Partial degrees and the density problem. Part 2: The enumeration degrees of the Σ2 sets are dense

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 503-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. B. Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Density Theorem ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Partial Functions ◽  
Enumeration Degrees ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursive Sequences ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Finite Set ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Density Problem

As in Rogers [3], we treat the partial degrees as notational variants of the enumeration degrees (that is, the partial degree of a function is identified with the enumeration degree of its graph). We showed in [1] that there are no minimal partial degrees. The purpose of this paper is to show that the partial degrees below 0′ (that is, the partial degrees of the Σ2 partial functions) are dense. From this we see that the Σ2 sets play an analagous role within the enumeration degrees to that played by the recursively enumerable sets within the Turing degrees. The techniques, of course, are very different to those required to prove the Sacks Density Theorem (see [4, p. 20]) for the recursively enumerable Turing degrees.Notation and terminology are similar to those of [1]. In particular, We, Dx, 〈m, n〉, ψe are, respectively, notations for the e th r.e. set in a given standard listing of the r.e. sets, the finite set whose canonical index is x, the recursive code for (m, n) and the e th enumeration operator (derived from We). Recursive approximations etc. are also defined as in [1].Theorem 1. If B and C are Σ2sets of numbers, and B ≰e C, then there is an e-operator Θ withProof. We enumerate an e-operator Θ so as to satisfy the list of conditions:Let {Bs ∣ s ≥ 0}, {Cs ∣ s ≥ 0} be recursive sequences of approximations to B, C respectively, for which, for each х, х ∈ B ⇔ (∃s*)(∀s ≥ s*)(х ∈ Bs) and х ∈ C ⇔ (∃s*)(∀s ≥ s*)(х ∈ Cs).

1-genericity in the enumeration degrees

1988 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 878-887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Copestake
Keyword(s):  
Partial Function ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Turing Degree ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Original Formulation ◽  
Partial Functions ◽  
Enumeration Degrees ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Generic Set

The structure of the Turing degrees of generic and n-generic sets has been studied fairly extensively, especially for n = 1 and n = 2. The original formulation of 1-generic set in terms of recursively enumerable sets of strings is due to D. Posner [11], and much work has since been done, particularly by C. G. Jockusch and C. T. Chong (see [5] and [6]).In the enumeration degrees (see definition below), attention has previously been restricted to generic sets and functions. J. Case used genericity for many of the results in his thesis [1]. In this paper we develop a notion of 1-generic partial function, and study the structure and characteristics of such functions in the enumeration degrees. We find that the e-degree of a 1-generic function is quasi-minimal. However, there are no e-degrees minimal in the 1-generic e-degrees, since if a 1-generic function is recursively split into finitely or infinitely many parts the resulting functions are e-independent (in the sense defined by K. McEvoy [8]) and 1-generic. This result also shows that any recursively enumerable partial ordering can be embedded below any 1-generic degree.Many results in the Turing degrees have direct parallels in the enumeration degrees. Applying the minimal Turing degree construction to the partial degrees (the e-degrees of partial functions) produces a total partial degree ae which is minimal-like; that is, all functions in degrees below ae have partial recursive extensions.

Partial degrees and the density problem

1982 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 854-859 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. B. Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Partial Functions ◽  
Enumeration Degrees ◽  
Computation Tree ◽  
Partial Degree ◽  
Degree Structure ◽  
Turing Reducibility ◽  
Density Problem ◽  
Effective Computability ◽  
Degrees Of Unsolvability

A notion of relative reducibility for partial functions, which coincides with Turing reducibility on the total functions, was first given by S.C. Kleene in Introduction to metamathematics [4]. Following Myhill [7], this was made more explicit in Hartley Rogers, Jr., Theory of recursive functions and effective computability [8, pp. 146, 279], where some basic properties of the partial degrees or (equivalent, but notationally more convenient) the enumeration degrees, were derived. The question of density of this proper extension of the degrees of unsolvability was left open, although Medvedev's result [6] that there are quasi-minimal partial degrees (that is, nonrecursive partial degrees with no nonrecursive total predecessors) is proved.In 1971, Sasso [9] introduced a finer notion of partial degree, which also contained the Turing degrees as a proper substructure (intuitively, Sasso's notion of reducibility between partial functions differed from Rogers' in that computations terminated when the oracle was asked for an undefined value, whereas a Rogers computation could be thought of as proceeding simultaneously along a number of different branches of a ‘consistent’ computation tree—cf. Sasso [10]). His construction of minimal ‘partial degrees’ [11], while of interest in itself, left open the analogous problem for the more standard partial degree structure.

