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.

Minimal degrees and the jump operator

1973 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. B. Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Minimal Degree ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Jump Operator ◽  
Upper Semilattice ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Original Number ◽  
Nonzero Degree ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Degrees Of Unsolvability

The jump a′ of a degree a is defined to be the largest degree recursively enumerable in a in the upper semilattice of degrees of unsolvability. We examine below some of the ways in which the jump operation is related to the partial ordering of the degrees. Fried berg [3] showed that the equation a = x′ is solvable if and only if a ≥ 0′. Sacks [13] showed that we can find a solution of a = x′ which is ≤ 0′ (and in fact is r.e.) if and only if a ≥ 0′ and is r.e. in 0′. Spector [16] constructed a minimal degree and Sacks [13] constructed one ≤ 0′. So far the only result concerning the relationship between minimal degrees and the jump operator is one due to Yates [17] who showed that there is a minimal predecessor for each non-recursive r.e. degree, and hence that there is a minimal degree with jump 0′. In §1, we obtain an analogue of Friedberg's theorem by constructing a minimal degree solution for a = x′ whenever a ≥ 0′. We incorporate Friedberg5s original number-theoretic device with a complicated sequence of approximations to the nest of trees necessary for the construction of a minimal degree. The proof of Theorem 1 is a revision of an earlier, shorter presentation, and incorporates many additions and modifications suggested by R. Epstein. In §2, we show that any hope for a result analogous to that of Sacks on the jumps of r.e. degrees cannot be fulfilled since 0″ is not the jump of any minimal degree below 0′. We use a characterization of the degrees below 0′ with jump 0″ similar to that found for r.e. degrees with jump 0′ by R. W. Robinson [12]. Finally, in §3, we give a proof that every degree a ≤ 0′ with a′ = 0″ has a minimal predecessor. Yates [17] has already shown that every nonzero r.e. degree has a minimal predecessor, but that there is a nonzero degree ≤ 0′ with no minimal predecessor (see [18]; or for the original unrelativized result see [10] or [4]).

On finite lattices of degrees of constructibility of reals

1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 313-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zofia Adamowicz
Keyword(s):  
Standard Model ◽  
Finite Lattice ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Upper Semilattice ◽  
Finite Lattices ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Universe

Theorem. Assume that there exists a standard model of ZFC + V = L. Then there is a model of ZFC in which the partial ordering of the degrees of constructibility of reals is isomorphic with a given finite lattice.The proof of the theorem uses forcing. The definition of the forcing conditions and the proofs of some of the lemmas are connected with Lerman's paper on initial segments of the upper semilattice of the Turing degrees [2]. As an auxiliary notion we shall introduce the notion of a sequential representation of a lattice, which slightly differs from Lerman's representation.Let K be a given finite lattice. Assume that the universe of K is an integer l. Let ≤K be the ordering in K. A sequential representation of K is a sequence Ui ⊆ Ui+1 of finite subsets of ωi such that the following holds:(1) For any s, s′ Є Ui, i Є ω, k, m Є l, k ≤Km & s(m) = s′(m) → s(k) = s′(k).(2) For any s Є Ui, i Є ω, s(0) = 0 where 0 is the least element of K.(3) For any s, s′ Є i Є ω, k,j Є l, if k y Kj = m and s(k) = s′(k) & s(j) = s′(j) → s(m) = s′(m), where vK denotes the join in K.

1-genericity in the enumeration degrees

1988 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 878-887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Copestake
Keyword(s):  
Partial Function ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
Turing Degree ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Original Formulation ◽  
Partial Functions ◽  
Enumeration Degrees ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Generic Set

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.

