Where AR is the set of arithmetic Turing degrees, 0 (ω ) is the least member of { $\mathbf{\alpha}^{(2)}|\mathbf{a}$ is an upper bound on AR}. This situation is quite different if we examine HYP, the set of hyperarithmetic degrees. We shall prove (Corollary 1) that there is an a, an upper bound on HYP, whose hyperjump is the degree of Kleene's O. This paper generalizes this example, using an iteration of the jump operation into the transfinite (...) which is based on results of Jensen and is detailed in [3] and [4]. In $\S1$ we review the basic definitions from [3] which are needed to state the general results. (shrink)

Proof uses forcing on perfect trees for 2-quantifier sentences in the language of arithmetic. The result extends to exact pairs for the hyperarithmetic degrees.

We study arithmetic and hyperarithmetic degrees of categoricity. We extend a result of E. Fokina, I. Kalimullin, and R. Miller to show that for every computable ordinal $\alpha$, $\mathbf{0}^{}$ is the degree of categoricity of some computable structure $\mathcal{A}$. We show additionally that for $\alpha$ a computable successor ordinal, every degree $2$-c.e. in and above $\mathbf{0}^{}$ is a degree of categoricity. We further prove that every degree of categoricity is hyperarithmetic and show that the index set of structures (...) with degrees of categoricity is $\Pi_{1}^{1}$-complete. (shrink)

A set A is symmetric enumeration (se-) reducible to a set B (A ≤\sb se B) if A is enumeration reducible to B and \barA is enumeration reducible to \barB. This reducibility gives rise to a degree structure (D\sb se) whose least element is the class of computable sets. We give a classification of ≤\sb se in terms of other standard reducibilities and we show that the natural embedding of the Turing degrees (D\sb T) into the enumeration (...) class='Hi'>degrees (D\sb e) translates to an embedding (ι\sb se) into D\sb se that preserves least element, suprema, and infima. We define a weak and a strong jump and we observe that ι\sb se preserves the jump operator relative to the latter definition. We prove various (global) results concerning branching, exact pairs, minimal covers, and diamond embeddings in D\sb se. We show that certain classes of se-degrees are first-order definable, in particular, the classes of semirecursive, Σ\sb n ⋃ Π\sb n, Δ\sb n (for any n \in ω), and embedded Turing degrees. This last result allows us to conclude that the theory of D\sb se has the same 1-degree as the theory of Second-Order Arithmetic. (shrink)

The ‘Turing barrier’ is an evocative image for 0′, the degree of the unsolvability of the halting problem for Turing machines—equivalently, of the undecidability of Peano Arithmetic. The ‘barrier’ metaphor conveys the idea that effective computability is impaired by restrictions that could be removed by infinite methods. Assuming that the undecidability of PA is essentially depending on the finite nature of its computational means, decidability would be restored by the ω-rule. Hypercomputation, the hypothetical realization of infinitary machines (...) through relativistic and quantium models, would thus be capable of breaking the Turing barrier. The speculation is unfounded in principle, apart from issues of physical realizability: The point is that the ω-rule does not cope with all objects entailing the undecidability of PA. As long as the system is consistent, the computational boundary can be established by paradox-like constructions, such as Gödel-Rosser’s and Yablo’s, which are refractory to infinite induction, and do stand as the barrier’s buttresses. (shrink)

We show that there are Π5 formulas in the language of the Turing degrees, [Formula: see text], with ≤, ∨ and ∧, that define the relations x″ ≤ y″, x″ = y″ and so {x ∈ L2 = x ≥ y|x″ = y″} in any jump ideal containing 0. There are also Σ6&Π6 and Π8 formulas that define the relations w = x″ and w = x', respectively, in any such ideal [Formula: see text]. In the language with (...) just ≤ the quantifier complexity of each of these definitions increases by one. For a lower bound on definability, we show that no Π2 or Σ2 formula in the language with just ≤ defines L2 or L2. Our arguments and constructions are purely degree theoretic without any appeals to absoluteness considerations, set theoretic methods or coding of models of arithmetic. As a corollary, we see that every automorphism of [Formula: see text] is fixed on every degree above 0″ and every relation on [Formula: see text] which is invariant under the double jump or under join with 0″ is definable over [Formula: see text] if and only if it is definable in second order arithmetic with set quantification ranging over sets whose degrees are in [Formula: see text]. (shrink)

