Admissible ordinals and intrinsic consistency

1970 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 389-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Machtey
Keyword(s):  
Analogous Result ◽  
Fundamental Problem ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Infinite Cardinal ◽  
Reduction Procedure ◽  
Partial Recursive Function ◽  
Ordinal Numbers ◽  
Partial Recursive Functions ◽  
Uniform Manner ◽  
Admissible Ordinals

This paper deals with a fundamental problem in the theory of recursion on initial segments of the ordinal numbers which was originated by Kripke [4] and Platek [8]. Following Kreisel-Sacks [3], we define a notion of relative recursiveness for this abstract recursion theory which allows us to speak of a function ƒ being weakly recursive in a set A via a partial recursive function g; this makes it reasonable to speak of partial recursive functions as ‘reduction procedures’. We say that a reduction procedure g is intrinsically consistent if for any set A there is a partial function ƒ which is weakly recursive in A via g. It is an elementary result of ordinary recursion theory that an arbitrary reduction procedure can be replaced in a uniform manner by an intrinsically consistent reduction procedure without the loss of any function f being reducible to any set A. In §3 we show that for recursion theory on the ordinals less than any infinite cardinal the analogous result is consistent with the axioms of set theory. In §5 we show that for all other cases of abstract recursion theory the analogous result fails in a very strong way to be true.

An existence theorem for recursion categories

1990 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 1252-1268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Heller
Keyword(s):  
Number Theory ◽  
Existence Theorem ◽  
Free Semigroup ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Traditional Theory ◽  
Ordinal Numbers ◽  
Partial Recursive Functions ◽  
Uniform Generation ◽  
Similar Development ◽  
Proper Generalization

Recursion theory has been dominated by one example. The notion of a dominical category was introduced (see [2] and [3]) at least in part in the hope of subverting this dominance. The structures of number theory, freed from this original context, led to much of modern algebra with a consequent enrichment of number theory itself: it seemed not unreasonable to attempt to contribute, however modestly, to a similar development of recursion theory. Thus (in the loosest sort of analogy) recursion categories are intended to stand in relation to the class of partial recursive functions as rings do to the rational integers.But if such a generalization is to serve its intended purpose, it ought to allow examples substantially different in spirit from the prototype. Recursion categories are, of course, the proper generalization of classical recursion theory. As a novice in this formidable field I am incapable of encompassing its full extent and must rely on the advice of others (I thank in particular R. DiPaola) in concluding that most of these earlier generalizations are not of this character. Indeed, the examples of recursion categories so far adduced (cf., in addition to the references above, [1] and [4]) are themselves closely tied to the classical one.We attempt here to open the door to radically disparate examples by proving an existence theorem allowing the construction of recursion categories in a wide, and so far unexplored, variety of contexts very distant from that of the natural or ordinal numbers and their subsets, the locus of the traditional theory.In order to do this, it has been necessary to introduce a number of unfamiliar notions—unfamiliar, that is, even in the context of the earlier discussion of dominical categories. This novelty is perhaps mitigated by the fact that, however unfamiliar, they cannot be said to be unusual, as the discussion later will show. We mention in particular those of a “formally free semigroup”, which retains the indexation function of a free semigroup, while giving up the characteristic universal property and that of “uniform generation”, which generalizes finite generation in the fashion assorted to our argument.

Definability of r. e. sets in a class of recursion theoretic structures

1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 662-669 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Byerly
Keyword(s):  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Universal Function ◽  
Independent Interest ◽  
Suitable Model ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Construction Techniques ◽  
Partial Recursive Functions ◽  
Priority Method ◽  
Recursive Isomorphism ◽  
Direct Attack

