Minimal pairs and high recursively enumerable degrees

1974 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 655-660 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. B. Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Recursive Function ◽  
Uniform Method ◽  
Minimal Pair ◽  
Minimal Pairs ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Finite Approximations ◽  
Degree Bounds ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Degree ◽  
Image Position ◽  
High Set

A. H. Lachlan [2] and C. E. M. Yates [4] independently showed that minimal pairs of recursively enumerable (r.e.) degrees exist. Lachlan and Richard Ladner have shown (unpublished) that there is no uniform method for producing a minimal pair of r.e. degrees below a given nonzero r.e. degree. It is not known whether every nonzero r.e. degree bounds a r.e. minimal pair, but in the present paper it is shown (uniformly) that every high r.e. degree bounds a r.e. minimal pair. (A r.e. degree is said to be high if it contains a high set in the sense of Robert W. Robinson [3].)Theorem. Let a be a recursively enumerable degree for which a′ = 0″. Then there are recursively enumerable degrees b0 and b1 such that0 < bi < a for each i ≤ 1, and b0 ⋂ b1 = 0.The proof is based on the Lachlan minimal r.e. pair construction. For notation see Lachlan [2] or S. B. Cooper [1].By Robinson [3] we can choose a r.e. representative A of the degree a, with uniformly recursive tower {As, ∣ s ≥ 0} of finite approximations to A, such that CA dominates every recursive function whereWe define, stage by stage, finite sets Bi,s, i ≤ 1, s ≥ 0, in such a way that Bi, s + 1 ⊇ Bi,s for each i, s, and {Bi,s ∣ i ≤ 1, s ≥ 0} is uniformly recursive.

On a question of G. E. Sacks

1966 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald A. Martin
Keyword(s):  
Enumerable Degree ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Degree ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Combinatorial Device

In [1], p. 171, Sacks asks (question (Q5)) whether there is a recursively enumerable degree of unsolvability d such that for all n ≧ 0. Sacks points out that the set of conditions which d must satisfy is not arithmetical. For this reason he suggests that a proof of (Q5) might require some new combinatorial device. The purpose of this note is to show how (Q5) may be proved simply by extending the methods of [l].2

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).

A jump class of noncappable degrees

1989 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 324-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. B. Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Minimal Pair ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Image Position

Friedberg [3] showed that every degree of unsolvability above 0′ is the jump of some degree, and Sacks [9] showed that the degrees above 0′ which are recursively enumerable (r.e.) in 0′ are the jumps of the r.e. degrees.In this paper we examine the extent to which the Sacks jump theorem can be combined with the minimal pair theorem of Lachlan [4] and Yates [13]. We prove below that there is a degree c > 0′ which is r.e. in 0′ but which is not the jump of half a minimal pair of r.e. degrees.This extends Yates' result [13] proving the existence of noncappable degrees (that is, r.e. degrees a < 0′ for which there is no corresponding r.e. b > 0 with a ∩ b = 0).It also throws more light on the class PS of promptly simple degrees. It was shown by Ambos-Spies, Jockusch, Shore and Soare [1] that PS coincides with the class NC of noncappable degrees, and with the class LC of all low-cuppable degrees, and (using earlier work of Maass, Shore and Stob [5]) that PS splits every class Hn or Ln, n ≥ 0, in the high-low hierarchy of r.e. degrees.If c > 0′, with c r.e. in 0′, letand call c−1 the jump class for c. It is easy to see that every jump class contains members of PS (= NC = LC). By Sacks [8] there exists a low a ∈ LC, where of course [a, 0′] (= {br.e. ∣a ≤ b ≤ 0′}) ⊆ LC = PS. But by Robinson [7] [a, 0′] intersects with every jump class.

Bounding minimal pairs

1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 626-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. H. Lachlan
Keyword(s):  
Minimal Pair ◽  
Minimal Pairs ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
The Many

A minimal pair of recursively enumerable (r.e.) degrees is a pair of degrees a, b of nonrecursive r.e. sets with the property that if c ≤ a and c ≤ b then c = 0. Lachlan [2] and Yates [4] independently proved the existence of minimal pairs. It was natural to ask whether for an arbitrary nonzero r.e. degree c there is a minimal pair a, b with a ≤ c and b ≤ c. In 1971 Lachlan and Ladner proved that a minimal pair below c cannot be obtained in a uniformly effective way from c for r.e. c ≠ 0. but the result was never published. More recently Cooper [1] showed that if c is r.e. and c′ = 0″ then there is a minimal pair below c.In this paper we prove two results:Theorem 1. There exists a nonzero r.e. degree with no minimal pair below it.Theorem 2. There exists a nonzero r.e. degree c such that, if d is r.e. and 0 < d ≤ c, then there is a minimal pair below d.The second theorem is a straightforward variation on the original minimal pair construction, but the proof of the first theorem has some novel features. After some preliminaries in §1, the first theorem is proved in §2 and the second in §3.I am grateful to Richard Ladner who collaborated with me during the first phase of work on this paper as witnessed by our joint abstract [3]. The many discussions we had about the construction required in Theorem 1 were of great help to me.