In this paper I begin by extending two results of Solovay; the first characterizes the possible Turing degrees of models of True Arithmetic (TA), the complete first-order theory of the standard model of PA, while the second characterizes the possible Turing degrees of arbitrary completions of P. I extend these two results to characterize the possible Turing degrees of m-diagrams of models of TA and of arbitrary complete extensions of PA. I next give (...) a construction showing that the conditions Solovay identified for his characterization of degrees of models of arbitrary completions of PA cannot be dropped (I showed that these conditions cannot be simplified in the paper. (shrink)

In this work, we aim at understanding incompleteness in an abstract way via metamathematical properties of formal theories. We systematically examine the relationships between the following twelve important metamathematical properties of arithmetical theories: Rosser, EI (effectively inseparable), RI (recursively inseparable), TP (Turing persistent), EHU (essentially hereditarily undecidable), EU (essentially undecidable), Creative, |$\textbf{0}^{\prime }$| (theories with Turing degree |$\textbf{0}^{\prime }$|⁠), REW (all RE sets are weakly representable), RFD (all recursive functions are definable), RSS (all recursive sets are strongly representable), (...) RSW (all recursive sets are weakly representable). Given any two properties |$P$| and |$Q$| in the above list, we examine whether |$P$| implies |$Q$|⁠. (shrink)

There are $\Pi_5$ formulas in the language of the Turing degrees, D, with ≤, ∨ and $\vedge$ , that define the relations $x" \leq y"$ , x" = y" and so $x \in L_{2}(y)=\{x\geqy|x"=y"\}$ in any jump ideal containing $0^(\omega)$ . There are also $\Sigma_6$ & $\Pi_6$ and $\Pi_8$ formulas that define the relations w = x" and w = x', respectively, in any such ideal I. In the language with just ≤ the quantifier complexity of each of (...) these definitions increases by one. On the other hand, no Π2 or Σ2 formula in the language with just ≤ defines L2 or $x\inL_{2}(y)$ . Our arguments and constructions are purely degree theoretic without any appeals to absoluteness considerations, set theoretic methods or coding of models of arithmetic. As a corollary, we see that every automorphism of I is fixed on every degree above 0" and every relation on I that is invariant under double jump or joining with 0" is definable over I if and only if it is definable in second order arithmetic with set quantification ranging over sets whose degrees are in I. Similar direct coding arguments show that every hyperjump ideal I is rigid and biinterpretable with second order arithmetic with set quantification ranging over sets with hyperdegrees in I. Analogous results hold for various coarser degree structures. (shrink)

A model is computable if its domain is a computable set and its relations and functions are uniformly computable. Let be a computable model and let R be an extra relation on the domain of . That is, R is not named in the language of . We define to be the set of Turing degrees of the images f under all isomorphisms f from to computable models. We investigate conditions on and R which are sufficient and necessary (...) for to contain every Turing degree. These conditions imply that if every Turing degree 0″ can be realized in via an isomorphism of the same Turing degree as its image of R, then contains every Turing degree. We also discuss an example of and R whose coincides with the Turing degrees which are 0′. (shrink)

We give a partial answer to an important open problem in descriptive set theory, the Decomposability Conjecture for Borel functions on an analytic subset of a Polish space to a separable metrizable space. Our techniques employ deep results from effective descriptive set theory and recursion theory. In fact it is essential to extend several prominent results in recursion theory (e.g. the Shore-Slaman Join Theorem) to the setting of Polish spaces. As a by-product we give both positive and negative results on (...) the Martin Conjecture on the degree preserving Borel functions between Polish spaces. Additionally we prove results about the transfinite version as well as the computable version of the Decomposability Conjecture. (shrink)