It is known [4, Theorem 11-X(b)] that there is only one acceptable universal function up to recursive isomorphism. It follows from this that sets definable in terms of a universal function alone are specified uniquely up to recursive isomorphism. (An example is the set K, which consists of all n such that {n}(n) is defined, where λn, m{n}(m) is an acceptable universal function.) Many of the interesting sets constructed and studied by recursion theorists, however, have definitions which involve additional notions, such as a specific enumeration of the graph of a universal function. In particular, many of these definitions make use of the interplay between the purely number-theoretic properties of indices of partial recursive functions and their purely recursion-theoretic properties.This paper concerns r.e. sets that can be defined using only a universal function and some purely number-theoretic concepts. In particular, we would like to know when certain recursion-theoretic properties of r.e. sets definable in this way are independent of the particular choice of universal function (equivalently, independent of the particular way in which godel numbers are identified with natural numbers).We will first develop a suitable model-theoretic framework for discussing this question. This will enable us to classify the formulas defining r.e. sets by their logical complexity. (We use the number of alternations of quantifiers in the prenex form of a formula as a measure of logical complexity.) We will then be able to examine the question at each level.This work is an approach to the question of when the recursion-theoretic properties of an r.e. set are independent of the particular parameters used in its construction. As such, it does not apply directly to the construction techniques most commonly used at this time for defining particular r.e. sets, e.g., the priority method. A more direct attack on this question for these techniques is represented by such works as [3] and [5]. However, the present work should be of independent interest to the logician interested in recursion theory.

The hereditary partial effective functionals and recursion theory in higher types

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 1319-1332 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Longo ◽  
E. Moggi
Keyword(s):  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Type Structure ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Recursive Functions ◽  
Partial Recursive Functions ◽  
Higher Types ◽  
Elementary Technique

AbstractA type-structure of partial effective functionals over the natural numbers, based on a canonical enumeration of the partial recursive functions, is developed. These partial functionals, defined by a direct elementary technique, turn out to be the computable elements of the hereditary continuous partial objects; moreover, there is a commutative system of enumerations of any given type by any type below (relative numberings).By this and by results in [1] and [2], the Kleene-Kreisel countable functionals and the hereditary effective operations (HEO) are easily characterized.

An introduction to γ-recursion theory (or what to do in KP – Foundation)

1990 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 194-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert S. Lubarsky
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Mathematical Theory ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Reverse Mathematics ◽  
Peano Arithmetic ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Admissible Ordinals ◽  
Limited Induction ◽  
Well Foundedness

The program of reverse mathematics has usually been to find which parts of set theory, often used as a base for other mathematics, are actually necessary for some particular mathematical theory. In recent years, Slaman, Groszek, et al, have given the approach a new twist. The priority arguments of recursion theory do not naturally or necessarily lead to a foundation involving any set theory; rather, Peano Arithmetic (PA) in the language of arithmetic suffices. From this point, the appropriate subsystems to consider are fragments of PA with limited induction. A theorem in this area would then have the form that certain induction axioms are independent of, necessary for, or even equivalent to a theorem about the Turing degrees. (See, for examples, [C], [GS], [M], [MS], and [SW].)As go the integers so go the ordinals. One motivation of α-recursion theory (recursion on admissible ordinals) is to generalize classical recursion theory. Since induction in arithmetic is meant to capture the well-foundedness of ω, the corresponding axiom in set theory is foundation. So reverse mathematics, even in the context of a set theory (admissibility), can be changed by the influence of reverse recursion theory. We ask not which set existence axioms, but which foundation axioms, are necessary for the theorems of α-recursion theory.When working in the theory KP – Foundation Schema (hereinafter called KP−), one should really not call it α-recursion theory, which refers implicitly to the full set of axioms KP. Just as the name β-recursion theory refers to what would be α-recursion theory only it includes also inadmissible ordinals, we call the subject of study here γ-recursion theory. This answers a question by Sacks and S. Friedman, “What is γ-recursion theory?”

