Finite level Borel games and a problem concerning the jump hierarchy

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 1301-1318
Author(s):  
Harold T. Hodes
Keyword(s):  
Upper Bound ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Limit Ordinal ◽  
Locally Countable ◽  
Central Result

The jump hierarchy of Turing degrees assigns to each ξ < (ℵ1)L the degree 0(ξ); we presuppose familiarity with its definition and with the basic terminology of [5]. Let λ be a limit ordinal, λ < (ℵ1)L. The central result of [5] concerns the relation between 0(λ) and exact pairs on Iλ = {0(ξ) ∣ ξ < λ}. In [6] this question is raised: Where a is an upper bound on Iλ, how far apart are a and 0(λ)? It is there shown that if λ is locally countable and admissible, they may be very far apart: 0(λ) = the least member of {a(Ind(λ))∣, a is an upper bound on Iλ}; this is rather pathological, for Ind(λ) may be larger than λ. If λ is locally countable but neither admissible nor a limit of admissibles, we are essentially in the case of λ < ; by results of Sacks [12] and Enderton and Putnam [2], 0(λ) = the least member of {a(2) ∣ a is an upper bound on Iλ}. If λ is not locally countable, Ind(λ) is neither admissible nor a limit of admissibles, so we are again in a case like that of λ < . But what if λ is locally countable and nonadmissible, but is a limit of admissibles? For the rest of this paper let λ be such an ordinal. The central result of this paper answers this question for some such λ.

Upper bounds on locally countable admissible initial segments of a Turing degree hierarchy

1981 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 753-760 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold T. Hodes
Keyword(s):  
Upper Bound ◽  
Upper Bounds ◽  
Turing Degree ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Locally Countable

AbstractWhere AR is the set of arithmetic Turing degrees, 0(ω) is the least member of {a(2) ∣ a is an upper bound on AR}. This situation is quite different if we examine HYP, the set of hyperarithmetic degrees. We shall prove (Corollary 1) that there is an a, an upper bound on HYP, whose hyperjump is the degree of Kleene's . This paper generalizes this example, using an iteration of the jump operation into the transfinite which is based on results of Jensen and is detailed in [3] and [4]. In § 1 we review the basic definitions from [3] which are needed to state the general results.

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.

scholarly journals More about uniform upper bounds on ideals of turing degrees

1983 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 441-457
Author(s):  
Harold T. Hodes
Keyword(s):  
Upper Bound ◽  
Upper Bounds ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Trial And Error ◽  
Minimal Member

AbstractLet I be a countable jump ideal in = 〈The Turing degrees, ≤〉. The central theorem of this paper is:a is a uniform upper bound on I iff a computes the join of an I-exact pair whose double jump a(1) computes.We may replace “the join of an I-exact pair” in the above theorem by “a weak uniform upper bound on I”.We also answer two minimality questions: the class of uniform upper bounds on I never has a minimal member; if ⋃I = Lα[A] ⋂ ωω for α admissible or a limit of admissibles, the same holds for nice uniform upper bounds.The central technique used in proving these theorems consists in this: by trial and error construct a generic sequence approximating the desired object; simultaneously settle definitely on finite pieces of that object; make sure that the guessing settles down to the object determined by the limit of these finite pieces.

Simple r. e. degree structures

1987 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 208-213
Author(s):  
Robert S. Lubarsky
Keyword(s):  
Recursion Theory ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Local Version ◽  
Admissible Set ◽  
Jump Operator ◽  
Admissible Sets ◽  
Closed Sets ◽  
Locally Countable ◽  
To Come ◽  
Admissible Ordinals

Much of recursion theory centers on the structures of different kinds of degrees. Classically there are the Turing degrees and r. e. Turing degrees. More recently, people have studied α-degrees for α an ordinal, and degrees over E-closed sets and admissible sets. In most contexts, deg(0) is the bottom degree and there is a jump operator' such that d' is the largest degree r. e. in d and d' > d. Both the degrees and the r. e. degrees usually have a rich structure, including a relativization to the cone above a given degree.A natural exception to this pattern was discovered by S. Friedman [F], who showed that for certain admissible ordinals β the β-degrees ≥ 0′ are well-ordered, with successor provided by the jump.For r. e. degrees, natural counterexamples are harder to come by. This is because the constructions are priority arguments, which require only mild restrictions on the ground model. For instance, if an admissible set has a well-behaved pair of recursive well-orderings then the priority construction of an intermediate r. e. degree (i.e., 0 < d < 0′) goes through [S]. It is of interest to see just what priority proofs need by building (necessarily pathological) admissible sets with few r. e. degrees.Harrington [C] provides an admissible set with two r. e. degrees, via forcing. A limitation of his example is that it needs ω1 (more accurately, a local version thereof) as a parameter. In this paper, we find locally countable admissible sets, some with three r. e. degrees and some with four.

scholarly journals Model theory without choice? Categoricity

2009 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 361-401
Author(s):  
Saharon Shelah
Keyword(s):  
Model Theory ◽  
Upper Bound ◽  
First Order ◽  
Central Result

AbstractWe prove Los conjecture = Morley theorem in ZF. with the same characterization, i.e., of first order countable theories categorical in ℵα for some (eqiuvalently for every ordinal) α > 0. Another central result here in this context is: the number of models of a countable first order T of cardinality ℵα is either ≥ ∣α∣ for every α or it has a small upper bound (independent of α close to ⊐2).

