In the paper we introduce and study regular enumerations for arbitrary recursive ordinals. Several applications of the technique are presented.

The main result proved in the paper is that on every recursive structure the intrinsically hyperarithmetical sets coincide with the relatively intrinsically hyperarithmetical sets. As a side effect of the proof an effective version of the Kueker's theorem on definability by means of infinitary formulas is obtained.

An external characterization of the inductive sets on countable abstract structures is presented. The main result is an abstract version of the classical Suslin-Kleene characterization of the hyperarithmetical sets.

Degtev, A.N., On p-reducibility of numerations, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 63 57–60. If α and β are two numerations of a set S, then αpβ if there exists a total recursive function f such that [s ε S][α-1=[x:[y ε Df][Dyβ-1]]], where Dn is a finite set with canonical number n. It is proved that if α and β are two computable numerations of some family of recursively enumerable sets A and αpβ, then there is a computable numeration, γ, (...) of S such that αpγ and βshrink)

To date the problem of finding a general characterization of injective enumerability of recursively enumerable (r.e) classes of r.e. sets has proved intractable. This paper investigates the problem for r.e. classes of cofinite sets. We state a suitable criterion for r.e. classesC such that there is a boundn∈ω with |ω-A|≤n for allA∈C. On the other hand an example is constructed which shows that Lachlan's condition (F) does not imply injective enumerability for r.e. classes of cofinite sets. We also (...) look at a certain embeddability property and show that it is equivalent with injective enumerability for certain classes of cofinite sets. At the end we present a reformulation of property (F). (shrink)

Let N, O and S denote the set of nonnegative integers, the graph of the constant 0 function and the graph of the successor function respectively. For sets $P, Q, R \subseteq N^2$ operations of transposition, composition, and bracketing are defined as follows: $P^\cup = \{\langle x, y\rangle | \langle y, x\rangle \epsilon P\}, PQ = \{\langle x, z\rangle| \exists y\langle x, y\rangle \epsilon P & \langle y, z\rangle \epsilon Q\}$ , and [ P, Q, R] = ∪n ε M(PnQR (...) n). THEOREM. The class of recursively enumerable subsets of N2 is the smallest class of sets with O and S as members and closed under transposition, composition, and bracketing. This result is derived from a characterization by Julia Robinson of the class of general recursive functions of one variable in terms of function composition and "definition by general recursion." A key step in the proof is to show that if a function F is defined by general recursion from functions A, M, P and R then F = [ P∪, A∪ M, R]. The above definitions of the transposition, composition, and bracketing operations on subsets of N2 can be generalized to subsets of X2 for an arbitrary set X. In this abstract setting it is possible to show that the bracket operation can be defined in terms of K, L, transposition, composition, intersection, and reflexive transitive closure where K: X → X and L: X → X are functions for decoding pairs. (shrink)

One recursively enumerable real α dominates another one β if there are nondecreasing recursive sequences of rational numbers (a[n] : n ∈ ω) approximating α and (b[n] : n ∈ ω) approximating β and a positive constant C such that for all n, C(α − a[n]) ≥ (β − b[n]). See [R. M. Solovay, Draft of a Paper (or Series of Papers) on Chaitin’s Work, manuscript, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, NY, 1974, p. 215] and [G. J. (...) Chaitin, IBM J. Res. Develop., 21 (1977), pp. 350–359]. We show that every recursively enumerable random real dominates all other recursively enumerable reals. We conclude that the recursively enumerable random reals are exactly the Ω-numbers [G. J. Chaitin, IBM J. Res. Develop., 21 (1977), pp. 350–359]. Second, we show that the sets in a universal Martin-Lof test for randomness have random measure, and every recursively enumerable random number is the sum of the measures represented in a universal Martin-Lof test. (shrink)

We investigate the algebraic structure of the upper semi-lattice formed by the recursively enumerable Turing degrees. The following strong generalization of Lachlan's Nonsplitting Theorem is proved: Given n ≥ 1, there exists an r.e. degree d such that the interval $\lbrack\mathbf{d, 0'}\rbrack \subset\mathbf{R}$ admits an embedding of the n-atom Boolean algebra B n preserving (least and) greatest element, but also such that there is no (n + 1)-tuple of pairwise incomparable r.e. degrees above d which pairwise join to 0' (and (...) hence, the interval $\lbrack\mathbf{d, 0'}\rbrack \subset\mathbf{R}$ does not admit a greatest-element-preserving embedding of any lattice L which has n + 1 co-atoms, including B n + 1 ). This theorem is the dual of a theorem of Ambos-Spies and Soare, and yields an alternative proof of their result that the theory of R has infinitely many one-types. (shrink)

In this paper we prove that a degree a is array nonrecursive (ANR) if and only if every degree b ≥ a is r.e. in and strictly above another degree (RRE). This result will answer some questions in [ASDWY]. We also deduce an interesting corollary that every n-REA degree has a strong minimal cover if and only if it is array recursive.

A result of Soare and Stob asserts that for any non-recursive r.e. setC, there exists a r.e.[C] setA such thatA⊕C is not of r.e. degree. A setY is called [of]m-REA (m-REA[C] [degree] iff it is [Turing equivalent to] the result of applyingm-many iterated ‘hops’ to the empty set (toC), where a hop is any function of the formX→X ⊕W e X . The cited result is the special casem=0,n=1 of our Theorem. Form=0,1, and any (m+1)-REA setC, ifC is not ofm-REA (...) degree, then for alln there exists an-r.e.[C] setA such thatA ⊕C is not of (m+n)-REA degree. We conjecture that this holds also form≥2. (shrink)

Chapter 1: Introduction. S = <{We}c<w; C,U,n,0,w> is the substructure formed by restricting the lattice <^P(w); C , U, n,0,w> to the re subsets We of the ...

A recursive enumerator for a function h is an algorithm f which enumerates for an input x finitely many elements including h(x), f is a k(n)-enumerator if for every input x of length n, h(x) is among the first k(n) elements enumerated by f. If there is a k(n)-enumerator for h then h is called k(n)-enumerable. We also consider enumerators which are only A-recursive for some oracle A. We determine exactly how hard it is to enumerate the Kolmogorov function, which (...) assigns to each string x its Kolmogorov complexity: • For every underlying universal machine U, there is a constant a such that C is k(n)-enumerable only if k(n) ≥ n/a for almost all n. • For any given constant k, the Kolmogorov function is k-enumerable relative to an oracle A if and only if A is at least as hard as the halting problem. • There exists an r.e., Turing-incomplete set A such for every non-decreasing and unbounded recursive function k, the Kolmogorov function is k(n)-enumerable relative to A. The last result is obtained by using a relativizable construction for a nonrecursive set A relative to which the prefix-free Kolmogorov complexity differs only by a constant from the unrelativized prefix-free Kolmogorov complexity. Although every 2-enumerator for C is Turing hard for K, we show that reductions must depend on the specific choice of the 2-enumerator and there is no bound on the quantity of their queries. We show our negative results even for strong 2-enumerators as an oracle where the querying machine for any x gets directly an explicit list of all hypotheses of the enumerator for this input. The limitations are very general and we show them for any recursively bounded function g: • For every Turing reduction M and every non-recursive set B, there is a strong 2-enumerator f for g such that M does not Turing reduce B to f. • For every non-recursive set B, there is a strong 2-enumerator f for g such that B is not wtt-reducible to f. Furthermore, we deal with the resource-bounded case and give characterizations for the class ${\rm S}_{2}^{{\rm P}}$ introduced by Canetti and independently Russell and Sundaram and the classes PSPACE, EXP. • ${\rm S}_{2}^{{\rm P}}$ is the class of all sets A for which there is a polynomially bounded function g such that there is a polynomial time tt-reduction which reduces A to every strong 2-enumerator for g. • PSPACE is the class of all sets A for which there is a polynomially bounded function g such that there is a polynomial time Turing reduction which reduces A to every strong 2-enumerator for g. Interestingly, g can be taken to be the Kolmogorov function for the conditional space bounded Kolmogorov complexity. • EXP is the class of all sets A for which there is a polynomially bounded function g and a machine M which witnesses A ∈ PSPACEf for all strong 2-enumerators f for g. Finally, we show that any strong O(log n)-enumerator for the conditional space bounded Kolmogorov function must be PSPACE-hard if P = NP. (shrink)

Let ƒ be a real number. It is well known [7] that the set of rational numbers which are less than ƒ is a recursive set if and only if ƒ is representable as the limit of a recursive, recursively convergent sequence of rational numbers. In this paper we replace the condition that the set of rational numbers less than ƒ is recursive by the condition that this set is at various points in the Kleene hierarchy, and we replace the (...) recursive, recursively convergent limit by a variety of other recursive limiting processes. (shrink)

. We prove a jump inversion theorem for the enumeration jump and a minimal pair type theorem for the enumeration reducibilty. As an application some results of Selman, Case and Ash are obtained.

