Prime models of computably enumerable degree

We examine the computably enumerable (c.e.) degrees of prime models of complete atomic decidable (CAD) theories. A structure has degree d if d is the degree of its elementary diagram. We show that if a CAD theory T has a prime model of c.e. degree c, then T has a prime model of strictly lower c.e. degree b, where, in addition, b is low (b′ = 0′), This extends Csima's result that every CAD theory has a low prime model. We also prove a density result for c.e. degrees of prime models. In particular, if c and d are c.e. degrees with d < c and c not low2 (c″ > 0″), then for any CAD theory T, there exists a c.e. degree b with d < b < c such that T has a prime model of degree b, where b can be chosen so that b′ is any degree c.e. in c with d′ ≤ b′. As a corollary, we show that for any degree c with 0 < c < 0′, every CAD theory has a prime model of low c.e. degree incomparable with c. We show also that every CAD theory has prime models of low c.e. degree that form a minimal pair, extending another result of Csima. We then discuss how these results apply to homogeneous models.

Contiguity and distributivity in the enumerable Turing degrees — Corrigendum

A computably enumerable Turing degree a is called contiguous iff it contains only a single computably enumerable weak truth table degree (Ladner and Sasso [2]). In [1], the authors proved that a nonzero computably enumerable degree a is contiguous iff it is locally distributive, that is, for all a1, a2, c with a1 ∪a2 = a and c ≤ a, there exist ci, ≤ ai with c1 ∪ c2 = c.To do this we supposed that W was a computably enumerable set and ∪ a computably set with a Turing functional Φ such that ΦW = U. Then we constructed computably enumerable sets A0, A1 and B together with functionals Γ0, Γ1, Γ, and Δ so thatand so as to satisfy all the requirements below.That is, we built a degree-theoretical splitting A0, A1 of W and a set B ≤TW such that if we cannot beat all possible degree-theoretical splittings V0, V1 of B then we were able to witness the fact that U ≤WW (via Λ).After the proof it was observed that the set U of the proof (page 1222, paragraph 4) needed only to be Δ20. It was then claimed that a consequence to the proof was that every contiguous computably enumerable degree was, in fact, strongly contiguous, in the sense that all (not necessarily computably enumerable) sets of the degree had the same weak truth table degree.

Contiguity and distributivity in the enumerable Turing degrees

We prove that a (recursively) enumerable degree is contiguous iff it is locally distributive. This settles a twenty-year old question going back to Ladner and Sasso. We also prove that strong contiguity and contiguity coincide, settling a question of the first author, and prove that no m-topped degree is contiguous, settling a question of the first author and Carl Jockusch [11]. Finally, we prove some results concerning local distributivity and relativized weak truth table reducibility.

A theorem on minimal degrees

In their original paper on degrees [3], Kleene and Post showed that there is a degree between 0 and 0′. Later, Friedberg [1] and Muchnik [4] showed that there is a recursively enumerable degree between 0 and 0′. Since then, this phenomenon has been repeated several times: a result has been proved for degrees, and then, after considerable additional effort, it has been proved for recursively enumerable degrees.There are some obvious respects in which that set of all degrees differs from the set of recursively enumerable degrees; e.g., the former is uncountable and has no largest member.

Working below a high recursively enumerable degree

In recent work, Cooper [3, 1990] has extended results of Jockusch and Shore [6, 1984] to show that the Turing jump is definable in the structure given by the Turing degrees and the ordering of Turing reducibility. In his definition of x′ from x, Cooper identifies an order-theoretic property shared by all of the degrees that are recursively enumerable in x and above x. He then shows that x′ is the least upper bound of all the degrees with this property. Thus, the jump of x is identified by comparing the recursively enumerable degrees with other degrees which are not recursively enumerable. Of course, once the jump operator is known to be definable, the relation of jump equivalence x′ = y′ is also known to be a definable relation on x and y. If we consider how much of the global theory of the Turing degrees is sufficient for Cooper's methods, it is immediately clear that his methods can be implemented to show that the jump operator and its weakening to the relation of jump equivalence are definable in any ideal closed under the Turing jump. However, his methods do not localize to , the degrees, or to the recursively enumerable degrees.This paper fits, as do Shore and Slaman [16, 1990] and [17, to appear], within the general project to develop an understanding of the relationship between the local degree-theoretic properties of a recursively enumerable set A and its jump class. For an analysis of the possibility of defining jump equivalence in , consult Shore [15, to appear] who shows that the relation x(3) = y(3) is definable. In this paper, we will restrict our attention to definitions expressed completely in ℛ (Note: All sets and degrees discussed for the remainder of this paper will be recursively enumerable.) Ultimately, one would like to find some degree-theoretic properties definable in terms of the ordering of Turing reducibility and quantifiers over the recursively enumerable degrees that would define the relation of jump equivalence or define one or more of the jump classes Hn = {w∣ wn = 0n+1} or Ln = {w ∣ wn = 0n}. Such a result could very likely then be used as a springboard to other general definability results for the recursively enumerable degrees. It would be especially interesting to know whether every recursively enumerable degree is definable and whether every arithmetical degree-invariant property of the recursively enumerable sets is definable in .