Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:47:35.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Sets which do not have subsets of every higher degree1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Stephen G. Simpson*
Affiliation:
University of Oxford, Oxfordshire, England Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802

Extract

Let A be a subset of ω, the set of natural numbers. The degree of A is its degree of recursive unsolvability. We say that A is rich if every degree above that of A is represented by a subset of A. We say that A is poor if no degree strictly above that of A is represented by a subset of A. The existence of infinite poor (and hence nonrich) sets was proved by Soare [9].

Theorem 1. Suppose that A is infinite and not rich. Then every hyperarith-metical subset H of ω is recursive in A.

In the special case when H is arithmetical, Theorem 1 was proved by Jockusch [4] who employed a degree-theoretic analysis of Ramsey's theorem [3]. In our proof of Theorem 1 we employ a similar, degree-theoretic analysis of a certain generalization of Ramsey's theorem. The generalization of Ramsey's theorem is due to Nash-Williams [6]. If A ⊆ ω we write [A]ω for the set of all infinite subsets of A. If P ⊆ [ω]ω we let H(P) be the set of all infinite sets A such that either [A]ωP = ∅. Nash-Williams' theorem is essentially the statement that if P ⊆ [ω]ω is clopen (in the usual, Baire topology on [ω]ω) then H(P) is nonempty. Subsequent, further generalizations of Ramsey's theorem were proved by Galvin and Prikry [1], Silver [8], Mathias [5], and analyzed degree-theoretically by Solovay [10]; those results are not needed for this paper.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1978

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

This research was supported by a grant from the Science Research Council. Preparation of this paper was partially supported by NSF grant MSP 75–07408.

References

REFERENCES

[1]Galvin, F. and Prikry, K., Borel sets and Ramsey's theorem, this Journal, vol. 38 (1973), pp. 193198.Google Scholar
[2]Grilliot, T., Omitting types: applications to recursion theory, this Journal, vol. 37 (1972), pp. 8189.Google Scholar
[3]Jockusch, C. G. Jr., Ramsey's theorem and recursion theory, this Journal, vol. 37 (1972), pp. 268280.Google Scholar
[4]Jockusch, C. G. Jr., Upward closure and cohesive degrees, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 15 (1973), pp. 332335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Mathias, A. R. D., Happy families, Annals of Mathematical Logic (to appear).Google Scholar
[6]Nash-Williams, C. St. J. A., On well-quasi-ordering transfinite sequences, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. 61 (1965), pp. 3339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Rogers, H. Jr., Theory of recursive functions and effective computability, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
[8]Silver, J. H., Every analytic set is Ramsey, this Journal, vol. 35 (1970), pp. 6064.Google Scholar
[9]Soare, R. I., Sets with no subset of higher degree, this Journal, vol. 34 (1969), pp. 5356.Google Scholar
[10]Solovay, R. M., Hyperarithmetically encodable sets, IBM research report RC 5245 (1975); Transactions of the American Mathematical Society (to appear).Google Scholar
[11]Spector, C., Recursive well-orderings, this Journal, vol. 20 (1955), pp. 151163.Google Scholar
[12]Friedman, H., Some systems of second order arithmetic and their use, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vancouver, 1974, vol. 1, pp. 235242.Google Scholar
[13]Steel, J., Determinateness and subsystems of analysis, Ph.D. Thesis, University of California at Berkeley, 1977.Google Scholar