This paper continues our study of computable point-free topological spaces and the metamathematical points in them. For us, a point is the intersection of a sequence of basic open sets with compact and nested closures. We call such a sequence a sharp filter. A function fF from points to points is generated by a function F from basic open sets to basic open sets such that sharp filters map to sharp filters. We restrict our study to functions that have at (...) least all computable points in their domains.We follow Turing's approach in stating that a point is computable if it is the limit of a computable sharp filter; we then define the Turing degree Deg of a general point x in an analogous way. Because of the vagaries of the definition, a result of J. Miller applies and we note that not all points in all our spaces have Turing degrees; but we also show a certain class of points do. We further show that in ℝn all points have Turing degrees and that these degrees are the same as the classical Turing degrees of points defined by other researchers.We also prove the following: For a point x that has a Turing degree and lies either on a computable tree T or in the domain of a computable function fF, there is a sharp filter on T or in dom converging to x and with the same Turing degree as x. Furthermore, all possible Turing degrees occur among the degrees of such points for a given computable function fF or a complete, computable, binary tree T. For each x ∈ dom for which x and fF have Turing degrees, Deg) ≤ Deg. Finally, the Turing degrees of the sharp filters convergent to a given x are closed upward in the partial order of all Turing degrees. (shrink)

There is a Turing functional $\Phi $ taking $A^\prime $ to a theory $T_A$ whose complexity is exactly that of the jump of A, and which has the property that $A \leq _T B$ if and only if $T_A \trianglelefteq T_B$ in Keisler’s order. In fact, by more elaborate means and related theories, we may keep the complexity at the level of A without using the jump.

Let be an infinite computable structure, and let R be an additional computable relation on its domain A. The syntactic notion of formal hypersimplicity of R on , first introduced and studied by Hird, is analogous to the computability-theoretic notion of hypersimplicity of R on A, given the definability of certain effective sequences of relations on A. Assuming that R is formally hypersimple on , we give general sufficient conditions for the existence of a computable isomorphic copy of on whose (...) domain the image of R is hypersimple and of arbitrary nonzero computably enumerable Turing degree. (shrink)

Martin [4, Theorems 1 and 2] proved that a Turing degree a is the degree of a maximal set if, and only if, a′ = 0″. Lachlan has shown that maximal sets have minimal many-one degrees [2, §1] and that every nonrecursive r.e. Turing degree contains a minimal many-one degree [2, Theorem 4]. Our aim here is to show that any r.e. Turing degree a of a maximal set contains an infinite number of maximal sets whose (...) many-one degrees are pairwise incomparable; hence such Turing degrees contain an infinite number of distinct minimal many-one degrees. This theorem has been proved by Yates [6, Theorem 5] in the case when a = 0′. The need for this theorem first came to our attention as a result of work done by the author [3, Theorem 2.3]. There we looked at the structure / obtained from the recursive functions of one variable under the equivalence relation f ~ g if, and only if, f(x) = g(x) a.e., that is, for all but finitely many x ∈, where M is a maximal set, and M is its complement. We showed that / 1 ≡ / 2 if, and only if, 1 = m 2, i.e., 1. and 2 have the same many-one degree. However, it might be possible that some Turing degree of a maximal set contains exactly one many-one degree of a maximal set. Theorem 1 was proved to show that this was not the case, and hence that the theory of / is not an invariant of Turing degree. (shrink)

