An extension of the recursively enumerable Turing degrees

2007 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen G. Simpson
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Recursively Enumerable

Some theorems on R-maximal sets and major subsets of recursively enumerable sets

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Lerman
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Elementary Equivalence ◽  
Recursive Functions ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Nonstandard Models ◽  
Relational Systems ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Models Of Arithmetic

In [5], we studied the relational systems /Ā obtained from the recursive functions of one variable by identifying two such functions if they are equal for all but finitely many х ∈ Ā, where Ā is an r-cohesive set. The relational systems /Ā with addition and multiplication defined pointwise on them, were once thought to be potential candidates for nonstandard models of arithmetic. This, however, turned out not to be the case, as was shown by Feferman, Scott, and Tennenbaum [1]. We showed, letting A and B be r-maximal sets, and letting denote the complement of X, that /Ā and are elementarily equivalent (/Ā ≡ ) if there are r-maximal supersets C and D of A and B respectively such that C and D have the same many-one degree (C =mD). In fact, if A and B are maximal sets, /Ā ≡ if, and only if, A =mB. We wish to study the relationship between the elementary equivalence of /Ā and , and the Turing degrees of A and B.

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.

Complementation in the Turing degrees

1989 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore A. Slaman ◽  
John R. Steel
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Open Problems ◽  
Recursively Enumerable

AbstractPosner [6] has shown, by a nonuniform proof, that every degree has a complement below 0′. We show that a 1-generic complement for each set of degree between 0 and 0′ can be found uniformly. Moreover, the methods just as easily can be used to produce a complement whose jump has the degree of any real recursively enumerable in and above ∅′. In the second half of the paper, we show that the complementation of the degrees below 0′ does not extend to all recursively enumerable degrees. Namely, there is a pair of recursively enumerable degrees a above b such that no degree strictly below a joins b above a. (This result is independently due to S. B. Cooper.) We end with some open problems.

Contiguity and distributivity in the enumerable Turing degrees

1997 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 1215-1240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodney G. Downey ◽  
Steffen Lempp
Keyword(s):  
Truth Table ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Enumerable Degree ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Degree

AbstractWe 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.

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).

Working below a high recursively enumerable degree

1993 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 824-859 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Shore ◽  
Theodore A. Slaman
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Jump Operator ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Set ◽  
Enumerable Degree ◽  
Local Degree ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Degree ◽  
Turing Reducibility ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Relationship

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 .

A minimal pair of Π10 classes

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl G. Jockusch ◽  
Robert I. Soare
Keyword(s):  
Peano Arithmetic ◽  
Minimal Degree ◽  
Minimal Pair ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Complete Extension ◽  
Recursively Enumerable

A pair of sets (A0, A1) forms a minimal pair if A0 and A1 are nonrecursive, and if whenever a set B is recursive both in A0 and in A1 then B is recursive. C. E. M. Yates [8] and independently A. H. Lachlan [4] proved the existence of a minima] pair of recursively enumerable (r.e.) sets thereby establishing a conjecture of G. E. Sacks [6]. We simplify Lachlan's construction, and then generalize this result by constructing two disjoint pairs of r.e. sets (A0, B0) and (A1B1) such that if C0 separates (A0, A1 and C1 separates (B0, B1), then C0 and C1 form a minimal pair. (We say that C separates (A0, A1) if A0 ⊂ C and C ∩ = ∅.) The question arose in our study of (Turing) degrees of members of certain classes, where we proved the weaker result [2, Theorem 4.1] that the above pairs may be chosen so that C0 and C2 are merely Turing incomparable. (There we used a variation of the weaker result to improve a result of Scott and Tennenbaum that no complete extension of Peano arithmetic has minimal degree.)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document