There is No Low Maximal D.C.E. Degree

We show that for any computably enumerable (c.e.) set A and any set L, if L is low and , then there is a c.e. splitting such that . In Particular, if L is low and n‐c.e., then is n‐c.e. and hence there is no low maximal n‐c.e. degree.     

Friedberg Numberings of Families of n-Computably Enumerable Sets

We establish a number of results on numberings, in particular, on Friedberg numberings, of families of d.c.e. sets. First, it is proved that there exists a Friedberg numbering of the family of all d.c.e. sets. We also show that this result, patterned on Friedberg's famous theorem for the family of all c.e. sets, holds for the family of all n-c.e. sets for any n>2. Second, it is stated that there exists an infinite family of d.c.e. sets without a Friedberg numbering. Third, it is shown that there exists an infinite family of c.e. sets (treated as a family of d.c.e. sets) with a numbering which is unique up to equivalence. Fourth, it is proved that there exists a family of d.c.e. sets with a least numbering (under reducibility) which is Friedberg but is not the only numbering (modulo reducibility).     

On Lachlan’s major sub-degree problem

The Major Sub-degree Problem of A. H. Lachlan (first posed in 1967) has become a long-standing open question concerning the structure of the computably enumerable (c.e.) degrees. Its solution has important implications for Turing definability and for the ongoing programme of fully characterising the theory of the c.e. Turing degrees. A c.e. degree a is a major subdegree of a c.e. degree b > a if for any c.e. degree x, if and only if . In this paper, we show that every c.e. degree b ≠ 0 or 0′ has a major sub-degree, answering Lachlan’s question affirmatively. Both authors were funded by EPSRC Research Grant no. GR/M 91419, “Turing Definability”, by INTAS-RFBR Research Grant no. 97-0139, “Computability and Models”, and by an NSFC Grand International Joint Project Grant no. 60310213, “New Directions in Theory and Applications of Models of Computation”. Both authors are grateful to Andrew Lewis for helpful suggestions regarding presentation, technical aspects of the proof, and verification. A. Li is partially supported by National Distinguished Young Investigator Award no. 60325206 (People’s Republic of China).     

Non‐isolated quasi‐degrees

We show that non‐isolated from below 2‐c.e. Q ‐degrees are dense in the structure of c.e. Q ‐degrees. We construct a 2‐c.e. Q ‐degree, which can't be isolated from below not only by c.e. Q ‐degrees, but by any Q ‐degree. We also prove that below any c.e. Q ‐degree there is a 2‐c.e. Q ‐degree, which is non‐isolated from below and from above (© 2009 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)     

There is no low maximal d. c. e. degree – Corrigendum

We give a corrected proof of an extension of the Robinson Splitting Theorem for the d. c. e. degrees. (© 2004 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)     

Isolation and the Jump Operator

We show the existence of a high d. c. e. degree d and a low₂ c.e. degree a such that d is isolated by a .     

Highness and bounding minimal pairs

We show the existence of a high r. e. degree bounding only joins of minimal pairs and of a high₂ nonbounding r. e. degree. MSC: 03D25.     

An Interval of Computably Enumerable Isolating Degrees

We construct computably enumerable degrees a < b such that all computably enumerable degrees c with a < c < b isolate some d. c. e. degree d.     

Effectively and Noneffectively Nowhere Simple Sets

R. Shore proved that every recursively enumerable (r. e.) set can be split into two (disjoint) nowhere simple sets. Splitting theorems play an important role in recursion theory since they provide information about the lattice ? of all r. e. sets. Nowhere simple sets were further studied by D. Miller and J. Remmel, and we generalize some of their results. We characterize r. e. sets which can be split into two (non) effectively nowhere simple sets, and r. e. sets which can be split into two r. e. non-nowhere simple sets. We show that every r. e. set is either the disjoint union of two effectively nowhere simple sets or two noneffectively nowhere simple sets. We characterize r. e. sets whose every nontrivial splitting is into nowhere simple sets, and r. e. sets whose every nontrivial splitting is into effectively nowhere simple sets. R. Shore proved that for every effectively nowhere simple set A, the lattice L* (A) is effectively isomorphic to ?*, and that there is a nowhere simple set A such that L*(A) is not effectively isomorphic to ?*. We prove that every nonzero r. e. Turing degree contains a noneffectively nowhere simple set A with the lattice L*(A) effectively isomorphic to ?*. Mathematics Subject Classification: 03D25, 03D10.     

Some New Lattice Constructions in High R. E. Degrees

A well-known theorem by Martin asserts that the degrees of maximal sets are precisely the high recursively enumerable (r. e.) degrees, and the same is true with ‘maximal’ replaced by ‘dense simple’, ‘r-maximal’, ‘strongly hypersimple’ or ‘finitely strongly hypersimple’. Many other constructions can also be carried out in any given high r. e. degree, for instance r-maximal or hyperhypersimple sets without maximal supersets (Lerman, Lachlan). In this paper questions of this type are considered systematically. Ultimately it is shown that every conjunction of simplicity- and non-extensibility properties can be accomplished, unless it is ruled out by well-known, elementary results. Moreover, each construction can be carried out in any given high r. e. degree, as might be expected. For instance, every high r. e. degree contains a dense simple, strongly hypersimple set A which is contained neither in a hyperhypersimple nor in an r-maximal set. The paper also contains some auxiliary results, for instance: every r. e. set B can be transformed into an r. e. set A such that (i) A has no dense simple superset, (ii) the transformation preserves simplicity- or non-extensibility properties as far as this is consistent with (i), and (iii) A ?_T B if B is high, and A ≥_T B otherwise. Several proofs involve refinements of known constructions; relationships to earlier results are discussed in detail.     

