal, ℵ0-categorical recursively presented partial order with greatest lower bound operator. This gives us the unique structure which embeds every countable lower semilattice. In §§5 and 6 we investigate the recursive and recursively enumerable substructures of this structure, in particular finding a suitable definition for the simple-maximal hierarchy and giving an example of an infinite recursively enumerable substructure which does not contain any infinite recursive substructure.The idea of looking at the lattice of recursively enumerable substructures of some recursive algebraic structure was introduced by Metakides and Nerode in [5], and since then many different kinds of algebraic structures have been studied in this way, including vector spaces, Boolean algebras, groups, algebraically closed fields, and equivalence relations. Since different algebraic structures have different recursion theoretic properties, one natural question is whether an algebraic structure with relatively little structure (such as a partial order or an equivalence relation) exhibits behavior more like classical recursion theory than one with more structure (such as vector spaces or algebraically closed fields).In [6] and [7], Metakides and Remmel studied recursion theory on orderings, and, as they point out in [6], orderings differ from most other algebraic structures in that the algebraic closure operation on orderings is trivial; but this does not present a problem for them, given the questions they explore. Moreover, they take an approach of proving general theorems which can then be applied to specific orderings. Our tack is different, although also well-established (see, for example, [3]), in which a “largest” structure is defined (in §3) which corresponds to the natural numbers in classical recursion theory. In order to distinguish substructures from subsets, a function symbol is added, namely greatest lower bound. The greatest lower bound function is fundamental to the study of orderings and occurs naturally in many of them, and thus is an appropriate addition to the theory of orderings. In §4 we redefine the concepts of simple and maximal in a manner appropriate to this structure, and prove several existence theorems.

G. Metakides and A. Nerode. Recursion theory and algebra. Algebra and logic, Papers from the 1974 Summer Research Institute of the Australian Mathematical Society, Monash University, Australia, edited by J. N. Crossley, Lecture notes in mathematics, vol. 450, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, and New York, 1975, pp. 209–219. - Iraj Kalantari and Allen Retzlaff. Maximal vector spaces under automorphisms of the lattice of recursively enumerable vector spaces. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 42 no. 4 (for 1977, pub. 1978), pp. 481–491. - Iraj Kalantari. Major subspaces of recursively enumerable vector spaces. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 43 (1978), pp. 293–303. - J. Remmel. A r-maximal vector space not contained in any maximal vector space. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 43 (1978), pp. 430–441. - Allen Retzlaff. Simple and hyperhypersimple vector spaces. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 43 (1978), pp. 260–269. - J. B. Remmel. Maximal and cohesive vector spaces. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 42 no. 3 (for 1977, pub. 1978), pp. 400–418. - J. Remmel. On r.e. and co-r.e. vector spaces with nonextendible bases. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 45 (1980), pp. 20–34. - M. Lerman and J. B. Remmel. The universal splitting property: I. Logic Colloquim '80, Papers intended for the European summer meeting of the Association for Symbolic Logic, edited by D. van Dalen, D. Lascar, and T. J. Smiley, Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics, vol. 108, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, New York, and Oxford, 1982, pp. 181–207. - J. B. Remmel. Recursively enumerable Boolean algebras. Annals of mathematical logic, vol. 15 (1978), pp. 75–107. - J. B. Remmel. r-Maximal Boolean algebras. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 44 (1979), pp. 533–548. - J. B. Remmel. Recursion theory on algebraic structures with independent sets. Annals of mathematical logic, vol. 18 (1980), pp. 153–191. - G. Metakides and J. B. Remmel. Recursion theory on orderings. I. A model theoretic setting. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 44 (1979), pp. 383–402. - J. B. Remmel. Recursion theory on orderings. II. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 45 (1980), pp. 317–333.

1986 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 229-232
Author(s):  
Henry A. Kierstead
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Mathematical Logic ◽  
Vector Space ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Boolean Algebras ◽  
Vector Spaces ◽  
Symbolic Logic ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
North Holland Publishing ◽  
And Algebra

On the representation of Herbrand functions in algebraically closed fields

1957 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. H. Lightstone ◽  
A. Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Algebraic Closure ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Choice Functions ◽  
Commutative Field ◽  
Algebraic Functions ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Necessary And Sufficient ◽  
Algebraically Closed Fields

