Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:24:35.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Strong minimal covers and a question of Yates: The story so far

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 January 2010

S. Barry Cooper
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Herman Geuvers
Affiliation:
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen
Anand Pillay
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Jouko Väänänen
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam and University of Helsinki
Get access

Summary

Abstract. An old question of Yates as to whether all minimal degrees have a strong minimal cover remains one of the longstanding problems of degree theory, apparently largely impervious to present techniques. We survey existing results in this area, focussing especially on some recent progress.

Introduction. By the 60's and 70's degree theorists had become concerned with some particular and fundamental questions of a global nature concerning the structure of the Turing degrees. In order to address issues regarding homogeneity and the decidability and degree of the theory, the approach taken at this time was to proceed through a deep analysis of the initial segments of the structure. Along these lines a technique for piecemeal construction of initial segments, even if only locally successful, would have been very useful and it was in this context that interest was first aroused in a question of Yates:

definition 1.1. A degree b is a strong minimal cover for a if D[< b] = D[≤ a]. A degree a is minimal if it is a strong minimal cover for 0.

Question 1.1 (Yates). Does every minimal degree have a strong minimal cover?

In fact, the question of characterizing those degrees with strong minimal cover had already been raised by Spector in his 1956 paper [CS]. Certainly in Dm—the structure of the many-one degrees, induced by a strengthening of the Turing reducibility—Lachlan's proof of the fact that every m-degree has a strong minimal cover played a vital role in Ershov's [YE] and Paliutin's [EP] results characterizing the structure and in showing, for instance, that 0m is the only definable singleton.

Type
Chapter
Information
Logic Colloquium 2006 , pp. 213 - 228
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

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.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×