A limit on relative genericity in the recursively enumerable sets

1989 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 376-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steffen Lempp ◽  
Theodore A. Slaman
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Set ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Low Degree ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Nonzero Degree

AbstractWork in the setting of the recursively enumerable sets and their Turing degrees. A set X is low if X′, its Turing jump, is recursive in ∅′ and high if X′ computes ∅″. Attempting to find a property between being low and being recursive, Bickford and Mills produced the following definition. W is deep, if for each recursively enumerable set A, the jump of A ⊕ W is recursive in the jump of A. We prove that there are no deep degrees other than the recursive one.Given a set W, we enumerate a set A and approximate its jump. The construction of A is governed by strategies, indexed by the Turing functionals Φ. Simplifying the situation, a typical strategy converts a failure to recursively compute W into a constraint on the enumeration of A, so that (W ⊕ A)′ is forced to disagree with Φ(−;A′). The conversion has some ambiguity; in particular, A cannot be found uniformly from W.We also show that there is a “moderately” deep degree: There is a low nonzero degree whose join with any other low degree is not high.

Some theorems on R-maximal sets and major subsets of recursively enumerable sets

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 193-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Lerman
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degrees ◽  
Elementary Equivalence ◽  
Recursive Functions ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Nonstandard Models ◽  
Relational Systems ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Models Of Arithmetic

In [5], we studied the relational systems /Ā obtained from the recursive functions of one variable by identifying two such functions if they are equal for all but finitely many х ∈ Ā, where Ā is an r-cohesive set. The relational systems /Ā with addition and multiplication defined pointwise on them, were once thought to be potential candidates for nonstandard models of arithmetic. This, however, turned out not to be the case, as was shown by Feferman, Scott, and Tennenbaum [1]. We showed, letting A and B be r-maximal sets, and letting denote the complement of X, that /Ā and are elementarily equivalent (/Ā ≡ ) if there are r-maximal supersets C and D of A and B respectively such that C and D have the same many-one degree (C =mD). In fact, if A and B are maximal sets, /Ā ≡ if, and only if, A =mB. We wish to study the relationship between the elementary equivalence of /Ā and , and the Turing degrees of A and B.

Degrees of formal systems

1958 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 389-392 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. Shoenfield
Keyword(s):  
Sufficient Conditions ◽  
Formal System ◽  
Independent Interest ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Set ◽  
First Order ◽  
Formal Systems ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Axiomatizable Theory

In this paper we answer some of the questions left open in [2]. We use the terminology of [2]. In particular, a theory will be a formal system formulated within the first-order calculus with identity. A theory is identified with the set of Gödel numbers of the theorems of the theory. Thus Craig's theorem [1] asserts that a theory is axiomatizable if and only if it is recursively enumerable.In [2], Feferman showed that if A is any recursively enumerable set, then there is an axiomatizable theory T having the same degree of unsolvability as A. (This result was proved independently by D. B. Mumford.) We show in Theorem 2 that if A is not recursive, then T may be chosen essentially undecidable. This depends on Theorem 1, which is a result on recursively enumerable sets of some independent interest.Our second result, given in Theorem 3, gives sufficient conditions for a theory to be creative. These conditions are more general than those given by Feferman. In particular, they show that the system of Kreisel described in [2] is creative.

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.

scholarly journals Formalization of the MRDP Theorem in the Mizar System

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-221
Author(s):  
Karol Pąk
Keyword(s):  
Normal Form ◽  
Linear Equations ◽  
Negative Solution ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Set ◽  
Pell’S Equation ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Finite Products ◽  
Special Case ◽  
Martin Davis

Summary This article is the final step of our attempts to formalize the negative solution of Hilbert’s tenth problem. In our approach, we work with the Pell’s Equation defined in [2]. We analyzed this equation in the general case to show its solvability as well as the cardinality and shape of all possible solutions. Then we focus on a special case of the equation, which has the form x2 − (a2 − 1)y2 = 1 [8] and its solutions considered as two sequences $\left\{ {{x_i}(a)} \right\}_{i = 0}^\infty ,\left\{ {{y_i}(a)} \right\}_{i = 0}^\infty$ . We showed in [1] that the n-th element of these sequences can be obtained from lists of several basic Diophantine relations as linear equations, finite products, congruences and inequalities, or more precisely that the equation x = yi(a) is Diophantine. Following the post-Matiyasevich results we show that the equality determined by the value of the power function y = xz is Diophantine, and analogously property in cases of the binomial coe cient, factorial and several product [9]. In this article, we combine analyzed so far Diophantine relation using conjunctions, alternatives as well as substitution to prove the bounded quantifier theorem. Based on this theorem we prove MDPR-theorem that every recursively enumerable set is Diophantine, where recursively enumerable sets have been defined by the Martin Davis normal form. The formalization by means of Mizar system [5], [7], [4] follows [10], Z. Adamowicz, P. Zbierski [3] as well as M. Davis [6].

