Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:40:16.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Requirement systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Julia F. Knight
Julia F. Knight*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Methods for carrying out transfinitely nested priority constructions have been developed by Harrington [7] and by Ash [2, 1, 3, 4]. Ash's method has different versions, with later ones becoming simpler. Lemmp and Lerman [11] have also developed a method, for finitely nested constructions. Ash formulated abstractly the object of a nested priority construction, and he proved a metatheorem for what he called “α-systems”, listing conditions which guarantee the success of the construction. Harrington's method of “workers”, at least in its original, informal state, seems more flexible than Ash's α-systems.

In [10, 9], there are finite and transfinite versions of a metatheorem for workers. The statements are complicated, and these metatheorems have not proved to be very useful. The present paper gives a new transfinite metatheorem. The statement is considerably simpler than the one in [9], although not so simple as that in [3]. The new metatheorem grew, in part, out of an effort to find a new proof of Ash's metatheorem. The new metatheorem yields the one in [3], and it seems more flexible. A different generalization of Ash's metatheorem will be given in [5].

Ash's metatheorem is easier to use than the one in the present paper, and the result in [3] is certainly the one to use wherever it applies. Here we give one application of the new metatheorem which does not seem to follow from the result in [3]. This is a theorem on models “representing” a given Scott set, which implies one half of a recent result of Solovay [18], on Turing degrees of models of particular completions of Peano arithmetic (PA).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 222 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1995

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]Ash, C. J, Recursive labelling systems and stability of recursive structures in hyperarithmetical degrees, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 298 (1986), pp. 497–514, Corrections: Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 310 (1988), p. 851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Ash, C. J, Stability of recursive structures in arithmetical degrees, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 32 (1986), pp. 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Ash, C. J, Labelling systems and r.e. structures, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 47 (1990), pp. 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Ash, C. J, A construction for recursive linear orderings, this Journal, vol. 56 (1991), pp. 673–683.Google Scholar
[5]Ash, C. J., Jockusch, C. G., and Knight, J. F., Jumps of oderings, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 319 (1990), pp. 573–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Goncharov, S. S, Strong constructivizability of homogeneous models, Algebra i Logika, vol. 17 (1978), pp. 363–388.Google Scholar
[7]Harrington, L., Building nonstandard models of Peano arithmetic, handwritten notes, 1979.Google Scholar
[8]Knight, J. F., Degrees of models with prescribed Scott set, Classification: Proceedings of joint V.S.-Israel workshop (Baldwin, J., editor), 1987, pp. 182–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Knight, J. F., Constructions by transfinitely many workers, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 46 (1990), pp. 211–234.Google Scholar
[10]Knight, J. F., A metatheorem for constructions by finitely many workers, this Journal, vol. 55 (1990), pp. 787–804.Google Scholar
[11]Lempp, S. and Lerman, M, Priority arguments using iterated trees of strategies, Proceedings of recursion theory week (Ambos-Spies, K., Miller, D., and Sacks, G., editors), Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 277–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Macintyre, A. and Marker, D., Degrees of recursively saturated models, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 282 (1984), pp. 539–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Peretyat’kin, M. G., Criterion for strong constructivizability of a homogeneous model, Algebra i Logika, vol. 17 (1978).Google Scholar
[14]Rogers, H., Theory of recursive functions and effective computability, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
[15]Scott, D., Algebras of sets binumerable in complete extensions of arithmetic, Recursive function theory: Proceedings of symposia in pure mathematics (Providence, RI), vol. 5, American Mathematical Society, 1967, pp. 117–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Solovay, R. M., paper on degrees of models of arbitrary completions of PA, in preparation.Google Scholar
[17]Solovay, R. M., Degrees of models of true arithmetic, unpublished manuscript, written in 1982.Google Scholar
[18]Solovay, R. M., personal correspondence, 1991.Google Scholar