This little gem is stated unbilled and proved in the last two lines of §2 of the short note Kleene [1938]. In modern notation, with all the hypotheses stated explicitly and in a strong form, it reads as follows:Second Recursion Theorem. Fix a set V ⊆ ℕ, and suppose that for each natural number n ϵ ℕ = {0, 1, 2, …}, φn: ℕ1+n ⇀ V is a recursive partial function of arguments with values in V so that the standard (...) assumptions and hold with. Every n-ary recursive partial function with values in V is for some e. For all m, n, there is a recursive function : Nm+1 → ℕ such that.Then, for every recursive, partial function f of arguments with values in V, there is a total recursive function of m arguments such thatProof. Fix e ϵ ℕ such that and let.We will abuse notation and write ž; rather than ž() when m = 0, so that takes the simpler formin this case ). (shrink)

In [6], Metakides and Nerode introduced the study of the lattice of recursively enumerable substructures of a recursively presented model as a means to understand the recursive content of certain algebraic constructions. For example, the lattice of recursively enumerable subspaces,, of a recursively presented vector spaceV∞has been studied by Kalantari, Metakides and Nerode, Retzlaff, Remmel and Shore. Similar studies have been done by Remmel [12], [13] for Boolean algebras and by Metakides and Nerode [9] for algebraically closed fields. In all (...) of these models, the algebraic closure of a set is nontrivial., is given in §1, however in vector spaces, cl is just the subspace generated byS, in Boolean algebras, cl is just the subalgebra generated byS, and in algebraically closed fields, cl is just the algebraically closed subfield generated byS.)In this paper, we give a general model theoretic setting in which we are able to give constructions which generalize many of the constructions of classical recursion theory. One of the main features of the modelswhich we study is that the algebraic closure of setis just itself, i.e., cl = S. Examples of such models include the natural numbers under equality 〈N, = 〉, the rational numbers under the usual ordering 〈Q, ≤〉, and a large class ofn-dimensional partial orderings. (shrink)

The jump operator on the ω-enumeration degrees was introduced in [I.N. Soskov, The ω-enumeration degrees, J. Logic Computat. 17 1193–1214]. In the present paper we prove a jump inversion theorem which allows us to show that the enumeration degrees are first order definable in the structure of the ω-enumeration degrees augmented by the jump operator. Further on we show that the groups of the automorphisms of and of the enumeration degrees are isomorphic. In the second part of the paper we (...) study the jumps of the ω-enumeration degrees below . We define the ideal of the almost zero degrees and obtain a natural characterization of the class H of the ω-enumeration degrees below which are high n for some n and of the class L of the ω-enumeration degrees below which are low n for some n. (shrink)

In 1961, Ernst Mayr published a highly influential article on the nature of causation in biology, in which he distinguished between proximate and ultimate causes. Mayr argued that proximate causes (e.g. physiological factors) and ultimate causes (e.g. natural selection) addressed distinct ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions and were not competing alternatives. That distinction retains explanatory value today. However, the adoption of Mayr’s heuristic led to the widespread belief that ontogenetic processes are irrelevant to evolutionary questions, a belief that has (1) hindered (...) progress within evolutionary biology, (2) forged divisions between evolutionary biology and adjacent disciplines and (3) obstructed several contemporary debates in biology. Here we expand on our earlier (Laland et al. in Science 334:1512–1516, 2011) argument that Mayr’s dichotomous formulation has now run its useful course, and that evolutionary biology would be better served by a concept of reciprocal causation, in which causation is perceived to cycle through biological systems recursively. We further suggest that a newer evolutionary synthesis is unlikely to emerge without this change in thinking about causation. (shrink)

Mark Schroeder has, rather famously, defended a powerful Humean Theory of Reasons. In doing so, he abandons what many take to be the default Humean view of weighting reasons—namely, proportionalism. On Schroeder’s view, the pressure that Humeans feel to adopt proportionalism is illusory, and proportionalism is unable to make sense of the fact that the weight of reasons is a normative matter. He thus offers his own ‘Recursive View’, which directly explains how it is that the weight of reasons is (...) a normative matter. In this paper, I argue against Schroeder that a Humean ought to be a proportionalist. On my view, proportionalism is clearly an intuitive theory of weighting for a Humean, so we should resist it only if Schroeder can demonstrate either that there is a serious problem with the view, or that there is a better alternative. I then further argue that Schroeder fails to deliver on either condition. As a result, I conclude that there are good intuitive reasons for a Humean to be a proportionalist, and no good reason not to be. (shrink)

Presents a new framework for the complexity of algorithms, for all readers interested in the theory of computation.

