I first seriously contemplated writing a book on degree theory in 1976 while I was visiting the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle. There was, at that time, some interest in ann-series book about degree theory, and through the encouragement of Bob Soare, I decided to make a proposal to write such a book. Degree theory had, at that time, matured to the point where the local structure results which had been the mainstay of the earlier papers in the area (...) were finding a steadily increasing number of applications to global degree theory. Michael Yates was the first to realize that the time had come for a systematic study of the interaction between local and global degree theory, and his papers had a considerable influence on the content of this book. During the time that the book was being written and rewritten, there was an explosion in the number of global theorems about the degrees which were proved as applications of local theorems. The global results, in turn, pointed the way to new local theorems which were needed in order to make further progress. I have tried to update the book continuously, in order to be able to present some of the more recent results. It is my hope to introduce the reader to some of the fascinat ing combinatorial methods of Recursion Theory while simultaneously showing how to use these methods to prove some beautiful global theorems about the degrees. (shrink)

We show that the Turing degrees are not sufficient to measure the complexity of continuous functions on [0, 1]. Computability of continuous real functions is a standard notion from computable analysis. However, no satisfactory theory of degrees of continuous functions exists. We introduce the continuous degrees and prove that they are a proper extension of the Turing degrees and a proper substructure of the enumeration degrees. Call continuous degrees which are not Turing degrees (...) non-total. Several fundamental results are proved: a continuous function with non-total degree has no least degree representation, settling a question asked by Pour-El and Lempp; every non-computable f $\epsilon \mathcal{C}[0, 1]$ computes a non-computable subset of $\mathbb{N}$ ; there is a non-total degree between Turing degrees $a _\eqslantless_{\tau}$ b iff b is a PA degree relative to a; $\mathcal{S} \subseteq 2^{\mathbb{N}}$ is a Scott set iff it is the collection of f-computable subsets of $\mathbb{N}$ for some f $\epsilon \mathcal{C}[O, 1]$ of non-total degree; and there are computably incomparable f, g $\epsilon \mathcal{C}[0, 1]$ which compute exactly the same subsets of $\mathbb{N}$ . Proofs draw from classical analysis and constructive analysis as well as from computability theory. (shrink)

The contributions in the book examine the historical and contemporary manifestations of organized crime, the symbiotic relationship between legitimate and ...

For the purposes of this monograph, "by a degree" is meant a degree of recursive unsolvability. A degree [script bold]m is said to be minimal if 0 is the unique degree less than [script bold]m. Each of the six chapters of this self-contained monograph is devoted to the proof of an existence theorem for minimal degrees.

Given two infinite binary sequences A,B we say that B can compress at least as well as A if the prefix-free Kolmogorov complexity relative to B of any binary string is at most as much as the prefix-free Kolmogorov complexity relative to A, modulo a constant. This relation, introduced in Nies [14] and denoted by A≤LKB, is a measure of relative compressing power of oracles, in the same way that Turing reducibility is a measure of relative information. The equivalence classes (...) induced by ≤LK are called LK degrees and there is a least degree containing the oracles which can only compress as much as a computable oracle, also called the ‘low for K’ sets. A well-known result from Nies [14] states that these coincide with the K-trivial sets, which are the ones whose initial segments have minimal prefix-free Kolmogorov complexity. We show that with respect to ≤LK, given any non-trivial sets X,Y there is a computably enumerable set A which is not K-trivial and it is below X,Y. This shows that the local structures of and Turing degrees are not elementarily equivalent to the corresponding local structures in the LK degrees. It also shows that there is no pair of sets computable from the halting problem which forms a minimal pair in the LK degrees; this is sharp in terms of the jump, as it is known that there are sets computable from which form a minimal pair in the LK degrees. We also show that the structure of LK degrees below the LK degree of the halting problem is not elementarily equivalent to the or structures of LK degrees. The proofs introduce a new technique of permitting below a set that is not K-trivial, which is likely to have wider applications. (shrink)

We describe the important role that the conjectures and questions posed at the end of the two editions of Gerald Sacks's Degrees of Unsolvability have had in the development of recursion theory over the past thirty years.

A constructive proof is given which shows that every nonrecursive r.e. many-one degree is represented by the family of decision problems for partial implicational propositional calculi whose well-formed formulas contain at most two distinct variable symbols.