R-maximal Boolean algebras

1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 533-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. B. Remmel

Metakides and Nerode in [2] suggested the study of what they termed the lattice of recursively enumerable substructures of a recursively presented model. For example, Metakides and Nerode in [3] introduced the lattice of of recusively enumerable subspaces, , of a recursively presented vector space V∞. The similarities and differences between and ℰ, the lattice of recursively enumerable subsets of the natural numbers N as defined in [9], have been studied by Metakides and Nerode, Kalantari, Remmel, Retzlaff, and Shore. In [6], we studied some similarities and differences between ℰ and the lattice of recursively enumerable sub-algebras of a weakly recursively presented Boolean algebra and this paper continues that study. A weakly recursively presented Boolean algebra (W.R.P.B.A.), , consists of a recursive subset of N, ∣∣, called the field of , and operations (meet), (join), and (complement) which are partial recursive and under which becomes a Boolean algebra. We shall write and for the zero and unit of . If S is a subset of , we let (S)* denote the subalgebra generated by S. Given sub-algebras B and C of , we let B + C denote (B ⋃ C)*. A subalgebra B of is recursively enumerable (recursive) if {x ∈ ∣∣ x ∈ B} is a recursively enumerable (recursive) subset of ∣∣. The set of all recursively enumerable subalgebras of , , forms a lattice under the operations of intersection and sum (+).

1993 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 1177-1188 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Todd Hammond

Let ω be the set of natural numbers, let be the lattice of recursively enumerable subsets of ω, and let A be the lattice of subsets of ω which are recursively enumerable in A. If U, V ⊆ ω, put U =* V if the symmetric difference of U and V is finite.A natural and interesting question is then to discover what the relation is between the Turing degree of A and the isomorphism class of A. The first result of this form was by Lachlan, who proved [6] that there is a set A ⊆ ω such that A ≇ . He did this by finding a set A ⊆ ω and a set C ϵ A such that the structure ({W ϵ A∣W ⊇ C},∪,∩)/=* is a Boolean algebra and is not isomorphic to the structure ({W ϵ ∣W ⊇ D},∪,∩)/=* for any D ϵ . There is a nonrecursive ordinal which is recursive in the set A which he constructs, so his set A is not (see, for example, Shoenfield [11] for a definition of what it means for a set A ⊆ ω to be ). Feiner then improved this result substantially by proving [1] that for any B ⊆ ω, B′ ≇ B, where B′ is the Turing jump of B. To do this, he showed that for each X ⊆= ω there is a Boolean algebra which is but not and then applied a theorem of Lachlan [6] (definitions of and Boolean algebras will be given in §2). Feiner's result is of particular interest for the case B = ⊘, for it shows that the set A of Lachlan can actually be chosen to be arithmetical (in fact, ⊘′), answering a question that Lachlan posed in his paper. Little else has been known.


1978 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 322-330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Shore

Ever since Post [4] the structure of recursively enumerable sets and their classification has been an important area in recursion theory. It is also intimately connected with the study of the lattices and of r.e. sets and r.e. sets modulo finite sets respectively. (This lattice theoretic viewpoint was introduced by Myhill [3].) Key roles in both areas have been played by the lattice of r.e. supersets, , of an r.e. set A (along with the corresponding modulo finite sets) and more recently by the group of automorphisms of and . Thus for example we have Lachlan's deep result [1] that Post's notion of A being hyperhypersimple is equivalent to (or ) being a Boolean algebra. Indeed Lachlan even tells us which Boolean algebras appear as —precisely those with Σ3 representations. There are also many other simpler but still illuminating connections between the older typology of r.e. sets and their roles in the lattice . (r-maximal sets for example are just those with completely uncomplemented.) On the other hand, work on automorphisms by Martin and by Soare [8], [9] has shown that most other Post type conditions on r.e. sets such as hypersimplicity or creativeness which are not obviously lattice theoretic are in fact not invariant properties of .In general the program of analyzing and classifying r.e. sets has been directed at the simple sets. Thus the subtypes of simple sets studied abound — between ten and fifteen are mentioned in [5] and there are others — but there seems to be much less known about the nonsimple sets. The typologies introduced for the nonsimple sets begin with Post's notion of creativeness and add on a few variations. (See [5, §8.7] and the related exercises for some examples.) Although there is a classification scheme for r.e. sets along the simple to creative line (see [5, §8.7]) it is admitted to be somewhat artificial and arbitrary. Moreover there does not seem to have been much recent work on the nonsimple sets.


