Least upper bounds for minimal pairs of α-R.E. α-degrees

1974 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Lerman
Keyword(s):  
Characteristic Function ◽  
Upper Bound ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Upper Bounds ◽  
Minimal Pair ◽  
Upper Semilattice ◽  
Minimal Pairs ◽  
Limit Ordinal ◽  
Recursion Theorem ◽  
Admissible Ordinals

The application of priority arguments to study the structure of the upper semilattice of α-r.e. α-degrees for all admissible ordinals α was first done successfully by Sacks and Simpson [5] who proved that there exist incomparable α-r.e. α-degrees. Lerman and Sacks [3] studied the existence of minimal pairs of α-r.e. α-degrees, and proved their existence for all admissible ordinals α which are not refractory. We continue the study of the α-r.e. α-degrees, and prove that no minimal pair of α-r.e. α-degrees can have as least upper bound the complete α-r.e. α-degree.The above-mentioned theorem was first proven for α = ω by Lachlan [1]. Our proof for α = ω differs from Lachlan's in that we eliminate the use of the recursion theorem. The proofs are similar, however, and a knowledge of Lachlan's proof will be of considerable aid in reading this paper.We assume that the reader is familiar with the basic notions or α-recursion theory, which can be found in [2] or [5].Throughout the paper a will be an arbitrary admissible ordinal. We identify a set A ⊆ α with its characteristic function, A(x) = 1 if x ∈ A, and A(x) = 0 if x ∉ A.If A ⊆ α and B ⊆ α, then A ⊕ B will denote the set defined byA ⊕ B(x) = A(y) if x = λ + 2z, λ is a limit ordinal, z < ω and y = λ + z,= B(y) if x = λ + 2z + 1, λ is a limit ordinal, z < ω, and y = λ + z.

Minimal upper bounds for ascending sequences of α-recursively enumerable degrees

1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 250-260
Author(s):  
C. T. Chong
Keyword(s):  
Upper Bound ◽  
Recursive Function ◽  
Upper Bounds ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Limit Ordinal ◽  
Admissible Ordinals

Let a be an admissible ordinal and let ∧ ≤ α be a limit ordinal. A sequence of a-r.e. degrees is said to be ascending, simultaneous and of length ∧ if (i) there is an α-recursive function t: α × ∧ → α such that, for all ϒ < ∧, Aϒ = {t(σ, ϒ)∣ σ < α} is of degree aϒ; (ii) if ϒ < ⊤ < ∧, then aϒ ≤αaτ and (iii) for all ϒ < ∧, there is a ⊤ > ϒ with aϒ, >αaϒ. Lerman [4] showed that such an exists for every ∧ ≤ α. An upper bound a of is an α-r.e. degree in which every element of is α-recursive. a is minimal if there is no α-r.e. degree b <αa which is also an upper bound of . Sacks [6] proved that every ascending sequence of simultaneously ω-r.e. degrees of length ω cannot have 0ω′, the complete ω-r.e. degree, as a minimal upper bound. In contrast, Cooper [2] showed that there exists an ascending sequence of simultaneously ω-r.e. degrees of length to having a minimal upper bound which is an ω-r.e. degree. In this paper we investigate the behavior of ascending sequences of simultaneously α-r.e. degrees for admissible ordinals α > ω. Call α Σ∞-admissibIe if it is Σn-nadmissible for all n. Let Φ(∧) say: No ascending sequence of simultaneously α-r.e. degrees of length ∧ can have 0α′, the complete α-r.e. degree, as a minimal upper bound. Our main result in this paper is:Let α be either a constructible cardinal with σ2ci(α) < α or Σ∞-admissible. Then σ2cf(α) is the least ordinal ν for which every ∧ ≤ α of cofinality ν (over Lα) can satisfy Φ(∧).