Minimal α-recursion theoretic degrees

1973 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. MacIntyre
Keyword(s):  
Recursive Function ◽  
Regular Cardinal ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Minimal Degree ◽  
The Other ◽  
Ordinal Numbers ◽  
Definition Of

This paper investigates the problem of extending the recursion theoretic construction of a minimal degree to the Kripke [2]-Platek [5] recursion theory on the ordinals less than an admissible ordinal α, a theory derived from the Takeuti [11] notion of a recursive function on the ordinal numbers. As noted in Sacks [7] when one generalizes the recursion theoretic definition of relative recursiveness to α-recursion theory for α > ω the two usual definitions give rise to two different notions of reducibility. We will show that whenever α is either a countable admissible or a regular cardinal of the constructible universe there is a subset of α whose degree is minimal for both notions of reducibility. The result is an excellent example of a theorem of ordinary recursion theory obtainable via two different constructions, one of which generalizes, the other of which does not. The construction which cannot be lifted to α-recursion theory is that of Spector [10]. We sketch the reasons for this in §3.

Some questions concerning the cofinality of Sym(κ)

1995 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 892-897 ◽  
Author(s):  
James D. Sharp ◽  
Simon Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Analogous Result ◽  
Infinite Cardinal ◽  
Finitely Generated ◽  
Regular Cardinals ◽  
Uncountable Cardinals ◽  
A Chain

Suppose that G is a group that is not finitely generated. Then the cofinality of G, written c(G), is denned to be the least cardinal λ such that G can be expressed as the union of a chain of λ proper subgroups. If κ is an infinite cardinal, then Sym(κ) denotes the group of all permutations of the set κ = {α∣α < κ}. In [1], Macpherson and Neumann proved that c(Sym(κ)) > κ for all infinite cardinals κ. In [4], we proved that it is consistent that c(Sym(ω)) and 2ω can be any two prescribed regular cardinals, subject only to the obvious requirement that c(Sym(ω)) ≤ 2ω. Our first result in this paper is the analogous result for regular uncountable cardinals κ.Theorem 1.1. Let V ⊨ GCH. Let κ, θ, λ ∈ V be cardinals such that(i) κ and θ are regular uncountable, and(ii) κ < θ ≤ cf(λ).Then there exists a notion of forcing ℙ, which preserves cofinalities and cardinalities, such that if G is ℙ-generic then V[G] ⊨ c(Sym(κ)) = θ ≤ λ = 2κ.Theorem 1.1 will be proved in §2. Our proof is based on a very powerful uniformization principle, which was shown to be consistent for regular uncountable cardinals in [2].

Inner Models and Large Cardinals

1995 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronald Jensen
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Cardinal Number ◽  
Ordinal Number ◽  
Infinite Cardinal ◽  
Recursive Definition ◽  
Von Neumann ◽  
Ordinal Numbers ◽  
Kurt Gödel ◽  
Uncountable Cardinal ◽  
Image Position

In this paper, we sketch the development of two important themes of modern set theory, both of which can be regarded as growing out of work of Kurt Gödel. We begin with a review of some basic concepts and conventions of set theory. §0. The ordinal numbers were Georg Cantor's deepest contribution to mathematics. After the natural numbers 0, 1, …, n, … comes the first infinite ordinal number ω, followed by ω + 1, ω + 2, …, ω + ω, … and so forth. ω is the first limit ordinal as it is neither 0 nor a successor ordinal. We follow the von Neumann convention, according to which each ordinal number α is identified with the set {ν ∣ ν α} of its predecessors. The ∈ relation on ordinals thus coincides with <. We have 0 = ∅ and α + 1 = α ∪ {α}. According to the usual set-theoretic conventions, ω is identified with the first infinite cardinal ℵ0, similarly for the first uncountable ordinal number ω1 and the first uncountable cardinal number ℵ1, etc. We thus arrive at the following picture: The von Neumann hierarchy divides the class V of all sets into a hierarchy of sets Vα indexed by the ordinal numbers. The recursive definition reads: (where } is the power set of x); Vλ = ∪v<λVv for limit ordinals λ. We can represent this hierarchy by the following picture.

