Definable relations in Turing degree structures

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 1145-1154 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. M. Arslanov
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degree ◽  
Definable Relations

Definable relations in Turing degree structures

2014 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 64-67
Author(s):  
M. M. Arslanov
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degree ◽  
Definable Relations

scholarly journals FINDING THE LIMIT OF INCOMPLETENESS I

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 268-286
Author(s):  
YONG CHENG
Keyword(s):  
Model Theory ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Minimal Degree ◽  
Incompleteness Theorem ◽  
Turing Degree ◽  
Turing Reducibility ◽  
Inseparable Pair

AbstractIn this paper, we examine the limit of applicability of Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem ($\textsf {G1}$ for short). We first define the notion “$\textsf {G1}$ holds for the theory $T$”. This paper is motivated by the following question: can we find a theory with a minimal degree of interpretation for which $\textsf {G1}$ holds. To approach this question, we first examine the following question: is there a theory T such that Robinson’s $\mathbf {R}$ interprets T but T does not interpret $\mathbf {R}$ (i.e., T is weaker than $\mathbf {R}$ w.r.t. interpretation) and $\textsf {G1}$ holds for T? In this paper, we show that there are many such theories based on Jeřábek’s work using some model theory. We prove that for each recursively inseparable pair $\langle A,B\rangle $, we can construct a r.e. theory $U_{\langle A,B\rangle }$ such that $U_{\langle A,B\rangle }$ is weaker than $\mathbf {R}$ w.r.t. interpretation and $\textsf {G1}$ holds for $U_{\langle A,B\rangle }$. As a corollary, we answer a question from Albert Visser. Moreover, we prove that for any Turing degree $\mathbf {0}< \mathbf {d}<\mathbf {0}^{\prime }$, there is a theory T with Turing degree $\mathbf {d}$ such that $\textsf {G1}$ holds for T and T is weaker than $\mathbf {R}$ w.r.t. Turing reducibility. As a corollary, based on Shoenfield’s work using some recursion theory, we show that there is no theory with a minimal degree of Turing reducibility for which $\textsf {G1}$ holds.

Wtt-degrees and T-degrees of r.e. sets

1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 921-930 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Stob
Keyword(s):  
Minimal Pair ◽  
Turing Degree ◽  
Turing Reducibility

AbstractWe use some simple facts about the wtt-degrees of r.e. sets together with a construction to answer some questions concerning the join and meet operators in the r.e. degrees. The construction is that of an r.e. Turing degree a with just one wtt-degree in a such that a is the join of a minimal pair of r.e. degrees. We hope to illustrate the usefulness of studying the stronger reducibility orderings of r.e. sets for providing information about Turing reducibility.

The universal splitting property. II

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Lerman ◽  
J. B. Remmel
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degree ◽  
Splitting Theorem ◽  
Splitting Property ◽  
Exhaustive Study

We say that a pair of r.e. sets B and C split an r.e. set A if B ∩ C = ∅ and B ∪ C = A. Friedberg [F] was the first to study the degrees of splittings of r.e. sets. He showed that every nonrecursive r.e. set A has a splitting into nonrecursive sets. Generalizations and strengthenings of Friedberg's result were obtained by Sacks [Sa2], Owings [O], and Morley and Soare [MS].The question which motivated both [LR] and this paper is the determination of possible degrees of splittings of A. It is easy to see that if B and C split A, then both B and C are Turing reducible to A (written B ≤TA and C ≤TA). The Sacks splitting theorem [Sa2] is a result in this direction, as are results by Lachlan and Ladner on mitotic and nonmitotic sets. Call an r.e. set A mitotic if there is a splitting B and C of A such that both B and C have the same Turing degree as A; A is nonmitotic otherwise. Lachlan [Lac] showed that nonmitotic sets exist, and Ladner [Lad1], [Lad2] carried out an exhaustive study of the degrees of mitotic sets.The Sacks splitting theorem [Sa2] shows that if A is r.e. and nonrecursive, then there are r.e. sets B and C splitting A such that B <TA and C <TA. Since B is r.e. and nonrecursive, we can now split B and continue in this manner to produce infinitely many r.e. degrees below the degree of A which are degrees of sets forming part of a splitting of A. We say that an r.e. set A has the universal splitting property (USP) if for any r.e. set D ≤T A, there is a splitting B and C of A such that B and D are Turing equivalent (written B ≡TD).

Degrees of classes of RE sets

1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 695-696 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. Shoenfield
Keyword(s):  
Order Theory ◽  
Turing Degree ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Order Theory ◽  
Simple Sets ◽  
Natural Classes

In [3], Martin computed the degrees of certain classes of RE sets. To state the results succinctly, some notation is useful.If A is a set (of natural numbers), dg(A) is the (Turing) degree of A. If A is a class of sets, dg(A) = {dg(A): A ∈ A). Let M be the class of maximal sets, HHS the class of hyperhypersimple sets, and DS the class of dense simple sets. Martin showed that dg(M), dg(HHS), and dg(DS) are all equal to the set H of RE degrees a such that a′ = 0″.Let M* be the class of coinfinite RE sets having no superset in M; and define HHS* and DS* similarly. Martin showed that dg(DS*) = H. In [2], Lachlan showed (among other things) that dg(M*)⊆K, where K is the set of RE degrees a such that a″ > 0″. We will show that K ⊆ dg (HHS*). Since maximal sets are hyperhypersimple, this gives dg(M*) = dg (HHS*) = K.These results suggest a problem. In each case in which dg(A) has been calculated, the set of nonzero degrees in dg(A) is either H or K or the empty set or the set of all nonzero RE degrees. Is this always the case for natural classes A? Natural here might mean that A is invariant under all automorphisms of the lattice of RE sets; or that A is definable in the first-order theory of that lattice; or anything else which seems reasonable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document