Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:43:27.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Splitting properties of r.e. sets and degrees1,2

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

R. G. Downey  and
L. V. Welch
R. G. Downey
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, 0511, Singapore
L. V. Welch
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Western Illinois University, Macomb, Illinois 61455
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A pair of r.e. sets A1, A2 are said to split an r.e. set A (written A1 Δ A2 = A) if A1 ∩ A2 = ∅ and A1 ∪ A2 = A. In the literature there are various results asserting certain splitting properties hold for all r.e. sets. For example Sacks' splitting theorem (cf. [So]) asserts that an r.e. nonrecursive set A may be split into a pair of Turing incomparable r.e. sets A1, A2, and Lachlan's splitting theorem [La5] asserts that A may be split into a pair of r.e. sets A1, A2 for which there exists an r.e. set B with B ⊕ A1, B ⊕ A2 <TA and with the infinum of the Turing degrees of B ⊕ A1 and B ⊕ A2 existing in the upper semilattice of r.e. degrees.

Two of the earliest observations establishing that splitting properties possessed by some r.e. sets are not possessed by others, are Lachlan's nondiamond theorem [La1] (and so, in particular, no complete r.e. set can be split nontrivially with degree theoretic inf 0) and the Yates-Lachlan construction of a minimal pair (a pair of nonzero r.e. degrees with inf 0). Other examples of this phenomenon, which are not obtained by interpreting degree theoretic results in the r.e. sets, are Lachlan's construction of nonmitotic r.e. sets [La2] (sets which cannot be split into a pair of r.e. sets of the same degree) and, later, Ladner's [Ld1, 2] and Ingrassia's [In] analysis of their degrees.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , March 1986 , pp. 88 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1986

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

The authors would like to thank Mike Ingrassia, Iraj Kalantari, Jeff Remmel and Michael Stob for many helpful discussions.

2

Some of the work presented here was carried out whilst the first author held a visiting position at Western Illinois University, was announced in abstract, and was presented to the Second Biennial Cambridge Logic Meeting, Boston, 1983.

References

REFERENCE

[AS1]Ambos-Spies, K., Anti-mitotic recursively enumerable sets, Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik (to appear).Google Scholar
[AS2]Ambos-Spies, K., Contiguous r.e. degrees, Computation and Proof Theory (Proceedings of Logic Colloquium, Aachen, 1983), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1104, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
[AF]Ambos-Spies, K. and Fejer, P., Degree-theoretic splitting properties of r.e. sets (to appear).Google Scholar
[AD]Ash, C. J. and Downey, R. G., Decidable subspaces and recursively enumerable subspaces, this Journal, vol. 49 (1984), pp. 1137–1145.Google Scholar
[BM]Bickford, M. and Mills, C., Lowness properties of r.e. sets (to appear).Google Scholar
[Co]Cooper, S. B., Minimal pairs and high recursively enumerable degrees, this Journal, vol. 39 (1974), pp. 655–660.Google Scholar
[Do]Downey, R. G., The degrees of r.e. sets without the universal splitting property, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society (to appear).Google Scholar
[DR]Downey, R. G. and Remmel, J. B., The universal complementation property, this Journal, vol. 49 (1984), pp. 1125–1136.Google Scholar
[DRW]Downey, R. G., Remmel, J. B. and Welch, L. V., Degrees of splittings and bases of r.e. subspaces (to appear).Google Scholar
[Fe]Fejer, P. A., The density of the nonbranching degrees, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 24 (1983), pp. 113–130.Google Scholar
[Ha]Harrington, L., On Cooper's proof of a theorem of Yates. I, II, handwritten notes, 1976.Google Scholar
[In]Ingrassia, M., P-genericity for recursively enumerable sets, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1981.Google Scholar
[JS]Jockusch, C. and Shore, R., Pseudo jump operators. I: The r.e. case, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 275 (1983), pp. 599–609.Google Scholar
[La1]Lachlan, A., Lower bounds for pairs of recursively enumerable degrees, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, ser. 3, vol. 16 (1966), pp. 537–567.Google Scholar
[La2]Lachlan, A., The priority method. I, Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, vol. 13 (1967), pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
[La3]Lachlan, A., A recursively enumerable degree which will not split over all lesser ones, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 9 (1975), pp. 307–365.Google Scholar
[La4]Lachlan, A., Bounding minimal pairs, this Journal, vol. 44 (1979), pp. 626–642.Google Scholar
[La5]Lachlan, A., Decomposition of recursively enumerable degrees, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 79 (1980), pp. 629–634.Google Scholar
[La6]Lachlan, A., Embedding nondistributive lattices in the recursively enumerable degrees, Conference in mathematical logic–London '70, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 225, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1972, pp. 149–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Ld1]Ladner, R. E., Mitotic recursively enumerable sets, this Journal, vol. 38 (1973), pp. 199–211.Google Scholar
[Ld2]Ladner, R. E., A completely mitotic nonrecursive r.e. degree, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 184 (1973), pp. 479–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[LS]Ladner, R.E. and Sasso, L. P., The weak truth table degrees of recursively enumerable sets, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 4 (1975), pp. 429–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[LR1]Lerman, M. and Remmel, J. B., The universal splitting property. I, Logic Colloquium '80, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982, pp. 181–209.Google Scholar
[LR2]Lerman, M. and Remmel, J. B., The universal splitting property. II, this Journal, vol. 49 (1983), pp. 137–150.Google Scholar
[Mi1]Miller, David, High recursively enumerable degrees and the anti-cupping property, Proceedings of Logic Year 1979–1980, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 859, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1981, pp. 230–267.Google Scholar
[Mi2]Miller, David, The relationship between the structure and degrees of recursively enumerable sets, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, 1981.Google Scholar
[Ro]Rogers, H., Theory of recursive functions and effective computability, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
[S1]Slaman, T., The density of the branching degree (to appear).Google Scholar
[So]Soare, R. I., The infinite injury priority method, this Journal, vol. 41 (1976), pp. 513–530.Google Scholar
[St]Stob, M., Wtt-degrees and T-degrees of r.e. sets, this Journal, vol. 48 (1983), pp. 921–930.Google Scholar
[Y]Yates, C. E. M., A minimal pair of recursively enumerable degrees, this Journal, vol. 31 (1966), pp. 159–168.Google Scholar