The Sacks density theorem and Σ2-bounding

1996 ◽  
Vol 61 (2) ◽  
pp. 450-467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcia J. Groszek ◽  
Michael E. Mytilinaios ◽  
Theodore A. Slaman
Keyword(s):  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Density Theorem ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Models Of Arithmetic

AbstractThe Sacks Density Theorem [7] states that the Turing degrees of the recursively enumerable sets are dense. We show that the Density Theorem holds in every model of P− + BΣ2. The proof has two components: a lemma that in any model of P− + BΣ2, if B is recursively enumerable and incomplete then IΣ1 holds relative to B and an adaptation of Shore's [9] blocking technique in α-recursion theory to models of arithmetic.

MARGINALIA ON A THEOREM OF WOODIN

2017 ◽  
Vol 82 (1) ◽  
pp. 359-374
Author(s):  
RASMUS BLANCK ◽  
ALI ENAYAT
Keyword(s):  
Fixed Point ◽  
Peano Arithmetic ◽  
Countable Model ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Finite Set ◽  
Image Position

AbstractLet $\left\langle {{W_n}:n \in \omega } \right\rangle$ be a canonical enumeration of recursively enumerable sets, and suppose T is a recursively enumerable extension of PA (Peano Arithmetic) in the same language. Woodin (2011) showed that there exists an index $e \in \omega$ (that depends on T) with the property that if${\cal M}$ is a countable model of T and for some${\cal M}$-finite set s, ${\cal M}$ satisfies ${W_e} \subseteq s$, then${\cal M}$ has an end extension${\cal N}$ that satisfies T + We = s.Here we generalize Woodin’s theorem to all recursively enumerable extensions T of the fragment ${{\rm{I}\rm{\Sigma }}_1}$ of PA, and remove the countability restriction on ${\cal M}$ when T extends PA. We also derive model-theoretic consequences of a classic fixed-point construction of Kripke (1962) and compare them with Woodin’s theorem.

Some theorems on R-maximal sets and major subsets of recursively enumerable sets

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Lerman
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Elementary Equivalence ◽  
Recursive Functions ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Nonstandard Models ◽  
Relational Systems ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Models Of Arithmetic

In [5], we studied the relational systems /Ā obtained from the recursive functions of one variable by identifying two such functions if they are equal for all but finitely many х ∈ Ā, where Ā is an r-cohesive set. The relational systems /Ā with addition and multiplication defined pointwise on them, were once thought to be potential candidates for nonstandard models of arithmetic. This, however, turned out not to be the case, as was shown by Feferman, Scott, and Tennenbaum [1]. We showed, letting A and B be r-maximal sets, and letting denote the complement of X, that /Ā and are elementarily equivalent (/Ā ≡ ) if there are r-maximal supersets C and D of A and B respectively such that C and D have the same many-one degree (C =mD). In fact, if A and B are maximal sets, /Ā ≡ if, and only if, A =mB. We wish to study the relationship between the elementary equivalence of /Ā and , and the Turing degrees of A and B.