An extension of the nondiamond theorem in classical and α-recursion theory

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 586-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Ambos-Spies
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Upper Bounds ◽  
Minimal Pair ◽  
Splitting Theorem ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Interesting Corollary ◽  
Image Position

Lachlan's nondiamond theorem [7, Theorem 5] asserts that there is no embedding of the four-element Boolean algebra (diamond) in the recursively enumerable degrees which preserves infima, suprema, and least and greatest elements. Lachlan observed that, essentially by relativization, the theorem can be extended toUsing the Sacks splitting theorem he concluded that there exists a pair of r.e. degrees which does not have an infimum, thus showing that the r.e. degrees do not form a lattice.We will first prove the following extension of (1):where an r.e. degree a is non-b-cappable if . From (2) we obtain more information about pairs of r.e. degrees without infima: For every nonzero low r.e. degree there exists an incomparable one such that the two degrees do not have an infimum and there is an r.e. degree which is not half of a pair of incomparable r.e. degrees which has an infimum in the low r.e. degrees. Probably the most interesting corollary of (2) is that the join of any cappable r.e. degree (i.e. half of a minimal pair) and any low r.e. degree is incomplete. Consequently there is an incomplete noncappable degree above every incomplete r.e. degree. Cooper's result [3] that ascending sequences of uniformly r.e. degrees can have minimal upper bounds in the set R of r.e. degrees is another corollary of (2).

scholarly journals Uniform upper bounds on ideals of turing degrees

1978 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 601-612 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold T. Hodes
Keyword(s):  
Upper Bound ◽  
Upper Bounds ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Hierarchy Theory ◽  
Countable Ordinal ◽  
Limit Ordinal ◽  
Theoretic Motivation ◽  
Increasing Function

Given I, a reasonable countable set of Turing degrees, can we find some sort of canonical strict upper bound on I? If I = {a ∣ a ≤ b}, the upper bound on I which springs to mind is b′. But what if I is closed under jump? This question arises naturally out of the question which motivates a large part of hierarchy theory: Is there a canonical increasing function from a countable ordinal, preferably a large one, into D, the set of Turing degrees? If d is to be such a function, it is natural to require that d(α + 1) = d(α)′; but how should d(λ) depend on d ↾ λ, where λ is a limit ordinal?For any I ⊆ D, let MI, = ⋃I. Towards making the above questions precise, we introduce ideals of Turing degrees.Definition 1. I ⊆ D is an ideal iff I is closed under jump and join, and I is downward-closed, i.e., if a ≤ b & b ϵ I then a ϵ I.The following definition reflects the hierarchy-theoretic motivation for this paper.Definition 2. For I ⊆ D and A ⊆ ω, I is an A-hierarchy ideal iff for some countable ordinal α, MI = Lα[A]∩ ωω.All hierarchy ideals are ideals, but not conversely.Early in the game Spector knocked out the best sort of canonicity for upper bounds on ideals, proving that no set of degrees closed under jump has a least upper bound.

On the Kleene degrees of Π11 sets

1986 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 352-359
Author(s):  
Theodore A. Slaman
Keyword(s):  
Partial Order ◽  
Equivalence Class ◽  
Equivalence Relation ◽  
Upper Semilattice ◽  
Strengthened Version ◽  
Minimal Pairs ◽  
Admissible Ordinals

AbstractLet A and B be subsets of the reals. Say that AK≥ B, if there is a real a such that the relation “x ∈ B” is uniformly ⊿1 (a, A) in . This reducibility induces an equivalence relation ≡K on the sets of reals; the ≡K-equivalence class of a set is called its Kleene degree. Let be the structure that consists of the Kleene degrees and the induced partial order ≥. A substructure of that is of interest is , the Kleene degrees of the sets of reals. If sharps exist, then there is not much to , as Steel [9] has shown that the existence of sharps implies that has only two elements: the degree of the empty set and the degree of the complete set. Legrand [4] used the hypothesis that there is a real whose sharp does not exist to show that there are incomparable elements in ; in the context of V = L, Hrbáček has shown that is dense and has no minimal pairs. The Hrbáček results led Simpson [6] to make the following conjecture: if V = L, then forms a universal homogeneous upper semilattice with 0 and 1. Simpson's conjecture is shown to be false by showing that if V = L, then Gödel's maximal thin set is the infimum of two strictly larger elements of .The second main result deals with the notion of jump in . Let A′ be the complete Kleene enumerable set relative to A. Say that A is low-n if A(n) has the same degree as ⊘(n), and A is high-n if A(n) has the same degree as ⊘(n+1). Simpson and Weitkamp [7] have shown that there is a high (high-1) incomplete set in L. They have also shown that various other sets are neither high nor low in L. Legrand [5] extended their results by showing that, if there is a real x such that x# does not exist, then there is an element of that, for all n, is neither low-n nor high-n. In §2, ZFC is used to show that, for all n, if A is and low-n then A is Borel. The proof uses a strengthened version of Jensen's theorem on sequences of admissible ordinals that appears in [7, Simpson-Weitkamp].

