Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:01:41.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DEMUTH’S PATH TO RANDOMNESS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2015

ANTONÍN KUČERA ,
ANDRÉ NIES  and
CHRISTOPHER P. PORTER
ANTONÍN KUČERA
Affiliation:
FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND PHYSICS CHARLES UNIVERSITY IN PRAGUE PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLICE-mail: [email protected]
ANDRÉ NIES
Affiliation:
DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALANDE-mail: [email protected]
CHRISTOPHER P. PORTER
Affiliation:
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA GAINESVILLE FL 32611-8105, USAE-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Osvald Demuth (1936–1988) studied constructive analysis from the viewpoint of the Russian school of constructive mathematics. In the course of his work he introduced various notions of effective null set which, when phrased in classical language, yield a number of major algorithmic randomness notions. In addition, he proved several results connecting constructive analysis and randomness that were rediscovered only much later.

In this paper, we trace the path that took Demuth from his constructivist roots to his deep and innovative work on the interactions between constructive analysis, algorithmic randomness, and computability theory. We will focus specifically on (i) Demuth’s work on the differentiability of Markov computable functions and his study of constructive versions of the Denjoy alternative, (ii) Demuth’s independent discovery of the main notions of algorithmic randomness, as well as the development of Demuth randomness, and (iii) the interactions of truth-table reducibility, algorithmic randomness, and semigenericity in Demuth’s work.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 270 - 305
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Symbolic Logic 2015 

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

Aberth, O., Computable Analysis, vol. 15, McGraw-Hill New York, 1980.Google Scholar
Avigad, J. and Brattka, V., Computability and analysis: the legacy of Alan Turing, Turing’s Legacy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2012.Google Scholar
Bienvenu, L., Day, A., Greenberg, N., Kučera, A., Miller, J., Nies, A., and Turetsky, D., Computing K-trivial sets by incomplete random sets. this Bulletin, vol. 20 (2014), pp. 80–90.Google Scholar
Bienvenu, L., Downey, R., Greenberg, N., Nies, A., and Turetsky, D., Characterizing lowness for Demuth randomness. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 79 (2014), no. 2, pp. 526–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bienvenu, L., Greenberg, N., Kučera, A., Nies, A., and Turetsky, D., Coherent randomness tests and computing the K-trivial sets. Journal of European Mathematical Society, to appear, 2015.Google Scholar
Bienvenu, L., Hölzl, R., Miller, J., and Nies, A., The Denjoy alternative for computable functions, STACS, 2012, pp. 543–554.Google Scholar
Bienvenu, L., Hölzl, R., Miller, J., and Nies, A., Denjoy, Demuth, and Density. Journal of Mathematical Logic, vol. 1450004 (2014), p. 35.Google Scholar
Bienvenu, L. and Porter, C., Strong reductions in effective randomness. Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 459 (2012), pp. 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bogachev, V. I., Measure Theory. Vol. I, II, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borel, E., Le calcul des intégrales définies. Journal de Mathématiques pures et appliquées, 6 série, tome 8 (1912), pp. 159–210.Google Scholar
Brattka, V., Hertling, P., and Weihrauch, K., A tutorial on computable analysis, New Computational Paradigms: Changing Conceptions of What is Computable (Cooper, S. Barry, Löwe, Benedikt, and Sorbi, Andrea, editors), Springer, New York, 2008, pp. 425–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brattka, V., Miller, J., and Nies, A., Randomness and differentiability. Transactions of the AMS, http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/tran/6484. Article electronically published on May 27, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodhead, P., Downey, R., and Ng, K. M., Bounded randomness, Computation, Physics and Beyond, 2012, pp. 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cater, F. S., Some analysis without covering theorems. Real Analysis Exchange, vol. 12 (1986/87), no. 2, pp. 533–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceĭtin, G. S., Uniform recursiveness of algorithmic operators on general recursive functions and a canonical representation for constructive functions of a real argument, Proceedings of third all–Union Mathematical Congress, Moscow 1956 (Moscow), vol. 1, Izdat. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1956, (Russian), pp. 188–189.Google Scholar
Ceĭtin, G. S., Algorithmic operators in constructive complete separable metric spaces. Doklady Akademii Nauk, vol. 128 (1959), pp. 49–52, (Russian).Google Scholar
Ceĭtin, G. S., Algorithmic operators in constructive metric spaces. Trudy Matematicheskogo Instituta imeni VA Steklova, vol. 67 (1962), pp. 295–361, (in Russian, English trans. in AMS Trans. 64, 1967).Google Scholar
Ceĭtin, G. S., On Upper Bounds of Recursively Enumerable Sets of Constructive Real Numbers, Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics, vol. 113, 1970, pp. 119–194.Google Scholar
Ceĭtin, G. S., and Zaslavskiĭ, I. D., Singular coverings and properties of constructive functions connected with them. Trudy Matematicheskogo Instituta imeni VA Steklova, vol. 67 (1962), pp. 458–502, (Russian).Google Scholar