On minimal pairs of enumeration degrees

1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 983-1001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin McEvoy ◽  
S. Barry Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Minimal Pair ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Enumeration Degrees ◽  
Minimal Pairs ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Unpublished Work ◽  
Lower Case ◽  
Low Degree ◽  
Finite Set ◽  
Partial Orderings

For sets of natural numbers A and B, A is enumeration reducible to B if there is some effective algorithm which when given any enumeration of B will produce an enumeration of A. Gutteridge [5] has shown that in the upper semilattice of the enumeration degrees there are no minimal degrees (see Cooper [3]), and in this paper we study those pairs of degrees with gib 0. Case [1] constructed a minimal pair. This minimal pair construction can be relativised to any gib, and following a suggestion of Jockusch we can also fix one of the degrees and still construct the pair. These methods yield an easier proof of Case's exact pair theorem for countable ideals. 0″ is an upper bound for the minimal pair constructed in §1, and in §2 we improve this bound to any Σ2-high Δ2 degree. In contrast to this we show that every low degree c bounds a degree a which is not in any minimal pair bounded by c. The structure of the co-r.e. e-degrees is isomorphic to that of the r.e. Turing degrees, and Gutteridge has constructed co-r.e. degrees which form a minimal pair in the e-degrees. In §3 we show that if a, b is any minimal pair of co-r.e. degrees such that a is low then a, b is a minimal pair in the e-degrees (and so Gutteridge's result follows). As a corollary of this we can embed any countable distributive lattice and the two nondistributive five-element lattices in the e-degrees below 0′. However the lowness assumption is necessary, as we also prove that there is a minimal pair of (high) r.e. degrees which is not a minimal pair in the e-degrees (under the isomorphism). In §4 we present more concise proofs of some unpublished work of Lagemann on bounding incomparable pairs and embedding partial orderings.As usual, {Wi}i ∈ ω is the standard listing of the recursively enumerable sets, Du is the finite set with canonical index u and {‹ m, n ›}m, n ∈ ω is a recursive, one-to-one coding of the pairs of numbers onto the numbers. Capital italic letters will be variables over sets of natural numbers, and lower case boldface letters from the beginning of the alphabet will vary over degrees.

A hierarchy of families of recursively enumerable degrees

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 1160-1170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence V. Welch
Keyword(s):  
Finite Sets ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Similar Theorem ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Complete Set ◽  
Image Position

Certain investigations have been made concerning the nature of classes of recursively enumerable sets, and the relation of such classes to the recursively enumerable indices of their sets. For instance, a theorem of Rice [3, Theorem XIV(a), p. 324] states that if A is the complete set of indices for a class of recursively enumerable sets (that is, if there is a class of recursively enumerable sets such that and if A is recursive, then either A = ⌀ or A = ω. A relate theorem by Rice and Shapiro [3, Theorem XIV(b), p. 324] can be stated as follows:Let be a class of recursively enumerable sets, and let A be the complete set of indices for . Then A is r.e. if and only if there is an r.e. set D of canonical indices of finite sets Du, u ∈ D, such thatA somewhat similar theorem of Yates is the following: Let be a class of recursively enumerable sets which contains all finite sets. Let A be the complete set of indices for . Then there is a uniform recursive enumeration of the sets in if and only if A is recursively enumerable in 0(2)—that is, if and only if A is Σ3. A corollary of this is that if C is any r.e. set such that C(2)≡T⌀(2), there is a uniform recursive enumeration of all sets We such that We ≤TC [9, Theorem 9, p. 265].

Some representations of Diophantine sets

1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 572-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphael M. Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Universal Quantifier ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Set ◽  
Minor Error ◽  
Integer Coefficients ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Image Position ◽  
A Minor

A set D of natural numbers is called Diophantine if it can be defined in the formwhere P is a polynomial with integer coefficients. Recently, Ju. V. Matijasevič [2], [3] has shown that all recursively enumerable sets are Diophantine. From this, it follows that a bound for n may be given.We use throughout the logical symbols ∧ (and), ∨ (or), → (if … then …), ↔ (if and only if), ⋀ (for every), and ⋁ (there exists); negation does not occur explicitly. The variables range over the natural numbers 0,1,2,3, …, except as otherwise noted.It is the purpose of this paper to show that if we do not insist on prenex form, then every Diophantine set can be defined existentially by a formula in which not more than five existential quantifiers are nested. Besides existential quantifiers, only conjunctions are needed. By Matijasevič [2], [3], the representation extends to all recursively enumerable sets. Using this, we can find a bound for the number of conjuncts needed.Davis [1] proved that every recursively enumerable set of natural numbers can be represented in the formwhere P is a polynomial with integer coefficients. I showed in [5] that we can take λ = 4. (A minor error is corrected in an Appendix to this paper.) By the methods of the present paper, we can again obtain this result, and indeed in a stronger form, with the universal quantifier replaced by a conjunction.