A lattice of interpretability types of theories

1977 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Mycielski
Keyword(s):  
Order Theory ◽  
Partial Ordering ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Order Theory ◽  
Relative Consistency ◽  
Infinite Distributivity ◽  
Closed Fields ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Interpretability Type ◽  
Consistency Proofs

We consider first-order logic only. A theory S will be called locally interpretable in a theory T if every theorem of S is interpretable in T. If S is locally interpretable in T and T is consistent then S is consistent. Most known relative consistency proofs can be viewed as local interpretations. The classic examples are the cartesian interpretation of the elementary theorems of Euclidean n-dimensional geometry into the first-order theory of real closed fields, the interpretation of the arithmetic of integers (rational numbers) into the arithmetic of positive integers, the interpretation of ZF + (V = L) into ZF, the interpretation of analysis into ZFC, relative consistency proofs by forcing, etc. Those interpretations are global. Under fairly general conditions local interpretability implies global interpretability; see Remarks (7), (8), and (9) below.We define the type (interpretability type) of a theory S to be the class of all theories T such that S is locally interpretable in T and vice versa. There happen to be such types and they are partially ordered by the relation of local interpretability. This partial ordering is of lattice type and has the following form:The lattice is distributive and complete and satisfies the infinite distributivity law of Brouwerian lattices:We do not know if the dual lawis true. We will show that the lattice is algebraic and that its compact elements form a sublattice and are precisely the types of finitely axiomatizable theories, and several other facts.

scholarly journals On a conjecture of Dobrinen and Simpson concerning almost everywhere domination

2006 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 119-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Binns ◽  
Bjørn Kjos-Hanssen ◽  
Manuel Lerman ◽  
Reed Solomon
Keyword(s):  
Set Theory ◽  
Computable Function ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Fair Coin ◽  
Almost Everywhere ◽  
Regularity Properties ◽  
Turing Reducibility ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Generic Extensions

Dobrinen and Simpson [4] introduced the notions of almost everywhere domination and uniform almost everywhere domination to study recursion theoretic analogues of results in set theory concerning domination in generic extensions of transitive models of ZFC and to study regularity properties of the Lebesgue measure on 2ω in reverse mathematics. In this article, we examine one of their conjectures concerning these notions.Throughout this article, ≤T denotes Turing reducibility and μ denotes the Lebesgue (or “fair coin”) probability measure on 2ω given byA property holds almost everywhere or for almost all X ∈ 2ω if it holds on a set of measure 1. For f, g ∈ ωω, f dominatesg if ∃m∀n < m(f(n) > g(n)).(Dobrinen, Simpson). A set A ∈ 2ωis almost everywhere (a.e.) dominating if for almost all X ∈ 2ω and all functions g ≤TX, there is a function f ≤TA such that f dominates g. A is uniformly almost everywhere (u.a.e.) dominating if there is a function f ≤TA such that for almost all X ∈ 2ω and all functions g ≤TX, f dominates g.There are several trivial but useful observations to make about these definitions. First, although these properties are stated for sets, they are also properties of Turing degrees. That is, a set is (u.)a.e. dominating if and only if every other set of the same degree is (u.)a.e. dominating. Second, both properties are closed upwards in the Turing degrees. Third, u.a.e. domination implies a.e. domination. Finally, if A is u.a.e. dominating, then there is a function f ≤TA which dominates every computable function.

scholarly journals SUBCOMPLETE FORCING, TREES, AND GENERIC ABSOLUTENESS

2018 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 1282-1305 ◽  
Author(s):  
GUNTER FUCHS ◽  
KAETHE MINDEN
Keyword(s):  
Forcing Axioms ◽  
First Order ◽  
Generic Absoluteness ◽  
Subcomplete Forcing ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Aronszajn Trees ◽  
Order Structures ◽  
Forcing Axiom

AbstractWe investigate properties of trees of height ω1 and their preservation under subcomplete forcing. We show that subcomplete forcing cannot add a new branch to an ω1-tree. We introduce fragments of subcompleteness which are preserved by subcomplete forcing, and use these in order to show that certain strong forms of rigidity of Suslin trees are preserved by subcomplete forcing. Finally, we explore under what circumstances subcomplete forcing preserves Aronszajn trees of height and width ω1. We show that this is the case if CH fails, and if CH holds, then this is the case iff the bounded subcomplete forcing axiom holds. Finally, we explore the relationships between bounded forcing axioms, preservation of Aronszajn trees of height and width ω1 and generic absoluteness of ${\rm{\Sigma }}_1^1$-statements over first order structures of size ω1, also for other canonical classes of forcing.

