Results 1 
9 of
9
Degree structures: Local and global investigations
 Bulletin of Symbolic Logic
"... $1. Introduction. The occasion of a retiring presidential address seems like a time to look back, take stock and perhaps look ahead. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
$1. Introduction. The occasion of a retiring presidential address seems like a time to look back, take stock and perhaps look ahead.
The recursively enumerable degrees
 in Handbook of Computability Theory, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics 140
, 1996
"... ..."
The ∀∃ theory of D(≤, ∨, ′ ) is undecidable
 In Proceedings of Logic Colloquium
, 2003
"... We prove that the two quantifier theory of the Turing degrees with order, join and jump is undecidable. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We prove that the two quantifier theory of the Turing degrees with order, join and jump is undecidable.
2004], The 89theory of R( ; _; ^) is undecidable
 Trans. Am. Math. Soc
"... Abstract The three quantifier theory of (R; ^T), the recursively enumerable degrees under Turing reducibility, was proven undecidable by Lempp, Nies and Slaman [1998]. The two quantifier theory includes the lattice embedding problem and its decidability is a long standing open question. A negative s ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract The three quantifier theory of (R; ^T), the recursively enumerable degrees under Turing reducibility, was proven undecidable by Lempp, Nies and Slaman [1998]. The two quantifier theory includes the lattice embedding problem and its decidability is a long standing open question. A negative solution to this problem seems out of reach of the standard methods of interpretation of theories because the language is relational. We prove the undecidability of a fragment of the theory of R that lies between the two and three quantifier theories with ^T but includes function symbols.
The ∀∃theory of R(≤, ∨, ∧) is undecidable
 Trans. Amer. Math. Soc
, 2004
"... Abstract. The three quantifier theory of (R, ≤T), the recursively enumerable degrees under Turing reducibility, was proven undecidable by Lempp, Nies and Slaman (1998). The two quantifier theory includes the lattice embedding problem and its decidability is a longstanding open question. A negative ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. The three quantifier theory of (R, ≤T), the recursively enumerable degrees under Turing reducibility, was proven undecidable by Lempp, Nies and Slaman (1998). The two quantifier theory includes the lattice embedding problem and its decidability is a longstanding open question. A negative solution to this problem seems out of reach of the standard methods of interpretation of theories because the language is relational. We prove the undecidability of a fragment of the theory of R that lies between the two and three quantifier theories with ≤T but includes function symbols. Theorem. The two quantifier theory of (R, ≤, ∨, ∧), the r.e. degrees with Turing reducibility, supremum and infimum (taken to be any total function extending the infimum relation on R) is undecidable. The same result holds for various lattices of ideals of R which are natural extensions of R preserving join and infimum when it exits. 1.
Abstract
"... We present an explicit measurement in the Fourier basis that solves an important case of the Hidden Subgroup Problem, including the case to which Graph Isomorphism reduces. This entangled measurement uses k = log 2 G  registers, and each of the 2 k subsets of the registers contributes some informa ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We present an explicit measurement in the Fourier basis that solves an important case of the Hidden Subgroup Problem, including the case to which Graph Isomorphism reduces. This entangled measurement uses k = log 2 G  registers, and each of the 2 k subsets of the registers contributes some information. 1
Direct and local definitions of the Turing jump
, 2008
"... We show that there are 5 formulas in the language of the Turing degrees, D, ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We show that there are 5 formulas in the language of the Turing degrees, D,
LOW LEVEL NONDEFINABILITY RESULTS: DOMINATION AND RECURSIVE ENUMERATION
"... Abstract. We study low level nondefinability in the Turing degrees. We prove a variety of results, including for example, that being array nonrecursive is not definable by a Σ1 or Π1 formula in the language (≤,REA) where REA stands for the “r.e. in and above ” predicate. In contrast, this property i ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We study low level nondefinability in the Turing degrees. We prove a variety of results, including for example, that being array nonrecursive is not definable by a Σ1 or Π1 formula in the language (≤,REA) where REA stands for the “r.e. in and above ” predicate. In contrast, this property is definable by a Π2 formula in this language. We also show that the Σ1theory of (D, ≤,REA) is decidable. 1.