We study degree-theoretic properties of reals that are not random with respect to any continuous probability measure (NCR). To this end, we introduce a family of generalized Hausdorff measures based on the iterates of the “dissipation” function of a continuous measure and study the effective nullsets given by the corresponding Solovay tests. We introduce two constructions that preserve non-randomness with respect to a given continuous measure. This enables us to prove the existence of NCR reals in a number of (...) class='Hi'>Turing degrees. In particular, we show that every \(\Delta ^0_2\) -degree contains an NCR element. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Ad Infinitum: The Ghost in Turing’s Machine: Taking God Out of Mathematics and Putting the Body Back InTony E. JacksonAd Infinitum: The Ghost in Turing’s Machine: Taking God Out of Mathematics and Putting the Body Back In, by Brian Rotman; xii & 203 pp. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993, $39.50 cloth, $12.95 paper.Brian Rotman’s book attempts to pull mathematics—the last, most solid home of metaphysical thought—off (...) its absolutist foundations and into the roiling current of postmodernism. His argument works in what has by now become a rather standard manner. He shows how the grounding ideas of mathematics rest upon the insupportable assumption of a realm of absolute truth, “truth perfect, truth outside time, outside space, outside the material world of matter, energy, and entropy, truth somehow able to be discovered or apprehended but never invented” (p. 19). Rotman questions this Platonic grounding in a number of ways.First, with the help of linguistics (de Saussure, Benveniste, Wittgenstein, and Peirce) he provides a semiotic analysis of mathematical arguments as real-world linguistic events. Proof he looks at “not as a form of inference engaged in preserving eternal truths, but as an historically conditioned species of rhetoric” (p. 35). Secondly, Rotman argues that one idea has most secured the fortress-like solidity of mathematical Platonism: the idea of ad infinitum or infinite iteration. Mathematics takes off from the givenness of the natural numbers, our everyday 1, 2, 3 and so on to infinity. It is the “so on to infinity” that frames up the house of arithmetic as it has stood since Euclid. (Euclidean in this context is equivalent to Platonic in the context of philosophy.) But what is the referent of these numbers? Ultimately they are said to be the symbolic representation of the action of counting, which is the “mathematical ur-cognition” (p. 51). And yet we cannot imagine any material human situation in which counting could actually go on to infinity. Therefore, some impossible, supernatural agent (the ghost of the title) must be projected in order for this conception to exist. Similarly, Rotman argues against the assumption of “perfect repeatability” because this notion depends upon some purely imaginary, ideal identity of object or action that could possibly be repeated. Ad infinitum requires and assumes both a disembodied, metaphysical counter and a disembodied, metaphysical counted.So Rotman sets about putting the body back into this symbolic system by rejecting the idea of ad infinitum. Instead of assuming the existence of counting activities that run, in principle, out to infinity without changing their nature, Rotman posits what he calls “realizable iteration,” that is, counting that admits the necessary dissolution or change of whatever repetitive function you begin with. Put simply, he includes the fact that quantitative accumulation or repetition always eventually brings about a qualitative change: at some point in everyday life a difference of degree of the “same” thing or action inevitably becomes a difference of kind. The natural numbers and the ad infinitum [End Page 390] remain blissfully sheltered from this inescapable real world truth, but Rotman reformulates mathematics so as to include this truth in the very idea of numbering.In fact (and he acknowledges this) he theorizes counting after the model of chaos or complexity theory in the physical sciences. Realizable iteration, he says, will bring in the “qualitative differences” forgotten or repressed (the language of Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Freud runs throughout) in the metaphysical version of number, and “display [the qualitative differences] as the emergent effects of repetition” (p. 131). Even numerical addition, for instance, which had been the most linearly continuous of activities, now will be linear beginning from some initial point, but will become increasingly nonlinear as quantitative increase tends towards some point of qualitative discontinuity with what had come before. The point of discontinuity, though certain to appear, is by its nature not specifiable beyond a horizon of probability, and in this, Rotman aligns his arithmetic not only with chaos theory, but also with quantum mechanics. In an appendix, Rotman elaborates at least to a degree the “pre-elements” of his non-Euclidean arithmetic.As chaos theory does not destroy everyday cause... (shrink)

If X0and X1are both generic, the theories of the degrees below X0and X1are the same. The same is true if both are random. We show that then-genericity orn-randomness of X do not suffice to guarantee that the degrees below X have these common theories. We also show that these two theories are different. These results answer questions of Jockusch as well as Barmpalias, Day and Lewis.

We construct a recursive model , a recursive subset R of its domain, and a Turing degree x 0 satisfying the following condition. The nonrecursive images of R under all isomorphisms from to other recursive models are of Turing degree x and cannot be recursively enumerable.

