A 1-generic degree with a strong minimal cover

2000 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 1395-1442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masahiro Kumabe
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degree ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Minimal Cover ◽  
Recursively Enumerable

We consider a set generic over the arithmetic sets. A subset A of the natural numbers is called n-generic if it is Cohen-generic for n-quantifier arithmetic. This is equivalent to saying that for every -set of strings S, there is a string σ ⊂ A such that σ ∈ S or no extension of σ is in S. By degree we mean Turing degree (of unsolvability). We call a degree n-generic if it has an n-generic representative. For a degree a, let D(≤ a) denote the set of degrees which are recursive in a.We say a is a strong minimal cover of g if every degree strictly below a is less than or equal to g. In this paper we show that there are a degree a and a 1-generic degree g < a such that a is a strong minimal cover of g. This easily implies that there is a 1-generic degree without the cupping property. Jockusch [7] showed that every 2-generic degree has the cupping property. Slaman and Steel [17] and independently Cooper [3] showed that there are recursively enumerable degrees a and b < a such that no degree c < a joins b above a. Take a 1-generic degree g below b. Then g does not have the cupping property.

Nonisomorphism of lattices of recursively enumerable sets

1993 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 1177-1188 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Todd Hammond
Keyword(s):  
Boolean Algebra ◽  
Isomorphism Class ◽  
Boolean Algebras ◽  
Turing Degree ◽  
Symmetric Difference ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Recursively Enumerable Sets ◽  
Definition Of

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.

Degrees of classes of RE sets

1976 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 695-696 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. R. Shoenfield
Keyword(s):  
Order Theory ◽  
Turing Degree ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
First Order ◽  
First Order Theory ◽  
Simple Sets ◽  
Natural Classes

In [3], Martin computed the degrees of certain classes of RE sets. To state the results succinctly, some notation is useful.If A is a set (of natural numbers), dg(A) is the (Turing) degree of A. If A is a class of sets, dg(A) = {dg(A): A ∈ A). Let M be the class of maximal sets, HHS the class of hyperhypersimple sets, and DS the class of dense simple sets. Martin showed that dg(M), dg(HHS), and dg(DS) are all equal to the set H of RE degrees a such that a′ = 0″.Let M* be the class of coinfinite RE sets having no superset in M; and define HHS* and DS* similarly. Martin showed that dg(DS*) = H. In [2], Lachlan showed (among other things) that dg(M*)⊆K, where K is the set of RE degrees a such that a″ > 0″. We will show that K ⊆ dg (HHS*). Since maximal sets are hyperhypersimple, this gives dg(M*) = dg (HHS*) = K.These results suggest a problem. In each case in which dg(A) has been calculated, the set of nonzero degrees in dg(A) is either H or K or the empty set or the set of all nonzero RE degrees. Is this always the case for natural classes A? Natural here might mean that A is invariant under all automorphisms of the lattice of RE sets; or that A is definable in the first-order theory of that lattice; or anything else which seems reasonable.

A note on degrees of subsets1

1969 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 256-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert I. Soare
Keyword(s):  
Minimal Degree ◽  
Turing Degree ◽  
Lower Degree ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Infinite Set

In [2] we constructed an infinite set of natural numbers containing no subset of higher (Turing) degree. Since it is well known that there are nonrecursive sets (e.g. sets of minimal degree) containing no nonrecursive subset of lower degree, it is natural to suppose that these arguments may be combined, but this is false. We prove that every infinite set must contain a nonrecursive subset of either higher or lower degree.

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.

Partially ordered sets representable by recursively enumerable classes

1969 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-12
Author(s):  
J. B. Florence
Keyword(s):  
Partially Ordered Sets ◽  
Ordered Sets ◽  
Inclusion Relation ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Partially Ordered ◽  
Recursively Enumerable

A partially ordered (p.o.) set (P, ≼) is represented by the recursively enumerable (r.e.) class C if (P, ≼) is order isomorphic to (C, ⊆), that is to the p.o. set consisting of C ordered by the inclusion relation. (P, ≼.) is representable if it is represented by some r.e. class. N will denote the set of natural numbers.

Bounding non-GL2 and R.E.A.

2009 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 989-1000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Ambos-Spies ◽  
Decheng Ding ◽  
Wei Wang ◽  
Liang Yu
Keyword(s):  
Turing Degree ◽  
Recursively Enumerable

AbstractWe prove that every Turing degree a bounding some non-GL2 degree is recursively enumerable in and above (r.e.a.) some 1-generic degree.

Applications of Strict Π11 predicates to infinitary logic

1969 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 409-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Barwise
Keyword(s):  
Normal Form ◽  
Infinitary Logic ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Image Position

Consider the predicate of natural numbers defined by: where R is recursive. If, as usual, the variable ƒ ranges over ωω (the set of functions from natural numbers to natural numbers) then this is just the usual normal form for Π11 sets. If, however, ƒ ranges over 2ω (the set of functions from ω into {0, 1}) then every such predicate is recursively enumerable.3 Thus the second type of formula is generally ignored. However, the reduction just mentioned requires proof, and the proof uses some form of the Brower-König Infinity Lemma.

On r.e. and co-r.e. vector spaces with nonextendible bases

1980 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Remmel
Keyword(s):  
Vector Space ◽  
Quotient Space ◽  
Independent Set ◽  
Effective Procedure ◽  
Vector Spaces ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Infinite Dimensional ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Vector Addition ◽  
Zero Vector

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) < ∞.

scholarly journals Recursive equivalence types of vector spaces

1974 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 376-384 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan G. Hamilton
Keyword(s):  
Vector Space ◽  
Vector Spaces ◽  
Natural Numbers ◽  
Infinite Dimensional ◽  
Recursively Enumerable ◽  
Countably Infinite

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document