Church, A., An unsolvable problem of elementary number theory. American Journal of Mathematics, (1936), pp. 345–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demuth, O., The differentiability of constructive functions. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, vol. 10 (1969), pp. 167–175, (Russian).Google Scholar
Demuth, O., The Lebesgue measurability of sets in constructive mathematics. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, vol. 10 (1969), pp. 463–492, (Russian).Google Scholar
Demuth, O., The spaces Ln and S in constructive mathematics. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, vol. 10 (1969), pp. 261–284, (Russian).Google Scholar
Demuth, O., Constructive pseudonumbers. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, vol. 16 (1975), pp. 315–331, (Russian).Google Scholar
Demuth, O., The differentiability of constructive functions of weakly bounded variation on pseudo numbers. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, vol. 16 (1975), no. 3, pp. 583–599, (Russian).Google Scholar
Demuth, O., The constructive analogue of the Denjoy-Young theorem on derived numbers. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, vol. 17 (1976), no. 1, pp. 111–126, (Russian).Google Scholar
Demuth, O., The pseudodifferentiability of uniformly continuous constructive functions on constructive real numbers. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, vol. 19 (1978), no. 2, pp. 319–333, (Russian).Google Scholar
Demuth, O., The constructive analogue of a theorem by Garg on derived numbers. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, vol. 21 (1980), no. 3, pp. 457–472, (Russian).Google Scholar
Demuth, O., Borel types of some classes of arithmetical real numbers. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, vol. 23 (1982), no. 3, pp. 593–606, (Russian).Google Scholar
Demuth, O., Some classes of arithmetical real numbers. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, vol. 23 (1982), no. 3, pp. 453–465, (Russian).Google Scholar
Demuth, O., On the pseudodifferentiability of pseudo uniformly continuous constructive functions from functions of the same type. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, vol. 24 (1983), no. 3, pp. 391–406, (Russian).Google Scholar
Demuth, O., A notion of semigenericity. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, vol. 28 (1987), no. 1, pp. 71–84.Google Scholar
Demuth, O., Reducibilities of sets based on constructive functions of a real variable. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, vol. 29 (1988), no. 1, pp. 143–156.Google Scholar
Demuth, O., Remarks on Denjoy sets, Technical Report 30, Charles University, Prague, 1988, Available at http://ktiml.ms.mff.cuni.cz/technical-reports/Demuth88PreprintDenjoySets.pdf.Google Scholar
Demuth, O., Remarks on the structure of tt-degrees based on constructive measure theory. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, vol. 29 (1988), no. 2, pp. 233–247.Google Scholar
Demuth, O., Remarks on Denjoy sets, Mathematical Logic, Plenum, New York, 1990, pp. 267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demuth, O., Kryl, R., and Kučera, A., The use of the theory of functions that are partial recursive relative to numerical sets in constructive mathematics, Acta Univ. Carolin.—Math. Phys., vol. 19 (1978), no. 1, pp. 15–60, (Russian).Google Scholar
Demuth, O., and Kučera, A., Remarks on constructive mathematical analysis, Logic Colloquium ’78 (Mons, 1978), Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 97, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979, pp. 81–129.Google Scholar
Demuth, O., and Kučera, A.Remarks on 1-genericity, semigenericity and related concepts. Commentationes Mathematicae Universitatis Carolinae, vol. 28 (1987), no. 1, pp. 85–94.Google Scholar
Downey, R., and Hirschfeldt, D., Algorithmic Randomness and Complexity, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2010, p. 855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downey, R., Hirschfeldt, D., and Nies, A., Randomness, computability, and density. SIAM Journal on Computing, vol. 31 (2002), no. 4, pp. 1169–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figueira, S., Nies, A., and Stephan, F., Lowness properties and approximations of the jump. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 152 (2008), pp. 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, J. N. Y., and Ng, K. M., Difference randomness. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 139 (2011), no. 1, pp. 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freer, C., Kjos-Hanssen, B., Nies, A., and Stephan, F., Algorithmic aspects of Lipschitz functions. Computability, vol. 3 (2014), no. 1, pp. 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, N., and Turetsky, D., Strong jump-traceability and Demuth randomness. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, vol. 108 (2014), pp. 738–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalantari, I., and Welch, L., A blend of methods of recursion theory and topology. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 124 (2003), no. 1, pp. 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kautz, S., Degrees of Random Sets, Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 1991.Google Scholar
