Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T19:06:00.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An algebraic difference between isols and cosimple isols

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Erik Ellentuck
Erik Ellentuck*
Affiliation:
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903 Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey 08540
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a fairly simple algebraic property that distinguishes isols from cosimple isols.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 37 , Issue 3 , September 1972 , pp. 557 - 561
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1972

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]Cohen, P. J., Set theory and the continuum hypothesis, Benjamin, New York, 1966.Google Scholar
[2]Dekker, J. C. E. and Myhill, J., Recursive equivalence types, University of California Publications in Pure Mathematics, vol. 3 (1960), pp. 67–213.Google Scholar
[3]Ellentuck, E., Universal isols, Mathematische Zeitschrift, vol. 98 (1967), pp. 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Ellentuck, E., Degrees of isolic theories, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic (to appear).Google Scholar
[5]Hay, L., Elementary differences between the isols and the cosimple isols, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 127 (1967), pp. 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Jockusch, C. G. Jr., Ramsey's theorem and recursion theory, this Journal (to appear).Google Scholar
[7]Manaster, A. B., Higher-order indecomposable isols, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 125 (1966), pp. 363–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Ramsey, F. P., On a problem in formal logic, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, vol. 30 (1930), pp. 264–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Ryan, B. F., ω-cohesive sets, Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, 1968.Google Scholar