We compare various notions of algorithmic randomness. First we consider relativized randomness. A set is n-random if it is Martin-Löf random relative to ∅. We show that a set is 2-random if and only if there is a constant c such that infinitely many initial segments x of the set are c-incompressible: C ≥ |x|-c. The ‘only if' direction was obtained independently by Joseph Miller. This characterization can be extended to the case of time-bounded C-complexity. Next we prove some results (...) on lowness. Among other things, we characterize the 2-random sets as those 1-random sets that are low for Chaitin's Ω. Also, 2-random sets form minimal pairs with 2-generic sets. The r.e. low for Ω sets coincide with the r.e. K-trivial ones. Finally we show that the notions of Martin-Löf randomness, recursive randomness, and Schnorr randomness can be separated in every high degree while the same notions coincide in every non-high degree. We make some remarks about hyperimmune-free and PA-complete degrees. (shrink)

Let d be a Turing degree, R[d] and Q[d] denote respectively classes of recursively enumerable (r.e.) and all degrees in which d is relatively enumerable. We proved in Ishmukhametov [1999] that there is a degree d containing differences of r.e.sets (briefly, d.r.e.degree) such that R[d] possess a least elementm $>$ 0. Now we show the existence of a d.r.e. d such that R[d] has no a least element. We prove also that for any REA-degree d below 0 $'$ (...) the class Q[d] cannot have a least element and more generally is not bounded below by a non-zero degree, except in the trivial cases. (shrink)

We consider questions related to the rigidity of the structure R, the PTIME-Turing degrees of recursive sets of strings together with PTIME-Turing reducibility, pT, and related structures; do these structures have nontrivial automorphisms? We prove that there is a nontrivial automorphism of an ideal of R. This can be rephrased in terms of partial relativizations. We consider the sets which are PTIME-Turing computable from a set A, and call this class PTIMEA. Our result can be stated (...) as follows: There is an oracle, A, relative to which the PTIME-Turing degrees are not rigid . Furthermore, the automorphism can be made to preserve the complexity classes DTIMEA for all k 1, or to move any DTIMEA for n 2. From the existence of such an automorphism we conclude as a corollary that there is an oracle A relative to which the classes DTIME are not definable over R. We carry out the corresponding partial relativization for the many-one degrees to construct an oracle, A, relative to which the PTIMA-many-one degrees relative to A have a nontrivial automorphism, and one relative to which the lattice of sets in PTIMEA under inclusion have a nontrivial automorphism. The proof is phrased as a forcing argument; we construct the set A to meet a particular collection of dense sets in our notion of forcing. Roughly, the dense sets will guarantee that if A meets these sets and we split A into two pieces, A0 and A1, in a simple way, and then switching the roles of A0 and A1 in all computations from A will produce an automorphism of the ideal of PTIMA-degrees below A. We force A0 and A1 to have different PTIME-Turing degree; this will then make the automorphism nontrivial. An appropriately generic set A is constructed using a priority argument. (shrink)

This book presents new results in computability theory, a branch of mathematical logic and computer science that has become increasingly relevant in recent years. The field's connections with disparate areas of mathematical logic and mathematics more generally have grown deeper, and now have a variety of applications in topology, group theory, and other subfields. This monograph establishes new directions in the field, blending classic results with modern research areas such as algorithmic randomness. The significance of the book lies not only (...) in the depth of the results contained therein, but also in the fact that the notions the authors introduce allow them to unify results from several subfields of computability theory. (shrink)

We study generalizations of shortest programs as they pertain to Schaefer’s problem. We identify sets of -minimal and -minimal indices and characterize their truth-table and Turing degrees. In particular, we show , , and that there exists a Kolmogorov numbering ψ satisfying both and . This Kolmogorov numbering also achieves maximal truth-table degree for other sets of minimal indices. Finally, we show that the set of shortest descriptions, , is 2-c.e. but not co-2-c.e. Some open problems are left (...) for the reader. (shrink)

We study the problem of existence of maximal chains in the Turing degrees. We show that: 1. ZF+DC+"There exists no maximal chain in the Turing degrees" is equiconsistent with ZFC+"There exists an inaccessible cardinal"; 2. For all a ∈ 2ω.(ω₁)L[a] = ω₁ if and only if there exists a $\Pi _{1}^{1}[a]$ maximal chain in the Turing degrees. As a corollary, ZFC + "There exists an inaccessible cardinal" is equiconsistent with ZFC + "There is no (...) (bold face) $\utilde{\Pi}{}_{1}^{1}$ maximal chain of Turing degrees". (shrink)