Type two partial degrees

1978 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 623-629
Author(s):  
Ko-Wei Lih
Keyword(s):  
Recursive Function ◽  
Natural Extension ◽  
Degree Theory ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Partial Functions ◽  
Reduction Procedure ◽  
Turing Reducibility

Roughly speaking partial degrees are equivalence classes of partial objects under a certain notion of relative recursiveness. To make this notion precise we have to state explicitly (1) what these partial objects are; (2) how to define a suitable reduction procedure. For example, when the type of these objects is restricted to one, we may include all possible partial functions from natural numbers to natural numbers as basic objects and the reduction procedure could be enumeration, weak Turing, or Turing reducibility as expounded in Sasso [4]. As we climb up the ladder of types, we see that the usual definitions of relative recursiveness, equivalent in the context of type-1 total objects and functions, may be extended to partial objects and functions in quite different ways. First such generalization was initiated by Kleene [2]. He considers partial functions with total objects as arguments. However his theory suffers the lack of transitivity, i.e. we may not obtain a recursive function when we substitute a recursive function into a recursive function. Although Kleene's theory provides a nice background for the study of total higher type objects, it would be unsatisfactory when partial higher type objects are being investigated. In this paper we choose the hierarchy of hereditarily consistent objects over ω as our universe of discourse so that Sasso's objects are exactly those at the type-1 level. Following Kleene's fashion we define relative recursiveness via schemes and indices. Yet in our theory, substitution will preserve recursiveness, which makes a degree theory of partial higher type objects possible. The final result will be a natural extension of Sasso's Turing reducibility. Due to the abstract nature of these objects we do not know much about their behaviour except at the very low types. Here we pay our attention mainly to type-2 objects. In §2 we formulate basic notions and give an outline of our recursion theory of partial higher type objects. In §3 we introduce the definitions of singular degrees and ω-consistent degrees which are two important classes of type-2 objects that we are most interested in.

Simple r. e. degree structures

1987 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 208-213
Author(s):  
Robert S. Lubarsky
Keyword(s):  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Local Version ◽  
Admissible Set ◽  
Jump Operator ◽  
Admissible Sets ◽  
Closed Sets ◽  
Locally Countable ◽  
To Come ◽  
Admissible Ordinals

Much of recursion theory centers on the structures of different kinds of degrees. Classically there are the Turing degrees and r. e. Turing degrees. More recently, people have studied α-degrees for α an ordinal, and degrees over E-closed sets and admissible sets. In most contexts, deg(0) is the bottom degree and there is a jump operator' such that d' is the largest degree r. e. in d and d' > d. Both the degrees and the r. e. degrees usually have a rich structure, including a relativization to the cone above a given degree.A natural exception to this pattern was discovered by S. Friedman [F], who showed that for certain admissible ordinals β the β-degrees ≥ 0′ are well-ordered, with successor provided by the jump.For r. e. degrees, natural counterexamples are harder to come by. This is because the constructions are priority arguments, which require only mild restrictions on the ground model. For instance, if an admissible set has a well-behaved pair of recursive well-orderings then the priority construction of an intermediate r. e. degree (i.e., 0 < d < 0′) goes through [S]. It is of interest to see just what priority proofs need by building (necessarily pathological) admissible sets with few r. e. degrees.Harrington [C] provides an admissible set with two r. e. degrees, via forcing. A limitation of his example is that it needs ω1 (more accurately, a local version thereof) as a parameter. In this paper, we find locally countable admissible sets, some with three r. e. degrees and some with four.

TRUNCATION AND SEMI-DECIDABILITY NOTIONS IN APPLICATIVE THEORIES

2018 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 967-990
Author(s):  
GERHARD JÄGER ◽  
TIMOTEJ ROSEBROCK ◽  
SATO KENTARO
Keyword(s):  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
First Order ◽  
Recursive Functions ◽  
Partial Recursive Functions

AbstractBON+ is an applicative theory and closely related to the first order parts of the standard systems of explicit mathematics. As such it is also a natural framework for abstract computations. In this article we analyze this aspect of BON+ more closely. First a point is made for introducing a new operation τN, called truncation, to obtain a natural formalization of partial recursive functions in our applicative framework. Then we introduce the operational versions of a series of notions that are all equivalent to semi-decidability in ordinary recursion theory on the natural numbers, and study their mutual relationships over BON+ with τN.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document