1980 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Remmel

The concern of this paper is with recursively enumerable and co-recursively enumerable subspaces of a recursively presented vector spaceV∞ over a (finite or infinite) recursive field F which is defined in [6] to consist of a recursive subset U of the natural numbers N and operations of vector addition and scalar multiplication which are partial recursive and under which V∞ becomes a vector space. Throughout this paper, we will identify V∞ with N, say via some fixed Gödel numbering, and assume V∞ is infinite dimensional and has a dependence algorithm, i.e., there is a uniform effective procedure which determines whether or not any given n-tuple v0, …, vn−1 from V∞ is linearly dependent. Various properties of V∞ and its sub-spaces have been studied by Dekker [1], Guhl [3], Metakides and Nerode [6], Kalantari and Retzlaff [4], and the author [7].Given a subspace W of V∞, we say W is r.e. (co-r.e.) if W(V∞ − W) is an r.e. subset of N and write dim(V) for the dimension of V. Given subspaces V, W of V∞, V + W will denote the weak sum of V and W and if V ⋂ M = {0} (where 0 is the zero vector of V∞), we write V ⊕ Winstead of V + W. If W ⊇ V, we write Wmod V for the quotient space. An independent set A ⊆ V∞ is extendible if there is an r.e. independent set I ⊇ A such that I − A is infinite and A is nonextendible if it is not the case An is extendible. A r.e. subspace M ⊇ V∞ is maximal if dim(V∞ mod M) = ∞ and for any r.e. subspace W ⊇ Meither dim(W mod M) < ∞ or dim(V∞ mod W) < ∞.


1974 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 376-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan G. Hamilton

We consider subspaces of a vector space UF, which is countably infinite dimensional over a recursively enumerable field F with recursive operations, where the operations in UF are also recursive, and where, of course, F and UF are sets of natural numbers. It is the object of this paper to investigate recursive equivalence types of such vector spaces and the ways in which their properties are analogous to and depend on properties of recursive equivalence types of sets.


1981 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 595-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey B. Remmel

A Boolean algebra (henceforth abbreviated B.A.) is said to be recursive if B is a recursive subset of the natural numbers N and the operations ∧ (meet), ∨ (join), and ¬ (complement) are partial recursive. Let denote the set of atoms of and denote the ideal generated by the atoms of . Given recursive B.A.s and , we write ≈ if is isomorphic to and ≈r if is recursively isomorphic to , i.e., if there is a partial recursive isomorphism from onto .Recursive B.A.s have been studied by several authors including Ershov [2], Fiener [3], [4], Goncharov [5], [6], [7], LaRoche [8], Nurtazin [7], and the author [10], [11]. This paper continues a study of the recursion theoretic relationships among , , and the recursive isomorphism type of a recursive B.A. we started in [11]. We refer the reader to [11] for any unexplained notation and definitions. In [11], we were mainly concerned with the possible recursion theoretic properties of the set of atoms in recursive B.A.s. We found that even if we insist that be recursive, there is considerable freedom for the properties of . For example, we showed that if is a recursive B.A. such that is recursive and is infinite, then (i) there exists a recursive B.A. such that and both and are recursive and (ii) for any nonzero r.e. degree δ, there exist recursive B.A.s , , … such that for each i, is of degree δ, is recursive, is immune if i is even and is not immune if i is odd, and no two B.A.s in the sequence are recursively isomorphic.


G. Metakides and A. Nerode. Recursion theory and algebra. Algebra and logic, Papers from the 1974 Summer Research Institute of the Australian Mathematical Society, Monash University, Australia, edited by J. N. Crossley, Lecture notes in mathematics, vol. 450, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, and New York, 1975, pp. 209–219. - Iraj Kalantari and Allen Retzlaff. Maximal vector spaces under automorphisms of the lattice of recursively enumerable vector spaces. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 42 no. 4 (for 1977, pub. 1978), pp. 481–491. - Iraj Kalantari. Major subspaces of recursively enumerable vector spaces. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 43 (1978), pp. 293–303. - J. Remmel. A r-maximal vector space not contained in any maximal vector space. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 43 (1978), pp. 430–441. - Allen Retzlaff. Simple and hyperhypersimple vector spaces. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 43 (1978), pp. 260–269. - J. B. Remmel. Maximal and cohesive vector spaces. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 42 no. 3 (for 1977, pub. 1978), pp. 400–418. - J. Remmel. On r.e. and co-r.e. vector spaces with nonextendible bases. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 45 (1980), pp. 20–34. - M. Lerman and J. B. Remmel. The universal splitting property: I. Logic Colloquim '80, Papers intended for the European summer meeting of the Association for Symbolic Logic, edited by D. van Dalen, D. Lascar, and T. J. Smiley, Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics, vol. 108, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, New York, and Oxford, 1982, pp. 181–207. - J. B. Remmel. Recursively enumerable Boolean algebras. Annals of mathematical logic, vol. 15 (1978), pp. 75–107. - J. B. Remmel. r-Maximal Boolean algebras. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 44 (1979), pp. 533–548. - J. B. Remmel. Recursion theory on algebraic structures with independent sets. Annals of mathematical logic, vol. 18 (1980), pp. 153–191. - G. Metakides and J. B. Remmel. Recursion theory on orderings. I. A model theoretic setting. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 44 (1979), pp. 383–402. - J. B. Remmel. Recursion theory on orderings. II. The journal of symbolic logic, vol. 45 (1980), pp. 317–333.

