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.

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.

R-maximal Boolean algebras

1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 533-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. B. Remmel
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Vector Space ◽  
Boolean Algebras ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Similarities And Differences

Metakides and Nerode in [2] suggested the study of what they termed the lattice of recursively enumerable substructures of a recursively presented model. For example, Metakides and Nerode in [3] introduced the lattice of of recusively enumerable subspaces, , of a recursively presented vector space V∞. The similarities and differences between and ℰ, the lattice of recursively enumerable subsets of the natural numbers N as defined in [9], have been studied by Metakides and Nerode, Kalantari, Remmel, Retzlaff, and Shore. In [6], we studied some similarities and differences between ℰ and the lattice of recursively enumerable sub-algebras of a weakly recursively presented Boolean algebra and this paper continues that study. A weakly recursively presented Boolean algebra (W.R.P.B.A.), , consists of a recursive subset of N, ∣∣, called the field of , and operations (meet), (join), and (complement) which are partial recursive and under which becomes a Boolean algebra. We shall write and for the zero and unit of . If S is a subset of , we let (S)* denote the subalgebra generated by S. Given sub-algebras B and C of , we let B + C denote (B ⋃ C)*. A subalgebra B of is recursively enumerable (recursive) if {x ∈ ∣∣ x ∈ B} is a recursively enumerable (recursive) subset of ∣∣. The set of all recursively enumerable subalgebras of , , forms a lattice under the operations of intersection and sum (+).

On the orbits of hyperhypersimple sets

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Maass
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets

AbstractThis paper contributes to the question of under which conditions recursively enumerable sets with isomorphic lattices of recursively enumerable-supersets are automorphic in the lattice of all recursively enumerable sets. We show that hyperhypersimple sets (i.e. sets where the recursively enumerable supersets form a Boolean algebra) are automorphic if there is a -definable isomorphism between their lattices of supersets. Lerman, Shore and Soare have shown that this is not true if one replaces by .

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.

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.

Recursive Boolean algebras with recursive atoms

1981 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 595-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey B. Remmel
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Boolean Algebras ◽  
Isomorphism Type ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Recursive Isomorphism ◽  
The Ideal

A Boolean algebra (henceforth abbreviated B.A.) is said to be recursive if B is a recursive subset of the natural numbers N and the operations ∧ (meet), ∨ (join), and ¬ (complement) are partial recursive. Let denote the set of atoms of and denote the ideal generated by the atoms of . Given recursive B.A.s and , we write ≈ if is isomorphic to and ≈r if is recursively isomorphic to , i.e., if there is a partial recursive isomorphism from onto .Recursive B.A.s have been studied by several authors including Ershov [2], Fiener [3], [4], Goncharov [5], [6], [7], LaRoche [8], Nurtazin [7], and the author [10], [11]. This paper continues a study of the recursion theoretic relationships among , , and the recursive isomorphism type of a recursive B.A. we started in [11]. We refer the reader to [11] for any unexplained notation and definitions. In [11], we were mainly concerned with the possible recursion theoretic properties of the set of atoms in recursive B.A.s. We found that even if we insist that be recursive, there is considerable freedom for the properties of . For example, we showed that if is a recursive B.A. such that is recursive and is infinite, then (i) there exists a recursive B.A. such that and both and are recursive and (ii) for any nonzero r.e. degree δ, there exist recursive B.A.s , , … such that for each i, is of degree δ, is recursive, is immune if i is even and is not immune if i is odd, and no two B.A.s in the sequence are recursively isomorphic.

A 1-generic degree with a strong minimal cover

2000 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 1395-1442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masahiro Kumabe
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degree ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Minimal Cover ◽  
Recursively Enumerable

We consider a set generic over the arithmetic sets. A subset A of the natural numbers is called n-generic if it is Cohen-generic for n-quantifier arithmetic. This is equivalent to saying that for every -set of strings S, there is a string σ ⊂ A such that σ ∈ S or no extension of σ is in S. By degree we mean Turing degree (of unsolvability). We call a degree n-generic if it has an n-generic representative. For a degree a, let D(≤ a) denote the set of degrees which are recursive in a.We say a is a strong minimal cover of g if every degree strictly below a is less than or equal to g. In this paper we show that there are a degree a and a 1-generic degree g < a such that a is a strong minimal cover of g. This easily implies that there is a 1-generic degree without the cupping property. Jockusch [7] showed that every 2-generic degree has the cupping property. Slaman and Steel [17] and independently Cooper [3] showed that there are recursively enumerable degrees a and b < a such that no degree c < a joins b above a. Take a 1-generic degree g below b. Then g does not have the cupping property.

A rudimentary definition of addition

1965 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 350-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. W. Ritchie
Keyword(s):  
Positive Integer ◽  
Doctoral Dissertation ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Positive Integers

In [S, pp. 77–88], Smullyan introduced the class of rudimentary relations, and showed that they form a basis for the recursively enumerable sets. He also asked [S, p. 81] if the addition and multiplication relations were rudimentary. In this note we answer one of these questions by showing that the addition relation is rudimentary. This result was communicated to Smullyan orally in 1960 and is announced in [S, p. 81, footnote 1]. However, the proof has not yet appeared in print. (Shortly after the publication of [S], James H. Bennett, using much more subtle methods than those of this note, showed that the multiplication relation is also rudimentary. That result appears in his doctoral dissertation [B], and is being prepared for publication.)Let us begin by reviewing Smullyan's definition [S, p. 10] of dyadic notation for the positive integers. Each positive integerais identified with the unique stringanan−1…a1a0of 1's and 2's such thata= Σin=0ai2iBecause of this identification, we are able to speak of typographical properties of numbers.

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.

Equational bases of boolean algebras

1964 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 115-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. M. Sioson
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Algebraic System ◽  
Boolean Algebras ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Image Position

It is well-known that a Boolean algebra (B, +, ., ‐) may be defined as an algebraic system with at least two elements such that (for all x, y, z ε B): These axioms or equations are not independent, in the sense that some of them are logical consequences of the others. B. A. Bernstein [1] thought that the first three and their duals form an independent dual-symmetric definition of a Boolean algebra, but R. Montague and J. Tarski [3] proved later that B1 (or B̅1) follows from B2, B3, B̅1, B̅2, B̅3 (from B1, B2, B3, B̅2, B̅3).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document