Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-dk7s8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T19:41:08.257Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Finite injury and Σ1-induction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Michael Mytilinaios
Michael Mytilinaios*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755
*
Department of Mathematics, University of Crete, 71409 Iraklio, Greece
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Working in the language of first-order arithmetic we consider models of the base theory P−. Suppose M is a model of P− and let M satisfy induction for Σ1-formulas. First it is shown that the Friedberg-Muchnik finite injury argument can be performed inside M, and then, using a blocking method for the requirements, we prove that the Sacks splitting construction can be done in M. So, the “amount” of induction needed to perform the known finite injury priority arguments is Σ1-induction.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 38 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

[1]Friedberg, R. M., Two recursively enumerable sets of incomparable degrees of unsolvability, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 43 (1957), pp. 236–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[2]Kirby, L. A. S., Initial segments of models of arithmetic, Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester, Manchester, 1977.Google Scholar
[3]Kreisel, G., Some reasons for generalizing recursion theory, Logic Colloquium '69 (Gandy, R. O. and Yates, C. E., editors), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971, pp. 139–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Muchnik, A. A., On the unsolvability of the problem of reducibility in the theory of algorithms, Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, vol. 108 (1956), pp. 194–197. (Russian)Google Scholar
[5]Paris, J. B. and Kirby, L. A. S., Σ n-collection schemas in arithmetic, Logic Colloquium '77, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978, pp. 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Post, E. L., Recursively enumerable sets of integers and their decision problems, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 50 (1944), pp. 285–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Rogers, H. Jr., Theory of recursive functions and effective computability, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
[8]Sacks, G. E., On degrees less than 0′, Annals of Mathematics, ser. 2, vol. 77 (1963), pp. 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Sacks, G. E. and Simpson, S. G., The α-finite injury method, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 4 (1972), pp. 343–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Shore, R. A., Splitting an α-recursively enumerable set, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 204 (1975), pp. 65–78.Google Scholar
[11]Simpson, S. G., private correspondence, 05 24, 1984. (Contained the proof of Theorem 3.2 and a discussion of the program.)Google Scholar