1. Let X be a statement which is formulated in the lower predicate calculus in terms of the relations of addition, multiplication, and equality, and — possibly — of the elements of a given commutative field M. Suppose moreover that X is in prenex normal form, e.g.where Z does not include any further quantifiers. In order that X be satisfied by the algebraic closure M* of M, it is necessary and sufficient that there exist Herbrand functions (or choice functions) φ1(x1, x2), φ2(x1, x2), φ3(x1, x2, x3, x4) with arguments ranging over M* and taking values in M* such thatholds for all x1, x2, x3, x4 in M*. In general the definition of these functions is far from being unique, and a priori they bear no relation to the functions which are defined ‘naturally’ in M* i.e. the rational, and more generally the algebraic, functions with coefficients in M or M*. However, we shall show in the present paper that the entire domain of variation of the arguments x1, x2, x3, x4 — regarded as the affine space S4 over M* — can be divided up into a finite number of regions Di such that in each Di the functions ϕk can be chosen as algebraic functions of their arguments. Indeed, our complete result (§ 3) proves rather more than that. In particular, it turns out that the regions Di may be taken as differences of algebraic varieties in M*.

ON THE CLASSIFICATION OF CENTRALLY FINITE ALTERNATIVE DIVISION RINGS SATISFYING ALGEBRAIC CLOSURE CONDITIONS

2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (05) ◽  
pp. 1250088
Author(s):  
RICCARDO GHILONI
Keyword(s):  
Algebraic Closure ◽  
Real Closed Field ◽  
Closed Field ◽  
Real Closed Fields ◽  
Division Rings ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
Closure Conditions ◽  
The One ◽  
Algebraically Closed Fields

In this paper, we prove that the rings of quaternions and of octonions over an arbitrary real closed field are algebraically closed in the sense of Eilenberg and Niven. As a consequence, we infer that some reasonable algebraic closure conditions, including the one of Eilenberg and Niven, are equivalent on the class of centrally finite alternative division rings. Furthermore, we classify centrally finite alternative division rings satisfying such equivalent algebraic closure conditions: up to isomorphism, they are either the algebraically closed fields or the rings of quaternions over real closed fields or the rings of octonions over real closed fields.

Maximality in effective topology

1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 100-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iraj Kalantari ◽  
Anne Leggett
Keyword(s):  
Topological Space ◽  
Boolean Algebras ◽  
Vector Spaces ◽  
Topological Spaces ◽  
Mathematical Structures ◽  
Topological Vector Spaces ◽  
Linear Orderings ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Countable Basis ◽  
Effective Analysis

In this paper we continue the study of the structure of the lattice of recursively enumerable (r.e.) open subsets of a topological space. Work in this approach to effective topology began in Kalantari and Retzlaff [5] and continued in Kalantari [2], Kalantari and Leggett [3] and Kalantari and Remmel [4]. Studies in effectiveness of results in structures other than integers began with the work of Specker [17] and Lacombe [8] on effective analysis.The renewed activity in the study of the effective content of mathematical structures owes much to Nerode's program and Metakides' and Nerode's [11], [12] work on vector spaces and fields. These studies have been extended by Kalantari, Remmel, Retzlaff, Shore and Smith. Similar studies on the effective content of other mathematical structures have been conducted. These include work on topological vector spaces, boolean algebras, linear orderings etc.Kalantari and Retzlaff [5] began a study of effective topological spaces by considering a topological space with a countable basis ⊿ for the topology. The space X is to be fully effective; that is, the basis elements are coded into ω and the operations of intersection of basis elements and the relation of inclusion among them are both computable. An r.e. open subset of X is then represented as the union of basic open sets whose codes lie in an r.e. subset of ω.

Some Subfields of Qp, and their Non-Standard Analogues

1974 ◽  
Vol 26 (02) ◽  
pp. 473-491
Author(s):  
Diana L. Dubrovsky
Keyword(s):  
Algebraic Structure ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Algebraic Structures ◽  
Mathematical Structures ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
Standard Models ◽  
Algebraically Closed Fields

The desire to study constructive properties of given mathematical structures goes back many years; we can perhaps mention L. Kronecker and B. L. van der Waerden, two pioneers in this field. With the development of recursion theory it was possible to make precise the notion of "effectively carrying out" the operations in a given algebraic structure. Thus, A. Frölich and J. C. Shepherdson [7] and M. O . Rabin [13] studied computable algebraic structures, i.e. structures whose operations can be viewed as recursive number theoretic relations. A. Robinson [18] and E. W. Madison [11] used the concepts of computable and arithmetically definable structures in order to establish the existence of what can be called non-standard analogues (in a sense that will be specified later) of certain subfields of R and C, the standard models for the theories of real closed and algebraically closed fields respectively.