Lattice embeddings and array noncomputable degrees

We focus on a particular class of computably enumerable (c. e.) degrees, the array noncomputable degrees defined by Downey, Jockusch, and Stob, to answer questions related to lattice embeddings and definability in the partial ordering (??, ≤) of c. e. degrees under Turing reducibility. We demonstrate that the latticeM₅ cannot be embedded into the c. e. degrees below every array noncomputable degree, or even below every nonlow array noncomputable degree. As Downey and Shore have proved that M₅ can be embedded below every nonlow₂ degree, our result is the best possible in terms of array noncomputable degrees and jump classes. Further, this result shows that the array noncomputable degrees are definably different from the nonlow₂ degrees. We note also that there are embeddings of M₅ in which all five degrees are array noncomputable, and in which the bottom degree is the computable degree 0 but the other four are array noncomputable. (© 2004 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)     

Difference Sets and Recursion Theory

There is a recursive set of natural numbers which is the difference set of some recursively enumerable set but which is not the difference set of any recursive set.     

A minimal pair joining to a plus cupping Turing degree

A computably enumerable (c.e.) degree a is called nonbounding, if it bounds no minimal pair, and plus cupping, if every nonzero c.e. degree x below a is cuppable. Let NB and PC be the sets of all nonbounding and plus cupping c.e. degrees, respectively. Both NB and PC are well understood, but it has not been possible so far to distinguish between the two classes. In the present paper, we investigate the relationship between the classes NB and PC , and show that there exists a minimal pair which join to a plus cupping degree, so that PC ? NB . This gives a first known difference between NB and PC . (© 2003 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)     

The low<Subscript><Emphasis Type="Italic">n</Emphasis></Subscript> and low<Subscript><Emphasis Type="Italic">m</Emphasis></Subscript> r. e. degrees are not elementarily equivalent

Jockusch, Li and Yang showed that the Lown and Low1 r.e. degrees are not elementarily equivalent for n > 1. We answer a question they raise by using the results of Nies, Shore and Slaman to show that the Lown and Lowm r.e. degrees are not elementarily equivalent for n > m > 1.     

Graphs realised by r.e. equivalence relations

We investigate dependence of recursively enumerable graphs on the equality relation given by a specific r.e. equivalence relation on ω. In particular we compare r.e. equivalence relations in terms of graphs they permit to represent. This defines partially ordered sets that depend on classes of graphs under consideration. We investigate some algebraic properties of these partially ordered sets. For instance, we show that some of these partial ordered sets possess atoms, minimal and maximal elements. We also fully describe the isomorphism types of some of these partial orders.     

On the bounded quasi‐degrees of c.e. sets

We study the degree structure of bQ‐reducibility and we prove that for any noncomputable c.e. incomplete bQ‐degree a, there exists a nonspeedable bQ‐degree incomparable with it. The structure $\mathcal {D}_{\mbox{bs}}$ of the $\mbox{bs}$‐degrees is not elementary equivalent neither to the structure of the $\mbox{be}$‐degrees nor to the structure of the $\mbox{e}$‐degrees. If c.e. degrees a and b form a minimal pair in the c.e. bQ‐degrees, then a and b form a minimal pair in the bQ‐degrees. Also, for every simple set S there is a noncomputable nonspeedable set A which is bQ‐incomparable with S and bQ‐degrees of S and A does not form a minimal pair.     

On a Conjecture of Kleene and Post

A proof is given that 0 ′ (the argest Turing degree containing a computably enumerable set) is definable in the structure of the degrees of unsolvability. This answers a long‐standing question of Kleene and Post, and has a number of corollaries including the definability of the jump operator.     

The Isolated D. R. E. Degrees are Dense in the R. E. Degrees

In the present paper we prove that the isolated differences of r. e. degrees are dense in the r. e. degrees. Mathematics Subject Classification: 03D25.     

On the definable ideal generated by the plus cupping c.e. degrees

In this paper, we will prove that the plus cupping degrees generate a definable ideal on c.e. degrees different from other ones known so far, thus answering a question asked by Li and Yang (Proceedings of the 7th and the 8th Asian Logic Conferences. World Scientific Press, Singapore, 2003).     

A nonlow2 R. E. Degree with the Extension of Embeddings Properties of a low2 Degree

We construct a nonlow₂ r.e. degree d such that every positive extension of embeddings property that holds below every low₂ degree holds below d . Indeed, we can also guarantee the converse so that there is a low r.e. degree c such that that the extension of embeddings properties true below c are exactly the ones true belowd.Moreover, we can also guarantee that no b ≤ d is the base of a nonsplitting pair.