TRIAL AND ERROR MATHEMATICS II: DIALECTICAL SETS AND QUASIDIALECTICAL SETS, THEIR DEGREES, AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE CLASS OF LIMIT SETS

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 810-835 ◽  
Author(s):  
JACOPO AMIDEI ◽  
DUCCIO PIANIGIANI ◽  
LUCA SAN MAURO ◽  
ANDREA SORBI
Keyword(s):  
Mathematical Practice ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Trial And Error ◽  
Close Inspection ◽  
Enumeration Degrees ◽  
Deductive Systems ◽  
Ershov Hierarchy ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Ordinal Notation ◽  
Computably Enumerable

AbstractThis paper is a continuation of Amidei, Pianigiani, San Mauro, Simi, & Sorbi (2016), where we have introduced the quasidialectical systems, which are abstract deductive systems designed to provide, in line with Lakatos’ views, a formalization of trial and error mathematics more adherent to the real mathematical practice of revision than Magari’s original dialectical systems. In this paper we prove that the two models of deductive systems (dialectical systems and quasidialectical systems) have in some sense the same information content, in that they represent two classes of sets (the dialectical sets and the quasidialectical sets, respectively), which have the same Turing degrees (namely, the computably enumerable Turing degrees), and the same enumeration degrees (namely, the ${\rm{\Pi }}_1^0$ enumeration degrees). Nonetheless, dialectical sets and quasidialectical sets do not coincide. Even restricting our attention to the so-called loopless quasidialectical sets, we show that the quasidialectical sets properly extend the dialectical sets. As both classes consist of ${\rm{\Delta }}_2^0$ sets, the extent to which the two classes differ is conveniently measured using the Ershov hierarchy: indeed, the dialectical sets are ω-computably enumerable (close inspection also shows that there are dialectical sets which do not lie in any finite level; and in every finite level n ≥ 2 of the Ershov hierarchy there is a dialectical set which does not lie in the previous level); on the other hand, the quasidialectical sets spread out throughout all classes of the hierarchy (close inspection shows that for every ordinal notation a of a nonzero computable ordinal, there is a quasidialectical set lying in ${\rm{\Sigma }}_a^{ - 1}$, but in none of the preceding levels).

Jump embeddings in the Turing degrees

1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 563-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter G. Hinman ◽  
Theodore A. Slaman
Keyword(s):  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
First Order ◽  
Upper Semilattice ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Locally Countable ◽  
Image Set ◽  
Turing Reducibility ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Order Structures

Since its introduction in [K1-Po], the upper semilattice of Turing degrees has been an object of fascination to practitioners of the recursion-theoretic art. Starting from relatively simple concepts and definitions, it has turned out to be a structure of enormous complexity and richness. This paper is a contribution to the ongoing study of this structure.Much of the work on Turing degrees may be formulated in terms of the embeddability of certain first-order structures in a structure whose universe is some set of degrees and whose relations, functions, and constants are natural degree-theoretic ones. Thus, for example, we know that if {P, ≤P) is a partial ordering of cardinality at most ℵ1 which is locally countable—each point has at most countably many predecessors—then there is an embeddingwhere D is the set of all Turing degrees and <T is Turing reducibility. If (P, ≤P) is a countable partial ordering, then the image of the embedding may be taken to be a subset of R, the set of recursively enumerable degrees. Without attempting to make the notion completely precise, we shall call embeddings of the first sort global, in contrast to local embeddings which impose some restrictions on the image set.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document