α-degrees of α-theories

1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 677-682 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Metakides
Keyword(s):  
Initial Segment ◽  
Recursion Theory ◽  
The Other ◽  
Infinite Length ◽  
Infinitary Logic ◽  
Admissible Set ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Limit Ordinal ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Further Development

Let α be a limit ordinal with the property that any “recursive” function whose domain is a proper initial segment of α has its range bounded by α. α is then called admissible (in a sense to be made precise later) and a recursion theory can be developed on it (α-recursion theory) by providing the generalized notions of α-recursively enumerable, α-recursive and α-finite. Takeuti [12] was the first to study recursive functions of ordinals, the subject owing its further development to Kripke [7], Platek [8], Kreisel [6], and Sacks [9].Infinitary logic on the other hand (i.e., the study of languages which allow expressions of infinite length) was quite extensively studied by Scott [11], Tarski, Kreisel, Karp [5] and others. Kreisel suggested in the late '50's that these languages (even which allows countable expressions but only finite quantification) were too large and that one should only allow expressions which are, in some generalized sense, finite. This made the application of generalized recursion theory to the logic of infinitary languages appear natural. In 1967 Barwise [1] was the first to present a complete formalization of the restriction of to an admissible fragment (A a countable admissible set) and to prove that completeness and compactness hold for it. [2] is an excellent reference for a detailed exposition of admissible languages.

Upper bounds on the energy dissipation in turbulent precession

1996 ◽  
Vol 321 ◽  
pp. 335-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. R. Kerswell
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Data ◽  
Energy Dissipation ◽  
Viscous Dissipation ◽  
Upper Bound ◽  
Dissipation Rate ◽  
Oblate Spheroid ◽  
Upper Bounds ◽  
Precession Rate ◽  
Long Cylinder

Rigorous upper bounds on the viscous dissipation rate are identified for two commonly studied precessing fluid-filled configurations: an oblate spheroid and a long cylinder. The latter represents an interesting new application of the upper-bounding techniques developed by Howard and Busse. A novel ‘background’ method recently introduced by Doering & Constantin is also used to deduce in both instances an upper bound which is independent of the fluid's viscosity and the forcing precession rate. Experimental data provide some evidence that the observed viscous dissipation rate mirrors this behaviour at sufficiently high precessional forcing. Implications are then discussed for the Earth's precessional response.

An α-finite injury method of the unbounded type

1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
C. T. Chong
Keyword(s):  
Fine Structure ◽  
Initial Segment ◽  
Fundamental Importance ◽  
Upper Semilattice ◽  
The Past ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Background Material ◽  
A Priority ◽  
Admissible Ordinals ◽  
Priority Argument

Let α be an admissible ordinal. In this paper we study the structure of the upper semilattice of α-recursively enumerable degrees. Various results about the structure which are of fundamental importance had been obtained during the past two years (Sacks-Simpson [7], Lerman [4], Shore [9]). In particular, the method of finite priority argument of Friedberg and Muchnik was successfully generalized in [7] to an α-finite priority argument to give a solution of Post's problem for all admissible ordinals. We refer the reader to [7] for background material, and we also follow closely the notations used there.Whereas [7] and [4] study priority arguments in which the number of injuries inflicted on a proper initial segment of requirements can be effectively bounded (Lemma 2.3 of [7]), we tackle here priority arguments in which no such bounds exist. To this end, we focus our attention on the fine structure of Lα, much in the fashion of Jensen [2], and show that we can still use a priority argument on an indexing set of requirements just short enough to give us the necessary bounds we seek.

