Reflection and the priority method in E-recursion theory

  • Theodore A. Slaman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mathematics book series (LNM, volume 1141)

Abstract

A central issue in E-recursion theory is the relative status of E-recursive enumerability and Σ1-definability in an E-closed structure. In most initial segments of L these two are not the same. However, as is shown here, every E-closed initial segment of L is canonically represented as the union of Π1-absolute admissible sets with gaps, in which sets the two notions are identical. This representation is used to prove a meta-theorem which provides a translation of Friedberg-style finite injury constructions from classical recursion theory into successful E-recursion theoretic constructions for initial segments of L. The key to the method is to construe an E-recursive enumeration as a direct limit of Σ1-enumerations, in each of which, requirements are satisfied using techniques from α-recursion theory. Suppose that Lk is E-closed; a subset of κ is said to be scattered if its order type is less than ρk1, the E-recursively enumerable projectum of Lk. As an application of this method, it is shown that there is an E-recursively enumerable degree on Lk which is not scattered.

The difference between E-recursive enumerability and Σ1-definability can be used to construct new varieties of recursively enumerable sets. For example, for any given Lk there is a complete E-recursively enumerable subset of κ which has order type the Σ1-cofinality of κ; this shows that there is a complete scattered set whenever possible. In addition, it is shown that if the two notions of definability are different in Lk then the diamond lattice can be embedded in the E-recursively enumerable degrees on Lk preserving meet, join, 0 and 1. This result contrasts with the Lachlan non-diamond theorem, which states that no such embedding exists for the recursively enumerable degrees on ω. As Lachlan's theorem is proven using the finite injury method, this indicates that there is no method for adapting a general finite injury construction from the classical setting to E-recursion on an arbitrary Lk.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    K.J. Devlin, “Aspects of constructibility”, Lecture Notes in Math. 354, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1973.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R.O. Gandy, Generalized recursive functionals of finite type and hierarchies of functionals, Ann. Fac. Sci. Univ. Clermont-Ferrand 35 (1967), 5–24.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    E.R. Griffor and D. Normann, Effective cofinalities and admissibility in E-recursion, Preprint Series No. 5, Univ. Oslo (1982).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E.R. Griffor, “E-Recursively Enumerable Degrees”, Ph.D. thesis, M.I.T., 1980.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    L.A. Harrington, “Contributions to recursion theory on higher types”, Ph.D. thesis, M.I.T., 1973.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    K. Hrbacek and S.G. Simpson, On the Kleene degrees of analytic sets, in “The Kleene Symposium”, (J. Barwise, H.J. Keisler and K. Kunen eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1980, pp. 347–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R.B. Jensen and C. Karp, Primitive recursive set functions, in “Proc. Symp. in Pure Math.”, 13, (D. Scott, ed.), Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, Rhode Island, 1971, pp. 143–167.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C.G. Jockusch, Three easy constructions of recursively enumerable sets, in “Logic Year 1979–80 (Lecture Notes in Mathematics 859)”, (M. Lerman, J.H. Shmerl and R.I. Soare eds.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1981, pp. 83–91.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A.S. Kechris, The theory of countable analytic sets, T.A.M.S. 202 (1975), 259–297.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Normann, Set recursion, in “Generalized Recursion Theory II”, (J.E. Fenstad, R.O. Gandy and G.E. Sacks eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978, pp. 39–54.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    _____, Degrees of functionals, Preprint Series No. 22, Univ. Oslo (1975).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G.E. Sacks, The 1-section of a type n object, In “Generalized Recursion Theory”, (J.E. Fenstad, R.O. Gandy and P.G. Hinman eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1974, pp. 81–93.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    _____, The k-section of a type n object, Am. Jour. Math. 99 (1977), 901–917.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    _____, Three aspects of recursive enumerability in higher types, in “Recursion Theory: its Generalisations and Applications”, (F.R. Drake and S.S. Wainer eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980, pp. 184–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    _____, Post's problem in E-recursion theory, in “Proc. A.M.S. Summer Inst.” (to appear).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G.E. Sacks and S.G. Simpson, The α-finite injury method, Ann. Math. Logic 4 (1972), 323–367.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    G.E. Sacks and T.A. Slaman, Inadmissible forcing, Adv. in Math. (to appear).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    T.A. Slaman, “Aspects of E-recursion”, Ph.D. thesis, Harvard Univ, 1981.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    _____, The E-recursively enumerable degrees are dense, in “Proc. A.M.S. Summer Inst.” (to appear).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    _____, Σ1 definitions with parameters, (to appear).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    _____, On the Kleene degrees of Π11 sets, (to appear).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R.A. Shore, The recursively enumerable α-degrees are dense, Ann. Math. Logic 9 (1976), 123–155.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theodore A. Slaman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsThe University of ChicagoChicagoU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations