Algebra and Logic

, Volume 58, Issue 3, pp 224–231 | Cite as

Computable Numberings of Families of Infinite Sets

  • M. V. DorzhievaEmail author

We state the following results: the family of all infinite computably enumerable sets has no computable numbering; the family of all infinite \( {\varPi}_1^1 \) sets has no \( {\varPi}_1^1 \) -computable numbering; the family of all infinite \( {\varSigma}_2^1 \) sets has no \( {\varSigma}_2^1 \) -computable numbering. For k > 2, the existence of a \( {\varSigma}_k^1 \) -computable numbering for the family of all infinite \( {\varSigma}_k^1 \) sets leads to the inconsistency of ZF.


computability analytical hierarchy computable numberings Friedberg numbering Gödel’s axiom of constructibility 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    M. V. Dorzhieva, “Elimination of metarecursive in Owing’s theorem,” Vestnik NGU, Mat., Mekh., Inf., 14, No. 1, 35-43 (2014).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. V. Dorzhieva, “Friedberg numbering of the family of all \( {\varSigma}_2^1 \) -sets,” Sib. Zh. Ch. Prikl. Mat., 18, No. 2, 47-52 (2018).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. F. Friedberg, “Three theorems on recursive enumeration. I. Decomposition. II. Maximal set. III. Enumeration without duplication,” J. Symb. Log., 23, No. 3, 309-316 (1958).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. S. Goncharov and A. Sorbi, “Generalized computable numerations and nontrivial Rogers semilattices,” Algebra and Logic, 36, No. 6, 359-369 (1997).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. S. Goncharov, S. Lempp, and D. R. Solomon, “Friedberg numberings of families of ncomputably enumerable sets,” Algebra and Logic, 41, No. 2, 81-86 (2002).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. C. Owings, Jun., “The meta-r.e. sets, but not the \( {\varPi}_1^1 \) sets, can be enumerated without repetition,” J. Symb. Log., 35, No. 2, 223-229 (1970).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    A. I. Mal’tsev, Algorithms and Recursive Functions [in Russian], Nauka, Moscow (1965).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. Rogers, Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability, McGraw-Hill, New York (1967).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    V. G. Kanovei and V. A. Lyubetsky, Modern Set Theory: Borel and Projective Sets [in Russian], MTsNMO, Moscow (2010).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. Gödel, “The consistency of the axiom of choice and of the generalized continuumhypothesis,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 24, 556-557 (1938).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. W. Addison, “Separation principles in the hierarchies of classical and effective descriptive set theory,” Fund. Math., 46, 123-135 (1959).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. W. Addison and Y. N. Moschovakis, “Some consequences of the axiom of definable determinateness,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 59, 708-712 (1968).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. A. Martin, “The axiom of determinateness and reduction principles in the analytical hierarchy,” Bull. Am. Math. Soc., 74, No. 4, 687-689 (1968).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. Jech, Set Theory, Springer Monogr. Math., Springer, Berlin (2003).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. W. Addison, “Some consequences of the axiom of constructibility,” Fund. Math., 46, 337-357 (1959).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Novosibirsk State UniversityNovosibirskRussia

Personalised recommendations