Partial degrees and the density problem

1982 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 854-859 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. B. Cooper

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.

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 503-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. B. Cooper

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).


1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 839-848 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin McEvoy

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.


1975 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard P. Sasso

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.


1988 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 878-887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Copestake

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.


2004 ◽  
Vol 69 (2) ◽  
pp. 555-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph S. Miller

Abstract.We show that the Turing degrees are not sufficient to measure the complexity of continuous functions on [0, 1]. Computability of continuous real functions is a standard notion from computable analysis. However, no satisfactory theory of degrees of continuous functions exists. We introduce the continuous degrees and prove that they are a proper extension of the Turing degrees and a proper substructure of the enumeration degrees. Call continuous degrees which are not Turing degrees non-total. Several fundamental results are proved: a continuous function with non-total degree has no least degree representation, settling a question asked by Pour-El and Lempp; every non-computable f ∈ [0,1] computes a non-computable subset of ℕ there is a non-total degree between Turing degrees a <Tb iff b is a PA degree relative to a; ⊆ 2ℕ is a Scott set iff it is the collection of f-computable subsets of ℕ for some f ∈ [0,1] of non-total degree; and there are computably incomparable f, g ∈ [0,1] which compute exactly the same subsets of ℕ. Proofs draw from classical analysis and constructive analysis as well as from computability theory.


Author(s):  
Harold Hodes

A reducibility is a relation of comparative computational complexity (which can be made precise in various non-equivalent ways) between mathematical objects of appropriate sorts. Much of recursion theory concerns such relations, initially between sets of natural numbers (in so-called classical recursion theory), but later between sets of other sorts (in so-called generalized recursion theory). This article considers only the classical setting. Also Turing first defined such a relation, now called Turing- (or just T-) reducibility; probably most logicians regard it as the most important such relation. Turing- (or T-) degrees are the units of computational complexity when comparative complexity is taken to be T-reducibility.


1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 195-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seema Ahmad

Lachlan [5] has shown that it is not possible to embed the diamond lattice in the r.e. Turing degrees while preserving least and greatest elements; that is, there do not exist incomparable r.e. Turing degrees a and b such that a ∧ b = 0 and a ∨ b = 0′. Cooper [3] has compared the r.e. Turing degrees to the enumeration degrees below 0e′ and has asked if the two structures are elementarily equivalent.In this paper we show that such an embedding is possible in the Σ2enumeration degrees, which implies a negative answer to Cooper's question.Theorem. There are low enumeration degreesaandbsuch thata ∧ b = 0eanda ∨ b = 0e′.Lower case italic letters denote elements of ω while upper case italic letters denote subsets of ω. D, E and F are reserved for finite sets, and K for ′. If D = {x0, x1, …, xn} then the canonical index of D is , and the canonical index of is ∅. Dx denotes the set with canonical index x. {Wi}i∈ω is any fixed standard listing of the r.e. sets, and <·, ·> is any fixed recursive bijection from ω × ω to ω.Intuitively, A is enumeration reducible to B if there is an effective algorithm for producing an enumeration of A from any enumeration of B. There is a natural one-to-one correspondence between all such algorithms and the r.e. sets.


2008 ◽  
Vol 73 (2) ◽  
pp. 593-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Durand ◽  
Leonid A. Levin ◽  
Alexander Shen

AbstractWe study the minimal complexity of tilings of a plane with a given tile set. We note that every tile set admits either no tiling or some tiling with Kolmogorov complexity of its (n × n)-squares. We construct tile sets for which this bound is tight: all (n × n)-squares in all tilings have complexity Ω(n). This adds a quantitative angle to classical results on non-recursivity of tilings—that we also develop in terms of Turing degrees of unsolvability.


1998 ◽  
Vol 174 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore A. Slaman ◽  
A. Sorbi

1985 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 580-588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Casalegno

AbstractLet 〈, ≤ 〉 be the usual structure of the degrees of unsolvability and 〈, ≤ 〉 the structure of the T-degrees of partial functions defined in [7]. We prove that every countable distributive lattice with a least element can be isomorphically embedded as an initial segment of 〈, ≤ 〉: as a corollary, the first order theory of 〈, ≤ 〉 is recursively isomorphic to that of 〈, ≤ 〉. We also show that 〈, ≤ 〉 and 〈, ≤ 〉 are not elementarily equivalent.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document