Embedding jump upper semilattices into the Turing degrees

2003 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 989-1014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Montalbán
Keyword(s):  
Partial Ordering ◽  
The Other ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Upper Semilattice ◽  
Existential Theory ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Unary Operator

AbstractWe prove that every countable jump upper semilattice can be embedded in , where a jump upper semilattice (jusl) is an upper semilattice endowed with a strictly increasing and monotone unary operator that we call jump, and is the jusl of Turing degrees. As a corollary we get that the existential theory of 〈D, ≤T, ∨, ′〉 is decidable. We also prove that this result is not true about jusls with 0, by proving that not every quantifier free 1-type of jusl with 0 is realized in . On the other hand, we show that every quantifier free 1-type of jump partial ordering (jpo) with 0 is realized in . Moreover, we show that if every quantifier free type, p(x1,…, xn), of jpo with 0, which contains the formula x1 ≤ 0(m) & … & xn ≤ 0(m) for some m, is realized in , then every quantifier free type of jpo with 0 is realized in .We also study the question of whether every jusl with the c.p.p. and size is embeddable in . We show that for the answer is no, and that for κ = ℵ1 it is independent of ZFC. (It is true if MA(κ) holds.)

Partial degrees and the density problem. Part 2: The enumeration degrees of the Σ2 sets are dense

1984 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 503-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. B. Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Density Theorem ◽  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Partial Functions ◽  
Enumeration Degrees ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursive Sequences ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Finite Set ◽  
Image Position ◽  
Density Problem

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).

Working below a high recursively enumerable degree

1993 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 824-859 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Shore ◽  
Theodore A. Slaman
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Jump Operator ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Set ◽  
Enumerable Degree ◽  
Local Degree ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Degree ◽  
Turing Reducibility ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Relationship

In recent work, Cooper [3, 1990] has extended results of Jockusch and Shore [6, 1984] to show that the Turing jump is definable in the structure given by the Turing degrees and the ordering of Turing reducibility. In his definition of x′ from x, Cooper identifies an order-theoretic property shared by all of the degrees that are recursively enumerable in x and above x. He then shows that x′ is the least upper bound of all the degrees with this property. Thus, the jump of x is identified by comparing the recursively enumerable degrees with other degrees which are not recursively enumerable. Of course, once the jump operator is known to be definable, the relation of jump equivalence x′ = y′ is also known to be a definable relation on x and y. If we consider how much of the global theory of the Turing degrees is sufficient for Cooper's methods, it is immediately clear that his methods can be implemented to show that the jump operator and its weakening to the relation of jump equivalence are definable in any ideal closed under the Turing jump. However, his methods do not localize to , the degrees, or to the recursively enumerable degrees.This paper fits, as do Shore and Slaman [16, 1990] and [17, to appear], within the general project to develop an understanding of the relationship between the local degree-theoretic properties of a recursively enumerable set A and its jump class. For an analysis of the possibility of defining jump equivalence in , consult Shore [15, to appear] who shows that the relation x(3) = y(3) is definable. In this paper, we will restrict our attention to definitions expressed completely in ℛ (Note: All sets and degrees discussed for the remainder of this paper will be recursively enumerable.) Ultimately, one would like to find some degree-theoretic properties definable in terms of the ordering of Turing reducibility and quantifiers over the recursively enumerable degrees that would define the relation of jump equivalence or define one or more of the jump classes Hn = {w∣ wn = 0n+1} or Ln = {w ∣ wn = 0n}. Such a result could very likely then be used as a springboard to other general definability results for the recursively enumerable degrees. It would be especially interesting to know whether every recursively enumerable degree is definable and whether every arithmetical degree-invariant property of the recursively enumerable sets is definable in .

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document