Posner [6] has shown, by a nonuniform proof, that every ▵ 0 2 degree has a complement below 0'. We show that a 1-generic complement for each ▵ 0 2 set of degree between 0 and 0' can be found uniformly. Moreover, the methods just as easily can be used to produce a complement whose jump has the degree of any real recursively enumerable in and above $\varnothing'$ . In the second half of the paper, we show that the complementation (...) of the degrees below 0' does not extend to all recursively enumerable degrees. Namely, there is a pair of recursively enumerable degrees a above b such that no degree strictly below a joins b above a. (This result is independently due to S. B. Cooper.) We end with some open problems. (shrink)

For [Formula: see text], the coarse similarity class of A, denoted by [Formula: see text], is the set of all [Formula: see text] such that the symmetric difference of A and B has asymptotic density 0. There is a natural metric [Formula: see text] on the space [Formula: see text] of coarse similarity classes defined by letting [Formula: see text] be the upper density of the symmetric difference of A and B. We study the metric space of coarse similarity classes (...) under this metric, and show in particular that between any two distinct points in this space there are continuum many geodesic paths. We also study subspaces of the form [Formula: see text] where [Formula: see text] is closed under Turing equivalence, and show that there is a tight connection between topological properties of such a space and computability-theoretic properties of [Formula: see text]. We then define a distance between Turing degrees based on Hausdorff distance in the metric space [Formula: see text]. We adapt a proof of Monin to show that the Hausdorff distances between Turing degrees that occur are exactly 0, [Formula: see text], and 1, and study which of these values occur most frequently in the senses of Lebesgue measure and Baire category. We define a degree a to be attractive if the class of all degrees at distance [Formula: see text] from a has measure 1, and dispersive otherwise. In particular, we study the distribution of attractive and dispersive degrees. We also study some properties of the metric space of Turing degrees under this Hausdorff distance, in particular the question of which countable metric spaces are isometrically embeddable in it, giving a graph-theoretic sufficient condition for embeddability. Motivated by a couple of issues arising in the above work, we also study the computability-theoretic and reverse-mathematical aspects of a Ramsey-theoretic theorem due to Mycielski, which in particular implies that there is a perfect set whose elements are mutually 1-random, as well as a perfect set whose elements are mutually 1-generic. Finally, we study the completeness of [Formula: see text] from the perspectives of computability theory and reverse mathematics. (shrink)

We prove a number of results in effective randomness, using methods in which Π⁰₁ classes play an essential role. The results proved include the fact that every PA Turing degree is the join of two random Turing degrees, and the existence of a minimal pair of LR degrees below the LR degree of the halting problem.

We define the bounded jump of $A$ by $A^{b}=\{x\in \omega \mid \exists i\leq x[\varphi_{i}\downarrow \wedge\Phi_{x}^{A\upharpoonright \!\!\!\upharpoonright \varphi_{i}}\downarrow ]\}$ and let $A^{nb}$ denote the $n$th bounded jump. We demonstrate several properties of the bounded jump, including the fact that it is strictly increasing and order-preserving on the bounded Turing degrees. We show that the bounded jump is related to the Ershov hierarchy. Indeed, for $n\geq2$ we have $X\leq_{bT}\emptyset ^{nb}\iff X$ is $\omega^{n}$-c.e. $\iff X\leq_{1}\emptyset ^{nb}$, extending the classical result that (...) $X\leq_{bT}\emptyset '\iff X$ is $\omega$-c.e. Finally, we prove that the analogue of Shoenfield inversion holds for the bounded jump on the bounded Turing degrees. That is, for every $X$ such that $\emptyset ^{b}\leq_{bT}X\leq_{bT}\emptyset ^{2b}$, there is a $Y\leq_{bT}\emptyset ^{b}$ such that $Y^{b}\equiv_{bT}X$. (shrink)

We exhibit a finite lattice without critical triple that cannot be embedded into the enumerable Turing degrees. Our method promises to lead to a full characterization of the finite lattices embeddable into the enumerable Turing degrees.

