Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T18:06:46.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variations on promptly simple sets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Wolfgang Maass
Wolfgang Maass*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, ILLINOIS 60680
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper we answer the question of whether all low sets with the splitting property are promptly simple. Further we try to make the role of lowness properties and prompt simplicity in the construction of automorphisms of the lattice of r.e. (recursively enumerable) sets more perspicuous. It turns out that two new properties of r.e. sets, which are dual to each other, are essential in this context: the prompt and the low shrinking property.

In an earlier paper [4] we had shown (using Soare's automorphism construction [10] and [12]) that all r.e. generic sets are automorphic in the lattice ℰ of r.e. sets under inclusion. We called a set A promptly simple if Ā is infinite and there is a recursive enumeration of A and the r.e. sets (We)e∈N such that if We is infinite then there is some element (or equivalently: infinitely many elements) x of We such that x gets into A “promptly” after its appearance in We (i.e. for some fixed total recursive function f we have x ∈ Af(s), where s is the stage at which x entered We). Prompt simplicity in combination with lowness turned out to capture those properties of r.e. generic sets that were used in the mentioned automorphism result. In a following paper with Shore and Stob [7] we studied an ℰ-definable consequence of prompt simplicity: the splitting property.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 1985 , pp. 138 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1985

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.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Ambos-Spies, K., Jockusch, C. G. Jr., Shore, R. A. and Soare, R. I., An algebraic decomposition of the recursively enumerable degrees and the coincidence of several degree classes with the promptly simple degrees, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 281 (1984), pp. 109–128.Google Scholar
[2] Harrington, L., Understanding Lachlan's monster paper (privately distributed notes).Google Scholar
[3] Lachlan, A. H., A recursively enumerable degree that does not split over all lesser ones, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 9 (1975), pp. 307–365.Google Scholar
[4] Maass, W., Recursively enumerable generic sets, this Journal, vol. 47 (1982), pp. 809–823.Google Scholar
[5] Maass, W., Characterization of the recursively enumerable sets with supersets effectively isomorphic to all recursively enumerable sets, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 279 (1983), pp. 311–336.Google Scholar
[6] Maass, W., Major subsets and automorphisms of recursively enumerable sets, Recursion theory (1982 Summer Institute, Ithaca, New York), Proceeding of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 42, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island (to appear).Google Scholar
[7] Maass, W., Shore, R. A. and Stob, M., Splitting properties and jump classes, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 39 (1981), pp. 210–224.Google Scholar
[8] Maass, W. and Stob, M., The interval of the lattice of recursively enumerable sets determined by major subsets, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 24 (1983), pp. 189–212.Google Scholar
[9] Rogers, H. Jr., Theory of recursive functions and effective computability, McGraw-Hill New York, 1967.Google Scholar
[10] Soare, R. I., Automorphisms of the lattice of recursively enumerable sets. Part I: Maximal sets, Annals of Mathematics, ser. 2 vol. 100 (1974), pp. 80–120.Google Scholar
[11] Soare, R. I., Computational complexity, speedable sets and levelable sets, this Journal, vol. 42 (1977), pp. 543–563.Google Scholar
[12] Soare, R. I., Automorphisms of the lattice of recursively enumerable sets. Part II: Low sets, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 22 (1982), pp. 69–108.Google Scholar