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.

Controlling the dependence degree of a recursively enumerable vector space

1978 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Shore
Keyword(s):  
Vector Space ◽  
Topological Structure ◽  
Independent Set ◽  
Original Data ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Vector Spaces ◽  
Additional Structure ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Added Benefit ◽  
And Algebra

Early work combining recursion theory and algebra had (at least) two different sets of motivations. First the precise setting of recursion theory offered a chance to make formal classical concerns as to the effective or algorithmic nature of algebraic constructions. As an added benefit the formalization gives one the opportunity of proving that certain constructions cannot be done effectively even when the original data is presented in a recursive way. One important example of this sort of approach is the work of Frohlich and Shepardson [1955] in field theory. Another motivation for the introduction of recursion theory to algebra is given by Rabin [1960]. One hopes to mathematically enrich algebra by the additional structure provided by the notion of computability much as topological structure enriches group theory. Another example of this sort is provided in Dekker [1969] and [1971] where the added structure is that of recursive equivalence types. (This particular structural view culminates in the monograph of Crossley and Nerode [1974].)More recently there is the work of Metakides and Nerode [1975], [1977] which combines both approaches. Thus, for example, working with vector spaces they show in a very strong way that one cannot always effectively extend a given (even recursive) independent set to a basis for a (recursive) vector space.

An introduction to forking

1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 330-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Lascar ◽  
Bruno Poizat
Keyword(s):  
Differential Equations ◽  
Vector Spaces ◽  
Full Treatment ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
Natural Notion ◽  
Algebraically Closed Fields

The notion of forking has been introduced by Shelah, and a full treatment of it will appear in his book on stability [S1]. The principal aim of this paper is to show that it is an easy and natural notion.Consider some well-known examples of ℵ0-stable theories: vector spaces over Q, algebraically closed fields, differentially closed fields of characteristic 0; in each of these cases, we have a natural notion of independence: linear, algebraic and differential independence respectively. Forking gives a generalization of these notions. More precisely, if are subsets of some model and c a point of this model, the fact that the type of c over does not fork over means that there are no more relations of dependence between c and than there already existed between c and . In the case of the vector spaces, this means that c is in the space generated by only if it is already in the space generated by . In the case of differentially closed fields, this means that the minimal differential equations of c with coefficient respectively in and have the same order. Of course, these notions of dependence are essential for the study of the above mentioned structures. Forking is no less important for stable theories. A glance at Shelah's book will convince the reader that this is the case.What we have to do is the following. Assuming T stable and given and p a type on , we want to distinguish among the extensions of p to some of them that we shall call the nonforking extensions of p.

Nonisomorphism of lattices of recursively enumerable sets

1993 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 1177-1188 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Todd Hammond
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Isomorphism Class ◽  
Boolean Algebras ◽  
Turing Degree ◽  
Symmetric Difference ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Definition Of

Let ω be the set of natural numbers, let be the lattice of recursively enumerable subsets of ω, and let A be the lattice of subsets of ω which are recursively enumerable in A. If U, V ⊆ ω, put U =* V if the symmetric difference of U and V is finite.A natural and interesting question is then to discover what the relation is between the Turing degree of A and the isomorphism class of A. The first result of this form was by Lachlan, who proved [6] that there is a set A ⊆ ω such that A ≇ . He did this by finding a set A ⊆ ω and a set C ϵ A such that the structure ({W ϵ A∣W ⊇ C},∪,∩)/=* is a Boolean algebra and is not isomorphic to the structure ({W ϵ ∣W ⊇ D},∪,∩)/=* for any D ϵ . There is a nonrecursive ordinal which is recursive in the set A which he constructs, so his set A is not (see, for example, Shoenfield [11] for a definition of what it means for a set A ⊆ ω to be ). Feiner then improved this result substantially by proving [1] that for any B ⊆ ω, B′ ≇ B, where B′ is the Turing jump of B. To do this, he showed that for each X ⊆= ω there is a Boolean algebra which is but not and then applied a theorem of Lachlan [6] (definitions of and Boolean algebras will be given in §2). Feiner's result is of particular interest for the case B = ⊘, for it shows that the set A of Lachlan can actually be chosen to be arithmetical (in fact, ⊘′), answering a question that Lachlan posed in his paper. Little else has been known.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document