combinatorial device
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

9
(FIVE YEARS 0)

H-INDEX

4
(FIVE YEARS 0)

2002 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 311-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. A. Beierlein ◽  
H. Riel ◽  
B. Ruhstaller ◽  
H. Hofmann ◽  
B. K. Crone ◽  
...  

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilman A. Beierlein ◽  
Hans-Peter Ott ◽  
Horst Hofmann ◽  
Heike Riel ◽  
Beat Ruhstaller ◽  
...  

1997 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 175-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Foreman ◽  
Menachem Magidor

In this paper we explicate a very weak version of the principle □ discovered by Jensen who proved it holds in the constructible universe L. This principle is strong enough to include many of the known applications of □, but weak enough that it is consistent with the existence of very large cardinals. In this section we show that this principle is equivalent to a common combinatorial device, which we call a Jensen matrix. In the second section we show that our principle is consistent with a supercompact cardinal. In the third section of this paper we show that this principle is exactly equivalent to the statement that every torsion free Abelian group has a filtration into σ-balanced subgroups. In the fourth section of this paper we show that this principle fails if you assume the Chang's Conjecture:In the fifth section of the paper we review the proofs that the various weak squares we consider are strictly decreasing in strength. Section 6 was added in an ad hoc manner after the rest of the paper was written, because the subject matter of Theorem 6.1 fit well with the rest of the paper. It deals with a principle dubbed “Not So Very Weak Square”, which appears close to Very Weak Square but turns out not to be equivalent.


1974 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 571-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard P. Sasso

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.


1966 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald A. Martin

In [1], p. 171, Sacks asks (question (Q5)) whether there is a recursively enumerable degree of unsolvability d such that for all n ≧ 0. Sacks points out that the set of conditions which d must satisfy is not arithmetical. For this reason he suggests that a proof of (Q5) might require some new combinatorial device. The purpose of this note is to show how (Q5) may be proved simply by extending the methods of [l].2


1966 ◽  
Vol 18 ◽  
pp. 853-860 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Harary ◽  
Ed Palmer

Among the unsolved problems in graphical enumeration listed in (4) is included the determination of the number of graphs and digraphs with a given partition. Parthasarathy (9) has developed a formulation for counting graphs with a given partition by making a suitable modification of the method given in (2) for the enumeration of graphs. We present here an analogous modification that leads to a formula for the number of digraphs with a given partition. Not surprisingly, the main combinatorial device for this purpose is provided by the classical theorem due to Pólya.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document