Algebra and Logic

, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp 351–373 | Cite as

Computable Structure and Non-Structure Theorems

  • S. S. Goncharov
  • J. F. Knight


In a lecture in Kazan (1977), Goncharov dubbed a number of problems regarding the classification of computable members of various classes of structures. Some of the problems seemed likely to have nice answers, while others did not. At the end of the lecture, Shore asked what would be a convincing negative result. The goal of the present article is to consider some possible answers to Shore's question. We consider structures Д of some computable language, whose universes are computable sets of constants. In measuring complexity, we identify Д with its atomic diagram D(Д), which, via the Gödel numbering, may be treated as a subset of ω. In particular, Д is computable if D(Д) is computable. If K is some class, then Kc denotes the set of computable members of K. A computable characterization for K should separate the computable members of K from other structures, that is, those that either are not in K or are not computable. A computable classification (structure theorem) should describe each member of Kc up to isomorphism, or other equivalence, in terms of relatively simple invariants. A computable non-structure theorem would assert that there is no computable structure theorem. We use three approaches. They all give the “correct” answer for vector spaces over Q, and for linear orderings. Under all of the approaches, both classes have a computable characterization, and there is a computable classification for vector spaces, but not for linear orderings. Finally, we formulate some open problems.

computable characterization computable classification structure theorem non-structure theorem 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    W. Hodges, “What is a structure theory?,” Bull. London Math. Soc., 19, No. 3(78) 209-237 (1987).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. Shelah, “Classification of first order theories which have a structure theorem,” Bull. Am. Math. Soc., 12, No. 2, 227-232 (1985).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    H. Friedman and L. Stanley, “On Borel reducibility theory for classes of computable structures,” J. Symb. Log., 54, No. 3, 894-914 (1989).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. J. Ash and J. F. Knight, Computable Structures and the Hyperarithmetical Hierarchy, Elsevier, Amsterdam (2000).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Scott, “Logic with denumerably long formulas and finite strings of quantifiers,” in The Theory of Models, J. Addison, L. Henkin, and A. Tarski (eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam (1970), pp. 329-341.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    H. J. Keisler, Model Theory for Infinitary Logic, North-Holland, Amsterdam (1971).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Rogers, Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability, McGraw-Hill, New York (1967).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Harrison, “Recursive pseudo well-orderings,” Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 131, No. 2, 526-543 (1968).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. E. Sacks, Higher Type Recursion Theory, Springer, Berlin (1990).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. S. Goncharov, “Autostability and computable families of constructivizations,” Algebra Logika, 14, No. 6, 647-680 (1975).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. S. Goncharov, “The quantity of non-autoequivalent constructivizations,” Algebra Logika, 16, No. 6, 257-282 (1977).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. J. Ash, “Categoricity in hyperarithmetical degrees,” Ann. Pure Appl. Log., 34, No. 1, 1-14 (1987).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Lopez-Escobar, “An addition to 'On definable well-orderings',” Fund. Math., 59, No. 3, 299-300 (1966).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Morley, “Omitting classes of elements,” in The Theory of Models, M. Addison, L. Henkin, and A. Tarski (eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam (1970), pp. 265-273.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. R. Hirschfeldt, B. Khoussainov, R. A. Shore, and A. M. Slinco, “Degree spectra and computable dimensions in algebraic structures,” Preprint.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. J. Ash and J. F. Knight, “Pairs of recursive structures,” Ann. Pure Appl. Log., 46, No. 3, 211-234 (1990).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. J. Ash, C. G. Jockusch, and J. F. Knight, “Jumps of orderings,” Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 319, No. 2, 573-599 (1990).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. J. Ash, “A construction for recursive linear orderings,” J. Symb. Log., 56, No. 2, 673-683 (1991).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. J. Ash, “Recursive labelling systems and stability of recursive structures in hyperarithmetical degrees,” Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 298, No. 2, 497-514 (1986); Corrections: Ibid., 310, No. 2, 851 (1988).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. T. Nurtazin, “Computable classes and algebraic criteria for autostability,” Ph.D. Thesis, Institute of Mathematics and Mechanics, Alma-Ata (1974).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    C. G. Jockusch and R. I. Soare, “Degrees of orderings not isomorphic to recursive linear orderings,” Ann. Pure Appl. Log., 52, Nos. 1/2, 39-64 (1991).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. S. Goncharov
    • 1
  • J. F. Knight
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Mathematics SB RASAkademika Koptyuga ProspektNovosibirskRussia
  2. 2.Notre Dame UniversityNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations