A survey of partial degrees

1975 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard P. Sasso
Keyword(s):  
Equivalence Classes ◽  
Turing Machines ◽  
Systems Of Equations ◽  
Partial Functions ◽  
Enumeration Degrees ◽  
Upper Semilattice ◽  
Enumeration Reducibility ◽  
Turing Reducibility ◽  
Recursive Operators ◽  
Relative Enumerability

Partial degrees are equivalence classes of partial natural number functions under some suitable extension of relative recursiveness to partial functions. The usual definitions of relative recursiveness, equivalent in the context of total functions, are distinct when extended to partial functions. The purpose of this paper is to compare the upper semilattice structures of the resulting degrees.Relative partial recursiveness of partial functions was first introduced in Kleene [2] as an extension of the definition by means of systems of equations of relative recursiveness of total functions. Kleene's relative partial recursiveness is equivalent to the relation between the graphs of partial functions induced by Rogers' [10] relation of relative enumerability (called enumeration reducibility) between sets. The resulting degrees are hence called enumeration degrees. In [2] Davis introduces completely computable or compact functionals of partial functions and uses these to define relative partial recursiveness of partial functions. Davis' functionals are equivalent to the recursive operators introduced in Rogers [10] where a theorem of Myhill and Shepherdson is used to show that the resulting reducibility, here called weak Turing reducibility, is stronger than (i.e., implies, but is not implied by) enumeration reducibility. As in Davis [2], relative recursiveness of total functions with range ⊆{0, 1} may be defined by means of Turing machines with oracles or equivalently as the closure of initial functions under composition, primitive re-cursion, and minimalization (i.e., relative μ-recursiveness). Extending either of these definitions yields a relation between partial functions, here called Turing reducibility, which is stronger still.

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.

Jumps of quasi-minimal enumeration degrees

1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 839-848 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin McEvoy
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degree ◽  
Partial Functions ◽  
Enumeration Degrees ◽  
Enumeration Degree ◽  
Enumeration Reducibility ◽  
Degree Structure ◽  
Usual Topology ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Second Category ◽  
Degrees Of Unsolvability

Enumeration reducibility is a reducibility between sets of natural numbers defined as follows: A is enumeration reducible to B if there is some effective operation on enumerations which when given any enumeration of B will produce an enumeration of A. One reason for interest in this reducibility is that it presents us with a natural reducibility between partial functions whose degree structure can be seen to extend the structure of the Turing degrees of unsolvability. In [7] Friedberg and Rogers gave a precise definition of enumeration reducibility, and in [12] Rogers presented a theorem of Medvedev [10] on the existence of what Case [1] was to call quasi-minimal degrees. Myhill [11] also defined this reducibility and proved that the class of quasi-minimal degrees is of second category in the usual topology. As Gutteridge [8] has shown that there are no minimal enumeration degrees (see Cooper [3]), the quasi-minimal degrees are very much of interest in the study of the structure of the enumeration degrees. In this paper we define a jump operator on the enumeration degrees which was introduced by Cooper [4], and show that every complete enumeration degree is the jump of a quasi-minimal degree. We also extend the notion of a high Turing degree to the enumeration degrees and construct a “high” quasi-minimal enumeration degree—a result which contrasts with Cooper's result in [2] that a high Turing degree cannot be minimal. Finally, we use the Sacks' Jump Theorem to characterise the jumps of the co-r.e. enumeration degrees.

scholarly journals Recursive density types and Nerode extensions of arithmetic

1975 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Aczel
Keyword(s):  
Equivalence Classes ◽  
Partial Functions ◽  
Recursive Functions ◽  
Cardinal Numbers ◽  
Partial Recursive Functions

The notion of a recursive density type (R.D.T.) was introduced by Medvedev and developed by Pavlova (1961). More recently the algebra of R.D.T.'s was initiated by Gonshor and Rice (1969). The R.D.T.'s are equivalence classes of sets of integers, similar in many respects to the R.E.T.'s. They may both be thought of as effective analogues of the cardinal numbers. While the equivalence relationfor R.E.T.'s is defined in terms of partial recursive functions, that for R.D.T.'s may be characterized in terms of recursively bounded partial functions (see 4.22a).

DEFINABILITY OF THE JUMP OPERATOR IN THE ENUMERATION DEGREES

2003 ◽  
Vol 03 (02) ◽  
pp. 257-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
I. Sh. KALIMULLIN
Keyword(s):  
Jump Operator ◽  
Enumeration Degrees ◽  
Upper Semilattice

We show that the e-degree 0'e and the map u ↦ u' are definable in the upper semilattice of all e-degrees. The class of total e-degrees ≥0'e is also definable.

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 Generalizations of Rice's Theorem, Applicable to Executable and Non-Executable Formalisms

10.29007/jnl6 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cornelis Huizing ◽  
Ruurd Kuiper ◽  
Tom Verhoeff
Keyword(s):  
Programming Languages ◽  
Programming Language ◽  
Specification Language ◽  
Partial Function ◽  
Program Text ◽  
Turing Machines ◽  
Partial Functions ◽  
Executable Specification ◽  
Special Cases ◽  
Diagonal Argument

We formulate and prove two Rice-like theoremsthat characterize limitations on nameability of propertieswithin a given naming scheme for partial functions.Such a naming scheme can, but need not be, an executable formalism.A programming language is an example of an executable naming scheme,where the program text names the partial function it implements.Halting is an example of a propertythat is not nameable in that naming scheme.The proofs reveal requirements on the naming schemeto make the characterization work.Universal programming languages satisfy these requirements,but also other formalisms can satisfy them.We present some non-universal programming languagesand a non-executable specification languagesatisfying these requirements.Our theorems haveTuring's well-known Halting Theorem and Rice's Theorem as special cases,by applying them to a universal programming language or Turing Machines as naming scheme.Thus, our proofs separate the nature of the naming scheme(which can, but need not, coincide with computability) from the diagonal argument.This sheds further light on how far reaching and simple the `diagonal' argument is in itself.

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.

Turing computable embeddings

2007 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 901-918 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia F. Knight ◽  
Sara Miller ◽  
M. Vanden Boom
Keyword(s):  
Enumeration Reducibility ◽  
Turing Reducibility ◽  
Turing Computable Embedding

AbstractIn [3]. two different effective versions of Borel embedding are defined. The first, called computable embedding, is based on uniform enumeration reducibility. while the second, called Turing computable embedding, is based on uniform Turing reducibility. While [3] focused mainly on computable embeddings, the present paper considers Turing computable embeddings. Although the two notions are not equivalent, we can show that they behave alike on the mathematically interesting classes chosen for investigation in [3]. We give a “Pull-back Theorem”, saying that if Ф is a Turing computable embedding of K into K′, then for any computable infinitary sentence φ in the language of K′, we can find a computable infinitary sentence φ* in the language of K such that for all A ∈ K A ⊨ φ* iff Φ (A) ⊨ φ and φ* has the same “complexity” as φ (i.e., if φ is computable Σα or computable Πα, for α ≥ 1, then so is φ*). The Pull-back Theorem is useful in proving non-embeddability, and it has other applications as well.

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).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document