Degrees of unsolvability associated with classes of formalized theories

1957 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Solomon Feferman
Keyword(s):  
Formal System ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Wide Sense ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Set ◽  
Formal Systems ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Degrees Of Unsolvability ◽  
Order Predicate Calculus

In his well-known paper [11], Post founded a general theory of recursively enumerable sets, which had its metamathematical source in questions about the decision problem for deducibility in formal systems. However, in centering attention on the notion of degree of unsolvability, Post set a course for his theory which has rarely returned to this source. Among exceptions to this tendency we may mention, as being closest to the problems considered here, the work of Kleene in [8] pp. 298–316, of Myhill in [10], and of Uspenskij in [15]. It is the purpose of this paper to make some further contributions towards bridging this gap.From a certain point of view, it may be argued that there is no real separation between metamathematics and the theory of recursively enumerable sets. For, if the notion of formal system is construed in a sufficiently wide sense, by taking as ‘axioms’ certain effectively found members of a set of ‘formal objects’ and as ‘proofs’ certain effectively found sequences of these objects, then the set of ‘provable statements’ of such a system may be identified, via Gödel's numbering technique, with a recursively enumerable set; and conversely, each recursively enumerable set is identified in this manner with some formal system (cf. [8] pp. 299–300 and 306). However, the pertinence of Post's theory is no longer clear when we turn to systems formalized within the more conventional framework of the first-order predicate calculus. It is just this restriction which serves to clarify the difference in spirit of the two disciplines.

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).

Some representations of Diophantine sets

1972 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 572-578 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphael M. Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Universal Quantifier ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Set ◽  
Minor Error ◽  
Integer Coefficients ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Image Position ◽  
A Minor

A set D of natural numbers is called Diophantine if it can be defined in the formwhere P is a polynomial with integer coefficients. Recently, Ju. V. Matijasevič [2], [3] has shown that all recursively enumerable sets are Diophantine. From this, it follows that a bound for n may be given.We use throughout the logical symbols ∧ (and), ∨ (or), → (if … then …), ↔ (if and only if), ⋀ (for every), and ⋁ (there exists); negation does not occur explicitly. The variables range over the natural numbers 0,1,2,3, …, except as otherwise noted.It is the purpose of this paper to show that if we do not insist on prenex form, then every Diophantine set can be defined existentially by a formula in which not more than five existential quantifiers are nested. Besides existential quantifiers, only conjunctions are needed. By Matijasevič [2], [3], the representation extends to all recursively enumerable sets. Using this, we can find a bound for the number of conjuncts needed.Davis [1] proved that every recursively enumerable set of natural numbers can be represented in the formwhere P is a polynomial with integer coefficients. I showed in [5] that we can take λ = 4. (A minor error is corrected in an Appendix to this paper.) By the methods of the present paper, we can again obtain this result, and indeed in a stronger form, with the universal quantifier replaced by a conjunction.

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 .

Splitting theorems for speed-up related to order of enumeration

1982 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. M. Dawes
Keyword(s):  
Strong Sense ◽  
Optimal Order ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Set ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Speed Up

AbstractIt is known from work of P. Young that there are recursively enumerable sets which have optimal orders for enumeration, and also that there are sets which fail to have such orders in a strong sense. It is shown that both these properties are widespread in the class of recursively enumerable sets. In fact, any infinite recursively enumerable set can be split into two sets each of which has the property under consideration. A corollary to this result is that there are recursive sets with no optimal order of enumeration.

Friedberg splittings in Σ30 quotient lattices of

1999 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 1403-1406 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd Hammond
Keyword(s):  
Equivalence Class ◽  
Equivalence Relation ◽  
Congruence Relation ◽  
Equivalence Classes ◽  
Splitting Theorem ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Set ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Standard Enumeration

Let {We}e∈ω be a standard enumeration of the recursively enumerable (r.e.) subsets of ω = {0,1,2,…}. The lattice of recursively enumerable sets, , is the structure ({We}e∈ω,∪,∩). ≡ is a congruence relation on if ≡ is an equivalence relation on and if for all U, U′ ∈ and V, V′ ∈ , if U ≡ U′ and V ≡ V′, then U ∪ V ≡ U′ ∪ V′ and U ∩ V ≡ U′ ∩ V′. [U] = {V ∈ | V ≡ U} is the equivalence class of U. If ≡ is a congruence relation on , the elements of the quotient lattice / ≡ are the equivalence classes of ≡. [U] ∪ [V] is defined as [U ∪ V], and [U] ∩ [V] is defined as [U ∩ V]. We say that a congruence relation ≡ on is if {(i, j)| Wi ≡ Wj} is . Define =* by putting Wi, =* Wj if and only if (Wi − Wj)∪ (Wj − Wi) is finite. Then =* is a congruence relation. If D is any set, then we can define a congruence relation by putting Wi Wj if and only if Wi ∩ D =* Wj ∩D. By Hammond [2], a congruence relation ≡ ⊇ =* is if and only if ≡ is equal to for some set D.The Friedberg splitting theorem [1] asserts that if A is any recursively enumerable set, then there exist disjoint recursively enumerable sets A0 and A1 such that A = A0∪ A1 and such that for any recursively enumerable set B

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document