The article critically examines the project of the Hong Kong philosopher Yuk Hui to create organological and cosmotechnical epistemology. To open up the prospect of a “new epistemology” of this kind, Hui carries out a historical and rational reconstruction of the 250-year movement of European thought – from German idealism to second-order cybernetics. In all these theories and approaches, he reveals the key role of the recursive-contingent ligament. But what has happened in recent decades that prompted the author to reassemble (...) Wiener’s non-trivial cybernetic machines and propose a cosmotechnical strategy for moving towards a “new epistemology”? How justified is it that, in constructing his axiocosmotechnics, he turns to the philosophy of the East, ancient and modern? The author of the article attempts to provide answers to these and other questions. (shrink)

Professor Lewis and I have some important differences of opinion regarding the identity and distinctness of conscious persons, which it will be well to try to clarify on the present occasion, first of all by enumerating a number of points on which we are, I think, in agreement. Both of us believe in the existence of individual persons, each of whom can be said to live in a ‘world’ of his own intentional objectivity, a world ‘as it is for him’, (...) which differs in a considerable extent, both in content and emphasis, from the world as it is for anyone else. Both of us further believe that all these intentionally objective worlds for a large part coincide in content, and are in fact excerpted from a more comprehensive real world which is common to us all, and which, in addition to in some sense including all such intentionally objective worlds, also includes many real material objects which exist regardless of our intentionality, and which further includes our own material bodies, which appear in so central a manner in each of our intentionally objective worlds. Both of us believe in matter as a transcendent reality, as well as an intentional object, and are content to accept the dicta of science as to the most probable view of its structure. We are in fact quite Cartesian and Lockean in our belief in the primary and secondary qualities of matter. We believe further that our intentional subjectivity is geared causally into our material objectivity, and that the gearing takes place, in some inscrutable manner, in our nervous systems. We both also believe that our intentional subjectivity transcends bodily mechanisms and instrumentalities, and can be liberated from the latter, but that, when thus liberated, our subjectivity may still affect some sort of an intentionally objective material body such as we wear in dreams, a body in which it will manifest itself to itself and to others much as we do in our dreams and fantasies. (shrink)

This paper, a contribution to “micro set theory”, is the study promised by the first author in [M4], as improved and extended by work of the second. We use the rudimentarily recursive functions and the slightly larger collection of gentle functions to initiate the study of provident sets, which are transitive models of $\mathsf{PROVI}$, a subsystem of $\mathsf{KP}$ whose minimal model is Jensen’s $J_{\omega}$. $\mathsf{PROVI}$ supports familiar definitions, such as rank, transitive closure and ordinal addition—though not ordinal multiplication—and Shoenfield’s unramified (...) forcing. Providence is preserved under directed unions. An arbitrary set has a provident closure, and the extension of a provident $M$ by a set-generic $\mathcal{G}$ is the provident closure of $M\cup\{\mathcal{G}\}$. The improvidence of many models of $\mathsf{Z}$ is shown. The final section uses similar but simpler recursions to show, in the weak system $\mathsf{MW}$, that the truth predicate for $\dot{\varDelta}_{0}$ formulæ is $\Delta_{1}$. (shrink)

We show that van Lambalgen's Theorem fails with respect to recursive randomness and Schnorr randomness for some real in every high degree and provide a full characterization of the Turing degrees for which van Lambalgen's Theorem can fail with respect to Kurtz randomness. However, we also show that there is a recursively random real that is not Martin-Löf random for which van Lambalgen's Theorem holds with respect to recursive randomness.

A set of godel numbers is invariant if it is closed under automorphisms of (ω, ·), where ω is the set of all godel numbers of partial recursive functions and · is application (i.e., n · m ≃ φ n (m)). The invariant arithmetic sets are investigated, and the invariant recursively enumerable sets and partial recursive functions are partially characterized.

A closed λ-term E is called an enumerator if M ε /gL/dg /gTn ε N E/drn/dl = β M. Here Λ° is the set of closed λ-terms, N is the set of natural numbers and the /drn/dl are the Church numerals λfx./tfnx. Such an E is called reducing if moreover M ε /gL/dg /gTn ε N E/drn/dl /a/gb M. In 1983 I conjectured that every enumerator is reducing. An ingenious recursion theoretic proof of this conjecture by Statman is presented in (...) Barendregt . The proof is not intuitionistically valid, however. Dirk van Dalen has encouraged me to find intuitionistic proofs whenever possible. In the lambda calculus this is usually not difficult. In this paper an intuitionistic version of Statmans proof will be given. It took me somewhat longer to find it than in other cases. (shrink)