scholarly journals The Priority Argument and Aristotle’s Political Hylomorphism

2016 ◽  
Vol 3 (20201214) ◽  
Author(s):  
Siyi Chen
Keyword(s):  
Priority Argument

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.

Index sets and degrees of unsolvability

1982 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Stob
Keyword(s):  
Density Theorem ◽  
Index Set ◽  
Index Sets ◽  
Priority Method ◽  
Ingenious Method ◽  
Priority Argument ◽  
Degrees Of Unsolvability ◽  
Standard Techniques

The characterization of classes of r.e. sets by their index sets has proved valuable in producing new results about the r.e. sets and degrees. The classic example is Yates' proof [5, Theorem 7] of Sacks' density theorem for r.e. degrees using his classification of {e: We ≤TD) as Σ3(D) whenever D is r.e. Theorem 1 of this paper is a refinement of this index set theorem of Yates which has already proved to have interesting consequences about the r.e. degrees. This theorem was originally announced by Kallibekov [1, Theorem 1]. Kallibekov there proposed a new and ingenious method for doing priority arguments which has also since been used by Kinber [2]. Unfortunately his proof to this particular theorem contains an error. We have a totally different proof using standard techniques which is of independent interest.The proof to Theorem 1 is an infinite injury priority argument. In §1 therefore we give a short summary of the infinite injury priority method. We draw heavily on the exposition of Soare [4] where a complete description of the method is given along with many examples. In §2 we prove the main theorem and also give what we think are the most interesting corollaries to this theorem announced by Kallibekov. In §3 we prove a theorem about Σ3 sets of indices of r.e. sets. This theorem is a strengthening of a theorem of Kinber [2, Theorem 1] which was proved using a modification of Kallibekov's technique. As application, we use our theorem to show that an r.e. set A has supersets of every r.e. degree iff A is not simple.

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.

The density of the meet-inaccessible r. e. degrees

1992 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 585-596 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhang Qinglong
Keyword(s):  
Dense Subset ◽  
Priority Argument

AbstractIn this paper it is shown that the meet-inaccessible degrees are dense in R. The construction uses an 0′-priority argument. As a consequence, the meet-inaccessible degrees and the meet-accessible degrees give a partition of R into two sets, either of which is a nontrivial dense subset of R and generates R − {0} under joins (thus an automorphism base of R).

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.

A problem in the theory of constructive order types

1970 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-121
Author(s):  
Robin O. Gandy ◽  
Robert I. Soare
Keyword(s):  
Recursive Function ◽  
Type A ◽  
Order Type ◽  
General Question ◽  
Partial Recursive Function ◽  
Order Types ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Priority Argument

J. N. Crossley [1] raised the question of whether the implication 2 + A = A ⇒ 1 + A = A is true for constructive order types (C.O.T.'s). Using an earlier definition of constructive order type, A. G. Hamilton [2] presented a counterexample. Hamilton left open the general question, however, since he pointed out that Crossley considers only orderings which can be embedded in a standard dense r.e. ordering by a partial recursive function, and that his counterexample fails to meet this requirement. We resolve the question by finding a C.O.T. A which meets Crossley's requirement and such that 2 + A = A but 1 + A ≠ A. At the suggestion of A. B. Manaster and A. G. Hamilton we easily extend this construction to show that for any n ≧ 2, there is a C.O.T. A such that n + A = A but m + A ≠ A for 0 < m < n. Hence, Theorem 3 of [2] and all of its corollaries hold with the new definition of C.O.T. The construction is not difficult and requires no priority argument. The techniques are similar to those developed in [3], but no outside results are needed here.

A minimal degree not realizing least possible jump

1974 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 571-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard P. Sasso
Keyword(s):  
Lebesgue Measure ◽  
Minimal Degree ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Degree Constructions ◽  
A Priority ◽  
Combinatorial Device ◽  
Priority Argument ◽  
New System

The least possible jump for a degree of unsolvability a is its join a ∪ 0′ with 0′. Friedberg [1] showed that each degree b ≥ 0′ is the jump of a degree a realizing least possible jump (i.e., satisfying the equation a′ = a ∪ 0′). Sacks (cf. Stillwell [8]) showed that most (in the sense of Lebesgue measure) degrees realize least possible jump. Nevertheless, degrees not realizing least possible jump are easily found (e.g., any degree b ≥ 0′) even among the degrees <0′ (cf. Shoenfield [5]) and the recursively enumerable (r.e.) degrees (cf. Sacks [3]).A degree is called minimal if it is minimal in the natural partial ordering of degrees excluding least element 0. The existence of minimal degrees <0” was first shown by Spector [7]; Sacks [3] succeeded in replacing 0” by 0′ using a priority argument. Yates [9] asked whether all minimal degrees <0′ realize least possible jump after showing that some do by exhibiting minimal degrees below each r.e. degree. Cooper [2] subsequently showed that each degree b > 0′ is the jump of a minimal degree which, as corollary to his method of proof, realizes least possible jump. We show with the aid of a simple combinatorial device applied to a minimal degree construction in the manner of Spector [7] that not all minimal degrees realize least possible jump. We have observed in conjunction with S. B. Cooper and R. Epstein that the new combinatorial device may also be applied to minimal degree constructions in the manner of Sacks [3], Shoenfield [6] or [4] in order to construct minimal degrees <0′ not realizing least possible jump. This answers Yates' question in the negative. Yates [10], however, has been able to draw this as an immediate corollary of the weaker result by carrying out the proof in his new system of prioric games.

Σ2 Induction and infinite injury priority argument, Part I: Maximal sets and the jump operator

1998 ◽  
Vol 63 (3) ◽  
pp. 797-814 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. T. Chong ◽  
Yue Yang
Keyword(s):  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Central Position ◽  
Jump Operator ◽  
Concerted Effort ◽  
Injury Type ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Intensive Development ◽  
Priority Argument ◽  
Fragments Of Peano Arithmetic

The study of recursion theory on models of fragments of Peano arithmetic has hitherto been concentrated on recursively enumerable (r.e.) sets and their degrees (with a few exceptions, such as that in [2] on minimal degrees). The reason for such a concerted effort is clear: priority arguments have occupied a central position in post Friedberg-Muchnik recursion theory, and after almost forty years of intensive development in the subject, they are still the essential tools on which investigations of r.e. sets and their degrees depend. There are two possible approaches to the study within fragments of arithmetic: To give a general analysis of strategies, and identify their proof-theoretic strengths (for example in [6] on infinite injury priority methods), or to consider specific theorems in recursion theory, and, if possible, pinpoint the exact levels of induction provably equivalent to the theorems. The work reported in this paper belongs to the second approach. More precisely, we single out two infinitary injury type constructions of r.e. sets—one concerning maximal sets and the other based on the notion of the jump operator—to be the topics of study.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document