Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:49:26.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Busy beaver sets and the degrees of unsolvability1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Robert P. Daley*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260

Extract

In this paper we show how some of the finite injury priority arguments can be simplified by making explicit use of the primitive notions of axiomatic computational complexity theory. Phrases such as “perform n steps in the enumeration of Wi” certainly bear witness to the fact that many of these complexity notions have been used implicitly from the early days of recursive function theory. However, other complexity notions such as that of an “honest” function are not so apparent, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Accordingly, one of the main factors in our simplification of these diagonalization arguments is the replacement of the characteristic function χA of a set A by the function νA, which is the next-element function of the set A. Another important factor is the use of busy beaver sets (see [3]) to provide the basis for the required diagonalizations thereby permitting rather simple and explicit descriptions of the sets constructed. Although the differences between the priority method and our method of construction are subtle, they are nonetheless real and noteworthy.

In preparation for the results which follow we devote the remainder of this section to the requisite definitions and notions as well as some preliminary lemmas. A more comprehensive discussion of many of the notions in this section can be found in [3]. Since we will be dealing extensively with relative computations most of our notions here have been correspondingly relativized.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1981

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.)

Footnotes

1

This research was supported by NSF Grant MCS 76–00102-A01

References

REFERENCES

[1]Blum, M., A machine independent theory of the complexity of recursive functions, Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, vol. 14 (1967), pp. 322336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Blum, M., On the size of machines, Information and Control, vol. 11 (1967), pp. 257265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Daley, R., On the simplicity of busy beaver sets, Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 24 (1978), pp. 207224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Daley, R., Busy beaver sets and the degrees of unsolvability, Technical Report 77-3 (1977), Computer Science Department, University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
[5]Degtev, A., Hypersimple sets with retraceable complements, Algebra and Logic, vol. 10 (1971), pp. 147154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]van Emde Boas, P., Abstract resource-bound classes, Ph.D. Dissertation, Matematisch Centrum, Amsterdam, 1974.Google Scholar
[7]Lynch, N., Meyer, A. and Fischer, M., Relativizations of the theory of computational computational complexity, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 220 (1976), pp. 243287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Post, E., Recursively enumerable sets of positive integers and their decision problems, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 50 (1944), pp. 284316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Rogers, H., Theory of recursive functions and effective computahility, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
[10]Soare, R., The infinite injury priority method, this Journal, vol. 41 (1976), pp. 513530.Google Scholar
[11]Shoenfield, J., Degrees of unsolvability, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971.Google Scholar
[12]Symes, M., The extension of machine-independent computational complexity theory to oracle machine computation and to the computation of finite functions, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Applied Analysis and Computer Science, University of Waterloo, 1971.Google Scholar