A note on degrees of subsets1

1969 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 256-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert I. Soare
Keyword(s):  
Minimal Degree ◽  
Turing Degree ◽  
Lower Degree ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Infinite Set

In [2] we constructed an infinite set of natural numbers containing no subset of higher (Turing) degree. Since it is well known that there are nonrecursive sets (e.g. sets of minimal degree) containing no nonrecursive subset of lower degree, it is natural to suppose that these arguments may be combined, but this is false. We prove that every infinite set must contain a nonrecursive subset of either higher or lower degree.

Relative recursive enumerability of generic degrees

1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 1075-1084 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masahiro Kumabe
Keyword(s):  
Characteristic Function ◽  
Initial Segment ◽  
Minimal Degree ◽  
Turing Degree ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Recursive Enumerability ◽  
Degree Bounds ◽  
Generic Set ◽  
The Given ◽  
Dense Set

Let ω be the set of natural numbers, i.e. {0, 1, 2, 3, …}. A string is a mapping from an initial segment of ω into {0, 1}. We identify a set A ≤ ω with its characteristic function. A set A ≤ ω is called n-generic if it is Cohen-generic for n-quantifier arithmetic. This is equivalent to saying that for every set of strings S, there is a σ < A such that σ ∈ S or (∀ν ≥ σ)(ν ∉ S). By degree we mean Turing degree (of unsolvability). We call a degree n-generic if it has an n-generic representative. For a degree a, D(≤ a) denotes the set of degrees recursive in a.The relation between generic degrees and minimal degrees has been widely studied. Spector [9] proved the existence of minimal degrees. Shoenfield [8] simplified the proof by using trees. In the construction of a minimal degree, given σ we extend σ to ν so that ν is in the (splitting or nonsplitting) subtree of a given tree. But in the construction of a generic set, given σ we extend σ to ν to meet the given dense set. So these two constructions are quite different. Jockusch [5] showed that any 2-generic degree bounds no minimal degree. Chong and Jockusch [3] showed that any 1-generic degree below 0′ bounds no minimal degree.

Sets with no subset of higher degree

1969 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert I. Soare
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degree ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Original Proof ◽  
Infinite Set

The problem of finding an infinite set of natural numbers which contains no subsets of higher (Turing) degree was first posed by W. Miller [3] and was brought to our attention by C. G. Jockusch, Jr., who proved that such a set, if it existed, could not be hyperarithmetic.2 In this paper we construct an infinite set which is not recursive in any of its coinfinite subsets, and thus contains no subset of higher degree. Our original proof made use of the result (attributed to Ehrenfeucht) that every subset of 2ω which is open (in the standard topology) is “Ramsey”.

A 1-generic degree which bounds a minimal degree

1990 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 733-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masahiro Kumabe
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Answer ◽  
Minimal Degree ◽  
Turing Degree ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Degree Bounds

Let ω be the set of natural numbers, i.e. {0,1,2,…}. A set A (≤ω) is called n-generic if it is Cohen-generic for n-quantifier arithmetic. As characterized by Jockusch [4], this is equivalent to saying that for every set of strings S, there is a σ < A such that σ ∈ S or ∀ν ≥ σ(ν ∉ S). When we say degree, we mean Turing degree (of unsolvability). We call a degree n-generic if it has an n-generic representative. A nonrecursive degree a is called minimal if there is no nonrecursive degree b with b < a. Jockusch [4] exhibited various properties of generic degrees, and he showed that any 2-generic degree bounds no minimal degree. Chong and Jockusch [1] showed that any 1-generic degree below 0′ bounds no minimal degree. Haught [3] refuted one of the conjectures in [1] and showed that if a is a 1-generic degree and 0 < b < a < 0′ then b is also 1-generic. We show here that there is a 1-generic degree which bounds a minimal degree. This gives an affirmative answer to questions in [1] and [4], As any 1-generic degree below 0′ bounds no minimal degree, we see that our 1-generic degree which bounds a minimal degree is not below 0′, but can be constructed recursively in 0″. Furthermore we see that the initial segments below 1-generic degrees are not order isomorphic.

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.

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.