scholarly journals The Essential Dimension of Stacks of Parabolic Vector Bundles over Curves

2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 455-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Indranil Biswas ◽  
Ajneet Dhillon ◽  
Nicole Lemire
Keyword(s):  
Lower Bounds ◽  
Upper Bound ◽  
Vector Bundles ◽  
Upper Bounds ◽  
Essential Dimension ◽  
Parabolic Structure ◽  
Moduli Stack

AbstractWe find upper bounds on the essential dimension of the moduli stack of parabolic vector bundles over a curve. When there is no parabolic structure, we improve the known upper bound on the essential dimension of the usual moduli stack. Our calculations also give lower bounds on the essential dimension of the semistable locus inside the moduli stack of vector bundles of rank r and degree d without parabolic structure.

ances and covariances obtained from REML are normally distributed with expectation vector and variance-covariance matrix equal to the fol-low  ing, r  espectiv    ely,   When σˆ > 0.04, let νˆ = δˆ + σˆ + σˆ − 2ωˆ + σˆ − (1 + c (7.6) be an estimate for the (7.3) reference-scaled metric in accordance with FDA Guidance (2001) and using a REML UN model. Then (Patter-son, 2003; Patterson and Jones, 2002b), this estimate is asymptotically normally distributed and unbiased with E[νˆ ] = δ +σ − (1 + c and Var[νˆ ] = 4σ + l + 4l + (1 + c ) (l )+ 2l −2(1+c − 2(1+c +4(1+c −2(1+c . Similarly, for the constant-scaled metric, when σˆ ≤ 0.04, νˆ = δˆ + σˆ + σˆ − 2ωˆ + σˆ − σˆ − 0.04(c ) (7.7) E[νˆ ] = δ +σ − 0.04(c ) Var[νˆ ] = 4σ + l + 4l + 2l − 2l − 4l + 4l − 2l . The required asymptotic upper bound √ of the 90% confidence interval can √ then be calculated as νˆ + 1.645× V̂ ar[νˆ ] or νˆ + 1.645× V̂ ar[νˆ ], where the variances are obtained by ‘plugging in’ the estimated values of the variances and covariances obtained from SAS proc mixed into the formulae for Var[νˆ ] or Var[νˆ ]. The necessary SAS code to do this is given in Appendix B. The output reveals that σˆ = 0.0714 and the upper bound is−0.060 for log(AUC). For log(Cmax), σˆ = 0.1060 and the upper bound is −0.055. As both of these upper bounds are below zero, IBE can be claimed.

2003 ◽  
pp. 367-367
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Covariance Matrix ◽  
Upper Bound ◽  
Upper Bounds ◽  
Fda Guidance ◽  
Asymptotic Upper Bound ◽  
Variance Covariance Matrix ◽  
Normally Distributed

scholarly journals AL-AKHTHA’ FII IKTISAB AL-TSUNAIYAT AL-SHUGHRA

2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miftahul Huda
Keyword(s):  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Foreign Language ◽  
Error Analysis ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Mother Tongue ◽  
Minimal Pair ◽  
Minimal Pairs ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Child Age

Language acquisition starts from the ability of listening basic letter(iktisab al-ashwat) since child age. The letter of a language is limited in number, and sometimes there is similarity of letters among languages. The similarity of letters in two languages make it easy to learn the language. On the contrary, the obstacle of language learning can be caused by different letters between two languages (mother tongue and second/foreign language). The problem may be caused by minimal pairs (tsunaiyat al-shughro). This research aims at finding out the error of minimal pair acquisition, with the subject of Indonesian students in Jami’ah Malik Saud Saudi Arabia, with the method of error analysis. The study concludes that in iktisab al-ashwat of minimal pairs, the error is around 3,3 %-58,3%. Second: the error on minimal pairs occurs on the letters shift ?? ?? ? to be ? , letter ? to be ? , letter ? to be ? , letter ? to be ? , letter ? to be ?? , and letter ? to be ?.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document