∑2 Induction and infinite injury priority arguments, part III: Prompt sets, minimal pairs and Shoenfield’s Conjecture
We prove that in everyB∑ 2 model (one satisfies ∑2 collection axioms but not ∑2 induction), every recursively enumerable (r.e.) set is either prompt or recursive. Consequently, over the base theory ∑2 collection, the existence of r.e. minimal pairs is equivalent to ∑2 induction. We also refute Shoenfield’s Conjecture inB∑ 2 models.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- K. Ambos-Spies, C. G. Jockusch, Jr., R. A. Shore and R. I. Soare,An algebraic decomposition of the recursively enumerable degrees and the coincidence of several degree classes with the promptly simple degrees, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society281 (1984), 109–128.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- C. T. Chong and Yue Yang,Recursion theory in weak fragments of Peano arithmetic; a study of cuts, inProceedings of the Sixth Asian Logic Conference, Beijing 1996, World Scientific, Singapore, 1998, pp. 47–65.Google Scholar
- M. J. Groszek and T. A. Slaman,On Turing reducibility, preprint, 1994.Google Scholar
- L. A. Kirby and J. B. Paris,∑ 2-collection schemas in arithmetic, inLogic Colloquium ’77, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978, pp. 199–209.Google Scholar
- K. J. Mourad,Recursion theoretic statements equivalent to induction axioms for arithmetic, Ph.D. thesis, The University of Chicago, 1988.Google Scholar
- R. I. Soare,Recursively enumerable sets and degrees, inPerspectives in Mathematical Logic, Omega Series, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1987.Google Scholar