Kjos-Hanssen, B., Merkle, W., and Stephan, F., Kolmogorov complexity and the recursion theorem. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 363 (2011), no. 10, pp. 5465–5480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreisel, G., Lacombe, D., and Shoenfield, J. R., Partial recursive functionals and effective operations, Constructivity in Mathematics (Heyting, A., editor), Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, North-Holland, 1959, Proceedings of the Colloquium at Amsterdam, 1957, pp. 290–297.Google Scholar
Kurtz, S., Randomness and Genericity in the Degrees of Unsolvability, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1981.Google Scholar
Kushner, B. A., Lectures on Constructive Mathematical Analysis, Translations of Mathematical Monographs, vol. 60, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1984. Translated from the Russian by E. Mendelson, Translation edited by Leifman, Lev J..CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kushner, B. A., Markov’s constructive analysis; a participant’s view. Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 219 (1999), no. 1–2, pp. 267–285, Computability and complexity in analysis (Castle Dagstuhl, 1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kučera, A., and Nies, A., Demuth randomness and computational complexity. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 162 (2011), pp. 504–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kučera, A., and Nies, A., Demuth’s path to randomness (extended abstract), Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Theoretical Computer Science: Computation, Physics and Beyond, WTCS’12, Springer-Verlag, 2012, pp. 159–173.Google Scholar
Levin, L. A., and Zvonkin, A. K., The complexity of finite objects and the basing of the concepts of information and randomness on the theory of algorithms. Uspekhi Matematicheskikh Nauk, vol. 25 (1970), no. 6, 156, pp. 85–127.Google Scholar
Markov, A. A., The Theory of Algorithms, vol. 42, Steklov Mathematical Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, 1954.Google Scholar
Markov, A. A., Constructive functions, 4Trudy Matematicheskogo Instituta im. VA Steklova, vol. 52 (1958), pp. 315–348.Google Scholar
Martin-Löf, P., The definition of random sequences. Information and Control, vol. 9 (1966), pp. 602–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J., Pi-0-1 Classes in Computable Analysis and Topology, Cornell University, 2002.Google Scholar
Miller, J., and Nies, A., Randomness and computability: Open questions, this Bulletin, vol. 12 (2006), no. 3, pp. 390–410.Google Scholar
Miller, J., and Yu, L., On initial segment complexity and degrees of randomness. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 360 (2008), pp. 3193–3210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerode, A., General topology and partial recursive functionals, Summaries of talks at the Cornell Summer Institute of Symbolic Logic, Cornell University, 1957, pp. 247–251.Google Scholar
Nies, A., Reals which compute little, Logic Colloquium ’02, Lecture Notes in Logic, Springer–Verlag, 2002, pp. 260–274.Google Scholar
Nies, A., Computability and Randomness, Oxford Logic Guides, vol. 51, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009, pp. 444, Paperback version 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nies, A., Computably enumerable sets below random sets. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 163 (2012), no. 11, pp. 1596–1610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nies, A., Differentiability of polynomial time computable functions, 31st International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science (STACS 2014) (Mayr, Ernst W. and Portier, Natacha, editors), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), vol. 25, Schloss Dagstuhl–Leibniz-Zentrum fuer Informatik, 2014, pp. 602–613.Google Scholar
Nies, A., Stephan, F., and Terwijn, S., Randomness, relativization and Turing degrees. Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 70 (2005), no. 2, pp. 515–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pour-El, M., and Richards, J., Computability in Analysis and Physics, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, H. Jr., Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
Šanin, N. A., A constructive interpretation of mathematical judgments. Trudy Matematicheskogo Instituta imeni VA Steklova, vol. 52 (1958), pp. 226–311, (Russian).Google Scholar
Schnorr, C. P., A unified approach to the definition of random sequences. Mathematical Systems Theory, vol. 5 (1971), no. 3, pp. 246–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, S., and Cole, J., Mass problems and hyperarithmeticity. Journal of Mathematical Logic, vol. 7 (2007), no. 2, pp. 125–143.Google Scholar
Solovay, R., Handwritten Manuscript Related to Chaitin’s Work, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY, p. 215, 1975.Google Scholar
Terwijn, S., Computability and Measure, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1998.Google Scholar
Turing, A., On computable numbers, with an application to the entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, ser. 2, vol. 42 (1937), pp. 230–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weihrauch, K., Computable Analysis, Springer, Berlin, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zambella, D., Sequences with simple initial segments, Technical Report ML-1990-05, The Institute for Logic, Language, and Computation (ILLC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
Zaslavskiĭ, I. D., Some properties of constructive real numbers and constructive functions. Trudy Matematicheskogo Instituta im. VA Steklova, vol. 67 (1962), pp. 385–457.Google Scholar