On minimal pairs of enumeration degrees

1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 983-1001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin McEvoy ◽  
S. Barry Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Minimal Pair ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Enumeration Degrees ◽  
Minimal Pairs ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Unpublished Work ◽  
Lower Case ◽  
Low Degree ◽  
Finite Set ◽  
Partial Orderings

For sets of natural numbers A and B, A is enumeration reducible to B if there is some effective algorithm which when given any enumeration of B will produce an enumeration of A. Gutteridge [5] has shown that in the upper semilattice of the enumeration degrees there are no minimal degrees (see Cooper [3]), and in this paper we study those pairs of degrees with gib 0. Case [1] constructed a minimal pair. This minimal pair construction can be relativised to any gib, and following a suggestion of Jockusch we can also fix one of the degrees and still construct the pair. These methods yield an easier proof of Case's exact pair theorem for countable ideals. 0″ is an upper bound for the minimal pair constructed in §1, and in §2 we improve this bound to any Σ2-high Δ2 degree. In contrast to this we show that every low degree c bounds a degree a which is not in any minimal pair bounded by c. The structure of the co-r.e. e-degrees is isomorphic to that of the r.e. Turing degrees, and Gutteridge has constructed co-r.e. degrees which form a minimal pair in the e-degrees. In §3 we show that if a, b is any minimal pair of co-r.e. degrees such that a is low then a, b is a minimal pair in the e-degrees (and so Gutteridge's result follows). As a corollary of this we can embed any countable distributive lattice and the two nondistributive five-element lattices in the e-degrees below 0′. However the lowness assumption is necessary, as we also prove that there is a minimal pair of (high) r.e. degrees which is not a minimal pair in the e-degrees (under the isomorphism). In §4 we present more concise proofs of some unpublished work of Lagemann on bounding incomparable pairs and embedding partial orderings.As usual, {Wi}i ∈ ω is the standard listing of the recursively enumerable sets, Du is the finite set with canonical index u and {‹ m, n ›}m, n ∈ ω is a recursive, one-to-one coding of the pairs of numbers onto the numbers. Capital italic letters will be variables over sets of natural numbers, and lower case boldface letters from the beginning of the alphabet will vary over degrees.

Arithmetical representation of recursively enumerable sets

1956 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 162-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphael M. Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Recursive Function ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
General Recursive Function ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Set ◽  
Integer Coefficients ◽  
Primitive Recursive Function ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Image Position ◽  
The Right ◽  
Primitive Recursive

A set S of natural numbers is called recursively enumerable if there is a general recursive function F(x, y) such thatIn other words, S is the projection of a two-dimensional general recursive set. Actually, it is no restriction on S to assume that F(x, y) is primitive recursive. If S is not empty, it is the range of the primitive recursive functionwhere a is a fixed element of S. Using pairing functions, we see that any non-empty recursively enumerable set is also the range of a primitive recursive function of one variable.We use throughout the logical symbols ⋀ (and), ⋁ (or), → (if…then…), ↔ (if and only if), ∧ (for every), and ∨(there exists); negation does not occur explicitly. The variables range over the natural numbers, except as otherwise noted.Martin Davis has shown that every recursively enumerable set S of natural numbers can be represented in the formwhere P(y, b, w, x1 …, xλ) is a polynomial with integer coefficients. (Notice that this would not be correct if we replaced ≤ by <, since the right side of the equivalence would always be satisfied by b = 0.) Conversely, every set S represented by a formula of the above form is recursively enumerable. A basic unsolved problem is whether S can be defined using only existential quantifiers.

Bounding and nonbounding minimal pairs in the enumeration degrees

2005 ◽  
Vol 70 (3) ◽  
pp. 741-766 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Barry Cooper ◽  
Angsheng Li ◽  
Andrea Sorbi ◽  
Yue Yang
Keyword(s):  
Minimal Pair ◽  
The Other ◽  
Enumeration Degrees ◽  
Minimal Pairs ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Degree Bounds

AbstractWe show that every nonzero Δ20, e-degree bounds a minimal pair. On the other hand, there exist Σ20, e-degrees which bound no minimal pair.

A minimal pair of recursively enumerable degrees

1966 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. E. M. Yates
Keyword(s):  
Lower Bound ◽  
Principal Result ◽  
Minimal Pair ◽  
The Other ◽  
Enumerable Degree ◽  
Lower Priority ◽  
Upper Semilattice ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Degree ◽  
Secondary Result

Our principal result is that there exist two incomparable recursively enumerable degrees whose greatest lower bound in the upper semilattice of degrees is 0. This was conjectured by Sacks [5]. As a secondary result, we prove that on the other hand there exists a recursively enumerable degree a < 0(1) such that for no non-zero recursively enumerable degree b is 0 the greatest lower bound of a and b.The proof of the main theorem involves a method that we have developed elsewhere [8] to deal with situations in which a partial recursive functional may interfere infinitely often with an opposed requirement of lower priority.

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