We show that the theory of the partial order of computably enumerable equivalence relations (ceers) under computable reduction is 1-equivalent to true arithmetic. We show the same result for the structure comprised of the dark ceers and the structure comprised of the light ceers. We also show the same for the structure of L-degrees in the dark, light, or complete structure. In each case, we show that there is an interpretable copy of (N, +, \times) .

In [8], the third author defined a reducibility$\le _w^{\rm{*}}$that lets us compare the computing power of structures of any cardinality. In [6], the first two authors showed that the ordered field of reals${\cal R}$lies strictly above certain related structures. In the present paper, we show that$\left \equiv _w^{\rm{*}}{\cal R}$. More generally, for the weak-looking structure${\cal R}$ℚconsisting of the real numbers with just the ordering and constants naming the rationals, allo-minimal expansions of${\cal R}$ℚare equivalent to${\cal R}$. Using this, we show that (...) for any analytic functionf,$\left \equiv _w^{\rm{*}}{\cal R}$. $is noto-minimal.). (shrink)

While every endpointed interval I in a linear order J is, considered as a linear order in its own right, trivially Muchnik‐reducible to J itself, this fails for Medvedev‐reductions. We construct an extreme example of this: a linear order in which no endpointed interval is Medvedev‐reducible to any other, even allowing parameters, except when the two intervals have finite difference. We also construct a scattered linear order which has many endpointed intervals Medvedev‐incomparable to itself; the only other known construction of (...) such a linear order yields an ordinal of extremely high complexity, whereas this construction produces a low‐level‐arithmetic example. Additionally, the constructions here are “coarse” in the sense that they lift to other uniform reducibility notions in place of Medvedev reducibility itself. (shrink)

Combinatorial operations on sets are almost never well defined on Turing degrees, a fact so obvious that counterexamples are worth exhibiting. The case we focus on is the symmetric-difference operator; there are pairs of degrees for which the symmetric-difference operation is well defined. Some examples can be extracted from the literature, e.g. from the existence of nonzero degrees with strong minimal covers. We focus on the case of incomparable r.e. degrees for which the symmetric-difference operation is well defined.

We say that a theory [Formula: see text] satisfies arithmetic-is-recursive if any [Formula: see text]-computable model of [Formula: see text] has an [Formula: see text]-computable copy; that is, the models of [Formula: see text] satisfy a sort of jump inversion. We give an example of a theory satisfying arithmetic-is-recursive non-trivially and prove that the theories satisfying arithmetic-is-recursive on a cone are exactly those theories with countably many [Formula: see text]-back-and-forth types.

We say that a theory T satisfies arithmetic-is-recursive if any X′-computable model of T has an X-computable copy; that is, the models of T satisfy a sort of jump inversion. We give an example of a...