Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:49:29.982Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Friedberg-Muchnik Theorem Re-Examined

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Robert I. Soare
Robert I. Soare*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, Chicago, Illinois
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the well-known solution to Post's problem, Friedberg [1] and Muchnik [13] each constructed a pair of incomparable recursively enumerable (r.e.) degrees a and b. Subsequently, Sacks [15, p. 81] constructed r.e. degrees c and d such that c ∪ d = 0’ and C’ = d’ = 0'. Lachlan showed [7, p. 69] that such degrees c, d could have no greatest lower bound in the upper semilattice of r.e. degrees. We show that the original Friedberg-Muchnik degrees a, b automatically satisfy Sack's conditions and hence witness that the upper semi-lattice of r.e. degrees is not a lattice.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Mathematics , Volume 24 , Issue 6 , December 1972 , pp. 1070 - 1078
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Mathematical Society 1972

References

1. Friedberg, R. M., Two recursively enumerable sets of incomparable degrees of unsolvability, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 43 (1957), 236–238.Google Scholar
2. Friedberg, R. M., The fine structure of degrees of unsolvability of recursively enumerable sets, Summaries of Cornell University Summer Institute for Symbolic Logic (1957), 404–406.Google Scholar
3. Jockusch, C. G. Jr. and Soare, R. I., Degrees of members of 7Ti° classes, Pacific J. Math. 40 (1972), 605–616.Google Scholar
4. Lachlan, A. H., Lower bounds for pairs of recursively enumerable degrees, Proc. London Math. Soc. 16 (1966), 537–569.Google Scholar
5. Lachlan, A. H., The priority method. I, Zeitschr. f. math. Logik und Grundlagen Math. 13 (1967), 1–10.Google Scholar
6. Lachlan, A. H., Complete recursively enumerable sets, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 19 (1968), 99–102.Google Scholar
7. Lachlan, A. H., The priority method for the construction of recursively enumerable sets (to appear).Google Scholar
8. Ladner, R. E., Mitotic recursively enumerable sets (to appear).Google Scholar
9. Ladner, R. E., A completely mitotic nonrecursive recursively enumerable degree (to appear).Google Scholar
10. Martin, D. A., Classes of r.e. sets and degrees of unsolvability, Zeitschr. f. math. Logik und Grundlagen Math. 12 (1966), 295–310.Google Scholar
11. Martin, D. A., Completeness, the recursion theorem, and effectively simple sets, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 17 (1966), 838–842.Google Scholar
12. McLaughlin, T. G., Retraceable sets and recursive permutations, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 17 (1966), 427–429.Google Scholar
13. Muchnik, A. A., Negative answer to the problem of reducibility of the theory of algorithms (Russian), Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 108 (1956), 194–197.Google Scholar
14. Rogers, H. Jr., Theory of recursive functions and effective computability (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967).Google Scholar
15. Sacks, G. E., Degrees of unsolvability, Ann. of Math. Studies No. 55 (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1963).Google Scholar
16. Shoenfield, J. R., Degrees of unsolvability (North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1971).Google Scholar
17. Soare, R. I., The Friedberg-Muchnik theorem re-examined (abstracts), Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 18 (1971), 381–382, and 1086.Google Scholar
18. Yates, C. E. M., Three theorems on the degrees of recursively enumerable sets, Duke Math. J. 32 (1965), 461–468.Google Scholar