Kleene index sets and functional m-degrees

1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 829-840 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanleah Mohrherr

AbstractA many-one degree is functional if it contains the index set of some class of partial recursive functions but does not contain an index set of a class of r.e. sets. We give a natural embedding of the r.e. m-degrees into the functional degrees of 0′. There are many functional degrees in 0′ in the sense that every partial-order can be embedded. By generalizing, we show there are many functional degrees in every complete Turing degree.There is a natural tie between the studies of index sets and partial-many-one reducibility. Every partial-many-one degree contains one or two index sets.

1969 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Hay

Let q0, q1,… be a standard enumeration of all partial recursive functions of one variable. For each i, let wi = range qi and for any recursively enumerable (r.e.) set α, let θα = {n | wn = α}. If A is a class of r.e. sets, let θA = the index set of A = {n | wn ∈ A}. It is the purpose of this paper to classify the possible recursive isomorphism types of index sets of finite classes of r.e. sets. The main theorem will also provide an answer to the question left open in [2] concerning the possible double isomorphism types of pairs (θα, θβ) where α ⊂ β.


1974 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise Hay

Let {Wk}k ≥ 0 be a standard enumeration of all recursively enumerable (r.e.) sets. If A is any class of r.e. sets, let θA denote the index set of A, i.e., θA = {k ∣ Wk ∈ A}. The one-one degrees of index sets form a partial order ℐ which is a proper subordering of the partial order of all one-one degrees. Denote by ⌀ the one-one degree of the empty set, and, if b is the one-one degree of θB, denote by the one-one degree of . Let . Let {Ym}m≥0 be the sequence of index sets of nonempty finite classes of finite sets (classified in [5] and independently, in [2]) and denote by am the one-one degree of Ym. As shown in [2], these degrees are complete at each level of the difference hierarchy generated by the r.e. sets. It was proved in [3] that, for each m ≥ 0,(a) am+1 and ām+1 are incomparable immediate successors of am and ām, and(b) .For m = 0, since Y0 = θ{⌀}, it follows from (a) that(c) .Hence it follows that(d) {⌀, , ao, ā0, a1, ā1 is an initial segment of ℐ.


1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 1068-1074 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Kummer

The most basic construction of an r.e. nonrecursive set—e.g. of the halting problem—proceeds by taking the diagonal of a recursive enumeration of all r.e. sets. We will answer the question of which r.e. sets can be constructed in this manner.If ψ is a computable numbering of some class of partial recursive functions, we define the diagonal of ψ to be the set Kψ ≔ {i ∈ ω ∣ ψi(i)↓}- It is well known that Kφ is creative if φ is a Gödelnumbering, and that for each creative set K there exists a Gödelnumbering φ such that K = Kφ. That is to say, the class of diagonals of Gödelnumberings is characterized as the class of creative sets. This class was shown to be elementary lattice theoretic (e.l.t.) by Harrington (see [So87, XV. 1.1]).We give a characterization of diagonals of arbitrary computable numberings of the class P1 of all partial recursive functions. To this end we introduce the notion of a semihyperhypersimple (shhs) set, which generalizes the notion of hyperhypersimplicity to nonsimple sets. It is shown that the diagonals of numberings of P1 are exactly the non-shhs sets. Then, properties of shhs sets are discussed. For example, for each nonrecursive r.e. set A there exists a nonrecursive shhs set B ≤TA, but not every r.e. T-degree contains a shhs set. These results build upon previous work by Downey and Stob [DSta].The question whether the property “shhs” is (elementary) lattice theoretic remains open. A positive answer would give both an analog of Harrington's result mentioned above, and a generalization of the well-known fact, due to Lachlan [La68], that hyperhypersimplicity is e.l.t. Therefore, we suspect that shhs sets turn out to be useful in the study of the lattice of r.e. sets.Previously, for several constructions from recursion theory the role of the underlying numbering of P1 was investigated; see Martin ([Ma66a] or [So87, V.4.1]) and Lachlan ([La75] or [Od89, III.9.2]) for Post's simple set, and Jockusch and Soare ([JS73]; cf. also [So87, XII.3.6, 3.7]) for Post's hypersimple set. However, only Gödelnumberings were considered. An explanation for the greater variety which arises when arbitrary numberings of P1 are admitted is provided by the fact that the index set of Gödelnumberings is less complex than the index set of all numberings of P1. The former is Σ1-complete; the latter is Π4-complete.


Author(s):  
David J. Lobina

Recursion, or the capacity of ‘self-reference’, has played a central role within mathematical approaches to understanding the nature of computation, from the general recursive functions of Alonzo Church to the partial recursive functions of Stephen C. Kleene and the production systems of Emil Post. Recursion has also played a significant role in the analysis and running of certain computational processes within computer science (viz., those with self-calls and deferred operations). Yet the relationship between the mathematical and computer versions of recursion is subtle and intricate. A recursively specified algorithm, for example, may well proceed iteratively if time and space constraints permit; but the nature of specific data structures—viz., recursive data structures—will also return a recursive solution as the most optimal process. In other words, the correspondence between recursive structures and recursive processes is not automatic; it needs to be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document