Proceed with care, because some infinities are larger than others

2020 ◽  
pp. 281-292
Author(s):  
Susan D'Agostino
Keyword(s):  
Number Line ◽  
Mathematics Students ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Real Numbers ◽  
Countable Infinity ◽  
One To One ◽  
Infinite Set

“Proceed with care, because some infinities are larger than others” explains in detail why the infinite set of real numbers—all of the numbers on the number line—represents a far larger infinity than the infinite set of natural numbers—the counting numbers. Readers learn to distinguish between countable infinity and uncountable infinity by way of a method known as a “one-to-one correspondence.” Mathematics students and enthusiasts are encouraged to proceed with care in both mathematics and life, lest they confuse countable infinity with uncountable infinity, large with unfathomably large, or order with disorder. At the chapter’s end, readers may check their understanding by working on a problem. A solution is provided.

scholarly journals On radicals of infinite matrix rings

1969 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 195-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. D. Sands
Keyword(s):  
Infinite Matrix ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Index Set ◽  
Matrix Rings ◽  
Infinite Set

Let R be a ring and I an infinite set. We denote by M(R) the ring of row finite matrices over I with entries in R. The set I will be omitted from the notation, as the same index set will be used throughout the paper. For convenience it will be assumed that the set of natural numbers is a subset of I.

Maximal subsemigroups of some semigroups of order-preserving mappings on a countably infinite set

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiwadee Musunthia ◽  
Jörg Koppitz
Keyword(s):  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Maximal Subsemigroups ◽  
Countably Infinite ◽  
Infinite Set

AbstractIn this paper, we study the maximal subsemigroups of several semigroups of order-preserving transformations on the natural numbers and the integers, respectively. We determine all maximal subsemigroups of the monoid of all order-preserving injections on the set of natural numbers as well as on the set of integers. Further, we give all maximal subsemigroups of the monoid of all bijections on the integers. For the monoid of all order-preserving transformations on the natural numbers, we classify also all its maximal subsemigroups, containing a particular set of transformations.

scholarly journals Generalized cohesiveness

1999 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 489-516 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamara Hummel ◽  
Carl G. Jockusch
Keyword(s):  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Ramsey's Theorem ◽  
Ramsey’S Theorem ◽  
Infinite Set ◽  
Degrees Of Unsolvability ◽  
Computably Enumerable

AbstractWe study some generalized notions of cohesiveness which arise naturally in connection with effective versions of Ramsey's Theorem. An infinite set A of natural numbers is n-cohesive (respectively, n-r-cohesive) if A is almost homogeneous for every computably enumerable (respectively, computable) 2-coloring of the n-element sets of natural numbers. (Thus the 1-cohesive and 1-r-cohesive sets coincide with the cohesive and r-cohesive sets, respectively.) We consider the degrees of unsolvability and arithmetical definability levels of n-cohesive and n-r-cohesive sets. For example, we show that for all n ≥ 2, there exists a n-cohesive set. We improve this result for n = 2 by showing that there is a 2-cohesive set. We show that the n-cohesive and n-r-cohesive degrees together form a linear, non-collapsing hierarchy of degrees for n ≥ 2. In addition, for n ≥ 2 we characterize the jumps of n-cohesive degrees as exactly the degrees ≥ 0(n+1) and also characterize the jumps of the n-r-cohesive degrees.

Independent Gödel sentences and independent sets

1975 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-166
Author(s):  
A. M. Dawes ◽  
J. B. Florence
Keyword(s):  
Positive Integer ◽  
Independent Sets ◽  
Peano Arithmetic ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Simple Set ◽  
Logical Notion ◽  
Infinite Set ◽  
Element Set

In this paper we investigate some of the recursion-theoretic problems which are suggested by the logical notion of independence.A set S of natural numbers will be said to be k-independent (respectively, ∞-independent) if, roughly speaking, in every correct system there is a k-element set (respectively, an infinite set) of independent true sentences of the form x ∈ S. S will be said to be effectively independent (respectively, absolutely independent) if given any correct system we can generate an infinite set of independent (respectively, absolutely independent) true sentences of the form x ∈ S.We prove that(a) S is absolutely independent ⇔S is effectively independent ⇔S is productive;(b) for every positive integer k there is a Π1 set which is k-independent but not (k + 1)-independent;(c) there is a Π1 set which is k-independent for all k but not ∞-independent;(d) there is a co-simple set which is ∞-independent.We also give two new proofs of the theorem of Myhill [1] on the existence of an infinite set of Σ1 sentences which are absolutely independent relative to Peano arithmetic. The first proof uses the existence of an absolutely independent Π1 set of natural numbers, and the second uses a modification of the method of Gödel and Rosser.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document