1986 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 229-232
Author(s):  
Henry A. Kierstead

1970 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 365-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Feiner

A denumerable structure is said to be recursive iff its universe is a recursive subset of the natural numbers and its relations and operations are recursive. For example, the standard model of number theory is recursive. A structure is said to be recursively presentable iff it is isomorphic to a recursive structure. For example, a Boolean algebra generated by ℵ0 free generators is easily seen to be recursively presentable. (For basic facts concerning Boolean algebras, the reader is referred to R. Sikorski [9] and A. Tarski and A. Mostowski [10].)


1970 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-96
Author(s):  
Alan G. Hamilton

This paper is based on the notions originally described by Dekker [2], [3], and the reader is referred to these for explanation of notation etc. Briefly, we are concerned with a countably infinite dimensional countable vector space Ū with recursive operations, regarded as being coded as a set of natural numbers. Necessarily, then, Ū must be a vector space over a field which itself is in some sense recursively enumerable and has recursive operations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-148
Author(s):  
NICK BEZHANISHVILI ◽  
WESLEY H. HOLLIDAY

AbstractThe standard topological representation of a Boolean algebra via the clopen sets of a Stone space requires a nonconstructive choice principle, equivalent to the Boolean Prime Ideal Theorem. In this article, we describe a choice-free topological representation of Boolean algebras. This representation uses a subclass of the spectral spaces that Stone used in his representation of distributive lattices via compact open sets. It also takes advantage of Tarski’s observation that the regular open sets of any topological space form a Boolean algebra. We prove without choice principles that any Boolean algebra arises from a special spectral space X via the compact regular open sets of X; these sets may also be described as those that are both compact open in X and regular open in the upset topology of the specialization order of X, allowing one to apply to an arbitrary Boolean algebra simple reasoning about regular opens of a separative poset. Our representation is therefore a mix of Stone and Tarski, with the two connected by Vietoris: the relevant spectral spaces also arise as the hyperspace of nonempty closed sets of a Stone space endowed with the upper Vietoris topology. This connection makes clear the relation between our point-set topological approach to choice-free Stone duality, which may be called the hyperspace approach, and a point-free approach to choice-free Stone duality using Stone locales. Unlike Stone’s representation of Boolean algebras via Stone spaces, our choice-free topological representation of Boolean algebras does not show that every Boolean algebra can be represented as a field of sets; but like Stone’s representation, it provides the benefit of a topological perspective on Boolean algebras, only now without choice. In addition to representation, we establish a choice-free dual equivalence between the category of Boolean algebras with Boolean homomorphisms and a subcategory of the category of spectral spaces with spectral maps. We show how this duality can be used to prove some basic facts about Boolean algebras.


1980 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matatyahu Rubin ◽  
Saharon Shelah

AbstractTheorem 1. (◊ℵ1,) If B is an infinite Boolean algebra (BA), then there is B1, such that ∣ Aut (B1) ≤∣B1∣ = ℵ1 and 〈B1, Aut (B1)〉 ≡ 〈B, Aut(B)〉.Theorem 2. (◊ℵ1) There is a countably compact logic stronger than first-order logic even on finite models.This partially answers a question of H. Friedman. These theorems appear in §§1 and 2.Theorem 3. (a) (◊ℵ1) If B is an atomic ℵ-saturated infinite BA, Ψ Є Lω1ω and 〈B, Aut (B)〉 ⊨Ψ then there is B1, Such that ∣Aut(B1)∣ ≤ ∣B1∣ =ℵ1, and 〈B1, Aut(B1)〉⊨Ψ. In particular if B is 1-homogeneous so is B1. (b) (a) holds for B = P(ω) even if we assume only CH.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document