Quasi-minimal enumeration degrees and minimal Turing degrees

1998 ◽  
Vol 174 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore A. Slaman ◽  
A. Sorbi
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Enumeration Degrees

Embedding the diamond in the Σ2 enumeration degrees

1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seema Ahmad
Keyword(s):  
Negative Answer ◽  
Diamond Lattice ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Effective Algorithm ◽  
Finite Sets ◽  
Enumeration Degrees ◽  
Lower Case ◽  
One To One ◽  
Fixed Standard

Lachlan [5] has shown that it is not possible to embed the diamond lattice in the r.e. Turing degrees while preserving least and greatest elements; that is, there do not exist incomparable r.e. Turing degrees a and b such that a ∧ b = 0 and a ∨ b = 0′. Cooper [3] has compared the r.e. Turing degrees to the enumeration degrees below 0e′ and has asked if the two structures are elementarily equivalent.In this paper we show that such an embedding is possible in the Σ2enumeration degrees, which implies a negative answer to Cooper's question.Theorem. There are low enumeration degreesaandbsuch thata ∧ b = 0eanda ∨ b = 0e′.Lower case italic letters denote elements of ω while upper case italic letters denote subsets of ω. D, E and F are reserved for finite sets, and K for ′. If D = {x0, x1, …, xn} then the canonical index of D is , and the canonical index of is ∅. Dx denotes the set with canonical index x. {Wi}i∈ω is any fixed standard listing of the r.e. sets, and <·, ·> is any fixed recursive bijection from ω × ω to ω.Intuitively, A is enumeration reducible to B if there is an effective algorithm for producing an enumeration of A from any enumeration of B. There is a natural one-to-one correspondence between all such algorithms and the r.e. sets.

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.

scholarly journals Degrees of unsolvability of continuous functions

2004 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 555-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph S. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Continuous Functions ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Total Degree ◽  
Classical Analysis ◽  
Degree Relative ◽  
Enumeration Degrees ◽  
Standard Notion ◽  
Scott Set ◽  
Degrees Of Unsolvability ◽  
Satisfactory Theory

Abstract.We show that the Turing degrees are not sufficient to measure the complexity of continuous functions on [0, 1]. Computability of continuous real functions is a standard notion from computable analysis. However, no satisfactory theory of degrees of continuous functions exists. We introduce the continuous degrees and prove that they are a proper extension of the Turing degrees and a proper substructure of the enumeration degrees. Call continuous degrees which are not Turing degrees non-total. Several fundamental results are proved: a continuous function with non-total degree has no least degree representation, settling a question asked by Pour-El and Lempp; every non-computable f ∈ [0,1] computes a non-computable subset of ℕ there is a non-total degree between Turing degrees a <Tb iff b is a PA degree relative to a; ⊆ 2ℕ is a Scott set iff it is the collection of f-computable subsets of ℕ for some f ∈ [0,1] of non-total degree; and there are computably incomparable f, g ∈ [0,1] which compute exactly the same subsets of ℕ. Proofs draw from classical analysis and constructive analysis as well as from computability theory.

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.

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).

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).

On the jump classes of noncuppable enumeration degrees

2011 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles M. Harris
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Enumeration Degrees ◽  
Enumeration Degree

AbstractWe prove that for every Σ20 enumeration degree b there exists a noncuppable Σ20 degree a > 0e such that and . This allows us to deduce, from results on the high/low jump hierarchy in the local Turing degrees and the jump preserving properties of the standard embedding , that there exist Σ20 noncuppable enumeration degrees at every possible—i.e., above low1—level of the high/low jump hierarchy in the context of .

scholarly journals THE n-r.e. DEGREES: UNDECIDABILITY AND Σ1 SUBSTRUCTURES

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (01) ◽  
pp. 1250005 ◽  
Author(s):  
MINGZHONG CAI ◽  
RICHARD A. SHORE ◽  
THEODORE A. SLAMAN
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degrees ◽  
First Order ◽  
Global Properties

We study the global properties of [Formula: see text], the Turing degrees of the n-r.e. sets. In Theorem 1.5, we show that the first order of [Formula: see text] is not decidable. In Theorem 1.6, we show that for any two n and m with n < m, [Formula: see text] is not a Σ1-substructure of [Formula: see text].

Then-rea enumeration degrees are dense

1992 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 277-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alistair H. Lachlan ◽  
Richard A. Shore
Keyword(s):  
Enumeration Degrees
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document