On the Σ2-theory of the upper semilattice of Turing degrees

1993 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 193-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl G. Jockusch ◽  
Theodore A. Slaman
Keyword(s):  
Upper Bound ◽  
New Method ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Decidability Result ◽  
First Order ◽  
Upper Semilattice ◽  
Bound Operator ◽  
Degrees Of Unsolvability

A first-order sentence Φ is Σ2 if there is a quantifier-free formula Θ such that Φ has the form . The Σ2-theory of a structure for a language ℒ is the set of Σ2-sentences of ℒ true in . It was shown independently by Lerman and Shore (see [Le, Theorem VII.4.4]) that the Σ2-theory of the structure = 〈D, ≤ 〉 is decidable, where D is the set of degrees of unsolvability and ≤ is the standard ordering of D. This result is optimal in the sense that the Σ3-theory of is undecidable, a result due to J. Schmerl. (For a proof, see [Le, Theorem VII.4.5]. As Lerman has pointed out, this proof should be corrected by defining θσ to be ∀xσ1(x) rather than ∀x(ψ(x)→ σ1(x)).) Nonetheless, in this paper we extend the decidability result of Lerman and Shore by showing that the Σ2-theory of is decidable, where ⋃ is the least upper bound operator and 0 is the least degree. Of course ⋃ is definable in , but many interesting degree-theoretic results are expressible as Σ2-sentences in the language of ∪ but not as Σ2-sentences in the language of . For instance, Simpson observed that the Posner-Robinson cupping theorem could be used to show that for any nonzero degrees a, b, there is a degree g such that b ≤ a ⋃ g, and b ⋠ g (see [PR, Corollary 6]). However, the Posner-Robinson technique does not seem to suffice to decide the Σ2-theory of ∪. We introduce instead a new method for coding a set into the join of two other sets and use it to decide this theory.

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(∧).

scholarly journals Results on Martin’s Conjecture

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-220
Author(s):  
Patrick Lutz
Keyword(s):  
Main Tool ◽  
Negative Answer ◽  
Partial Orders ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Identity Function ◽  
Basis Theorem ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Special Cases ◽  
Locally Countable ◽  
Definable Functions

AbstractMartin’s conjecture is an attempt to classify the behavior of all definable functions on the Turing degrees under strong set theoretic hypotheses. Very roughly it says that every such function is either eventually constant, eventually equal to the identity function or eventually equal to a transfinite iterate of the Turing jump. It is typically divided into two parts: the first part states that every function is either eventually constant or eventually above the identity function and the second part states that every function which is above the identity is eventually equal to a transfinite iterate of the jump. If true, it would provide an explanation for the unique role of the Turing jump in computability theory and rule out many types of constructions on the Turing degrees.In this thesis, we will introduce a few tools which we use to prove several cases of Martin’s conjecture. It turns out that both these tools and these results on Martin’s conjecture have some interesting consequences both for Martin’s conjecture and for a few related topics.The main tool that we introduce is a basis theorem for perfect sets, improving a theorem due to Groszek and Slaman. We also introduce a general framework for proving certain special cases of Martin’s conjecture which unifies a few pre-existing proofs. We will use these tools to prove three main results about Martin’s conjecture: that it holds for regressive functions on the hyperarithmetic degrees (answering a question of Slaman and Steel), that part 1 holds for order preserving functions on the Turing degrees, and that part 1 holds for a class of functions that we introduce, called measure preserving functions.This last result has several interesting consequences for the study of Martin’s conjecture. In particular, it shows that part 1 of Martin’s conjecture is equivalent to a statement about the Rudin-Keisler order on ultrafilters on the Turing degrees. This suggests several possible strategies for working on part 1 of Martin’s conjecture, which we will discuss.The basis theorem that we use to prove these results also has some applications outside of Martin’s conjecture. We will use it to prove a few theorems related to Sacks’ question about whether it is provable in $\mathsf {ZFC}$ that every locally countable partial order of size continuum embeds into the Turing degrees. We will show that in a certain extension of $\mathsf {ZF}$ (which is incompatible with $\mathsf {ZFC}$ ), this holds for all partial orders of height two, but not for all partial orders of height three. Our proof also yields an analogous result for Borel partial orders and Borel embeddings in $\mathsf {ZF}$ , which shows that the Borel version of Sacks’ question has a negative answer.We will end the thesis with a list of open questions related to Martin’s conjecture, which we hope will stimulate further research.Abstract prepared by Patrick Lutz.E-mail: [email protected]

Jump embeddings in the Turing degrees

1991 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 563-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter G. Hinman ◽  
Theodore A. Slaman
Keyword(s):  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
First Order ◽  
Upper Semilattice ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Locally Countable ◽  
Image Set ◽  
Turing Reducibility ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Order Structures

Since its introduction in [K1-Po], the upper semilattice of Turing degrees has been an object of fascination to practitioners of the recursion-theoretic art. Starting from relatively simple concepts and definitions, it has turned out to be a structure of enormous complexity and richness. This paper is a contribution to the ongoing study of this structure.Much of the work on Turing degrees may be formulated in terms of the embeddability of certain first-order structures in a structure whose universe is some set of degrees and whose relations, functions, and constants are natural degree-theoretic ones. Thus, for example, we know that if {P, ≤P) is a partial ordering of cardinality at most ℵ1 which is locally countable—each point has at most countably many predecessors—then there is an embeddingwhere D is the set of all Turing degrees and <T is Turing reducibility. If (P, ≤P) is a countable partial ordering, then the image of the embedding may be taken to be a subset of R, the set of recursively enumerable degrees. Without attempting to make the notion completely precise, we shall call embeddings of the first sort global, in contrast to local embeddings which impose some restrictions on the image set.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document