Informal construction -- Formal construction -- Limiting results.

In this work, we study computable families of Turing degrees introduced and first studied by Arslanov and their numberings. We show that there exist finite families of Turing c.e. degrees both those with and without computable principal numberings and that every computable principal numbering of a family of Turing degrees is complete with respect to any element of the family. We also show that every computable family of Turing degrees has a complete (...) with respect to each of its elements computable numbering even if it has no principal numberings. It follows from results by Mal’tsev and Ershov that complete numberings have nice programming tools and computational properties such as Kleene’s recursion theorems, Rice’s theorem, Visser’s ADN theorem, etc. Thus, every computable family of Turing degrees has a computable numbering with these properties. Finally, we prove that the Rogers semilattice of each such non-empty non-singleton family is infinite and is not a lattice. (shrink)

We say that a computably enumerable (c. e.) degree a is plus-cupping, if for every c.e. degree x with $0 < x \leq a$ , there is a c. e. degree $y \not= 0'$ such that $x \vee y = 0/\'$ . We say that a is n-plus-cupping. if for every c. e. degree x, if $0 < x \leq a$ , then there is a $low_n$ c. e. degree 1 such that $x \vee l = 0'$ . Let PC (...) and $PC_n$ be the set of all plus-cupping, and n-plus-cupping c. e. degrees respectively. Then $PC_{1} \subseteq PC_{2} \subseteq PC_3 = PC$ . In this paper we show that $PC_{1} \subset PC_2$ , so giving a nontrivial hierarchy for the plus cupping degrees. The theorem also extends the result of Li, Wu and Zhang [14] showing that $LC_{1} \subset LC_2$ , as well as extending the Harrington plus-cupping theorem [8]. (shrink)

A Turing degree d is homogeneous bounding if every complete decidable (CD) theory has a d-decidable homogeneous model A, i.e., the elementary diagram De (A) has degree d. It follows from results of Macintyre and Marker that every PA degree (i.e., every degree of a complete extension of Peano Arithmetic) is homogeneous bounding. We prove that in fact a degree is homogeneous bounding if and only if it is a PA degree. We do this by showing that there (...) is a single CD theory T such that every homogeneous model of T has a PA degree. (shrink)

Where $\underline{a}$ is a Turing degree and ξ is an ordinal $ , the result of performing ξ jumps on $\underline{a},\underline{a}^{(\xi)}$ , is defined set-theoretically, using Jensen's fine-structure results. This operation appears to be the natural extension through $(\aleph_1)^{L^\underline{a}}$ of the ordinary jump operations. We describe this operation in more degree-theoretic terms, examine how much of it could be defined in degree-theoretic terms and compare it to the single jump operation.

A computably enumerable 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. (shrink)

Recent results on initial segments of the Turing degrees are presented, and some conjectures about initial segments that have implications for the existence of nontrivial automorphisms of the Turing degrees are indicated.

We study ideals in the computably enumerable Turing degrees, and their upper bounds. Every proper ideal in the c.e. Turing degrees has an incomplete upper bound. It follows that there is no prime ideal in the c.e. Turing degrees. This answers a question of Calhoun [2]. Every proper ideal in the c.e. Turing degrees has a low2 upper bound. Furthermore, the partial order of ideals under inclusion is dense.

It is shown that every locally countable upper semi-lattice of cardinality the continuum can be embedded into the Turing degrees, assuming Martin’s Axiom.

TheK-trivial sets form an ideal in the Turing degrees, which is generated by its computably enumerable members and has an exact pair below the degree of the halting problem. The question of whether it has an exact pair in the c.e. degrees was first raised in [22, Question 4.2] and later in [25, Problem 5.5.8].We give a negative answer to this question. In fact, we show the following stronger statement in the c.e. degrees. There exists aK-trivial (...) degreedsuch that for all degreesa, bwhich are notK-trivial anda > d, b > dthere exists a degreevwhich is notK-trivial anda > v, b > v. This work sheds light to the question of the definability of theK-trivial degrees in the c.e. degrees. (shrink)