Results 1  10
of
135
Degrees of random sets
, 1991
"... An explicit recursiontheoretic definition of a random sequence or random set of natural numbers was given by MartinLöf in 1966. Other approaches leading to the notions of nrandomness and weak nrandomness have been presented by Solovay, Chaitin, and Kurtz. We investigate the properties of nrando ..."
Abstract

Cited by 45 (4 self)
 Add to MetaCart
An explicit recursiontheoretic definition of a random sequence or random set of natural numbers was given by MartinLöf in 1966. Other approaches leading to the notions of nrandomness and weak nrandomness have been presented by Solovay, Chaitin, and Kurtz. We investigate the properties of nrandom and weakly nrandom sequences with an emphasis on the structure of their Turing degrees. After an introduction and summary, in Chapter II we present several equivalent definitions of nrandomness and weak nrandomness including a new definition in terms of a forcing relation analogous to the characterization of ngeneric sequences in terms of Cohen forcing. We also prove that, as conjectured by Kurtz, weak nrandomness is indeed strictly weaker than nrandomness. Chapter III is concerned with intrinsic properties of nrandom sequences. The main results are that an (n + 1)random sequence A satisfies the condition A (n) ≡T A⊕0 (n) (strengthening a result due originally to Sacks) and that nrandom sequences satisfy a number of strong independence properties, e.g., if A ⊕ B is nrandom then A is nrandom relative to B. It follows that any countable distributive lattice can be embedded
On the strength of Ramsey’s Theorem for pairs
 Journal of Symbolic Logic
, 2001
"... Abstract. We study the proof–theoretic strength and effective content denote Ramof the infinite form of Ramsey’s theorem for pairs. Let RT n k sey’s theorem for k–colorings of n–element sets, and let RT n < ∞ denote (∀k)RTn k. Our main result on computability is: For any n ≥ 2 and any computable ..."
Abstract

Cited by 44 (9 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. We study the proof–theoretic strength and effective content denote Ramof the infinite form of Ramsey’s theorem for pairs. Let RT n k sey’s theorem for k–colorings of n–element sets, and let RT n < ∞ denote (∀k)RTn k. Our main result on computability is: For any n ≥ 2 and any computable (recursive) k–coloring of the n–element sets of natural numbers, there is an infinite homogeneous set X with X ′ ′ ≤T 0 (n). Let I�n and B�n denote the �n induction and bounding schemes, respectively. Adapting the case n = 2 of the above result (where X is low2) to models is conservative of arithmetic enables us to show that RCA0 + I �2 + RT2 2 over RCA0 + I �2 for �1 1 statements and that RCA0 + I �3 + RT2 < ∞ is �1 1conservative over RCA0 + I �3. It follows that RCA0 + RT2 2 does not imply B �3. In contrast, J. Hirst showed that RCA0 + RT2 < ∞ does imply B �3, and we include a proof of a slightly strengthened version of this result. It follows that RT2 < ∞ is strictly stronger than RT2 2 over RC A0. 1.
The Stable Models of a Predicate Logic Program
 Journal of Logic Programming
, 1992
"... this paper we investigate and solve the problem classifying the Turing complexity of stable models of finite and recursive predicate logic programs. GelfondLifschitz [7] introduced the concept of a stable model M of a Predicate Logic Program P . Here we show that, up to a recursive 11 coding, the ..."
Abstract

Cited by 35 (13 self)
 Add to MetaCart
this paper we investigate and solve the problem classifying the Turing complexity of stable models of finite and recursive predicate logic programs. GelfondLifschitz [7] introduced the concept of a stable model M of a Predicate Logic Program P . Here we show that, up to a recursive 11 coding, the set of all stable models of finite Predicate Logic Programs and the 5
Using random sets as oracles
"... Let R be a notion of algorithmic randomness for individual subsets of N. We say B is a base for R randomness if there is a Z �T B such that Z is R random relative to B. We show that the bases for 1randomness are exactly the Ktrivial sets and discuss several consequences of this result. We also sho ..."
Abstract

Cited by 34 (15 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Let R be a notion of algorithmic randomness for individual subsets of N. We say B is a base for R randomness if there is a Z �T B such that Z is R random relative to B. We show that the bases for 1randomness are exactly the Ktrivial sets and discuss several consequences of this result. We also show that the bases for computable randomness include every ∆ 0 2 set that is not diagonally noncomputable, but no set of PAdegree. As a consequence, we conclude that an nc.e. set is a base for computable randomness iff it is Turing incomplete. 1
Randomness in Computability Theory
, 2000
"... We discuss some aspects of algorithmic randomness and state some open problems in this area. The first part is devoted to the question "What is a computably random sequence?" Here we survey some of the approaches to algorithmic randomness and address some questions on these concepts. I ..."
Abstract

Cited by 29 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We discuss some aspects of algorithmic randomness and state some open problems in this area. The first part is devoted to the question "What is a computably random sequence?" Here we survey some of the approaches to algorithmic randomness and address some questions on these concepts. In the second part we look at the Turing degrees of MartinLof random sets. Finally, in the third part we deal with relativized randomness. Here we look at oracles which do not change randomness. 1980 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 03D80; Secondary 03D28. 1 Introduction Formalizations of the intuitive notions of computability and randomness are among the major achievements in the foundations of mathematics in the 20th century. It is commonly accepted that various equivalent formal computability notions  like Turing computability or recursiveness  which were introduced in the 1930s and 1940s adequately capture computability in the intuitive sense. This belief is expressed in the w...
Uniform almost everywhere domination
 Journal of Symbolic Logic
, 2006
"... ABSTRACT. We explore the interaction between Lebesgue measure and dominating functions. We show, via both a priority construction and a forcing construction, that there is a function of incomplete degree that dominates almost all degrees. This answers a question of Dobrinen and Simpson, who showed t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 28 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
ABSTRACT. We explore the interaction between Lebesgue measure and dominating functions. We show, via both a priority construction and a forcing construction, that there is a function of incomplete degree that dominates almost all degrees. This answers a question of Dobrinen and Simpson, who showed that such functions are related to the prooftheoretic strength of the regularity of Lebesgue measure for G δ sets. Our constructions essentially settle the reverse mathematical classification of this principle. 1.
An extension of the recursively enumerable Turing degrees
 Journal of the London Mathematical Society
, 2006
"... Consider the countable semilattice RT consisting of the recursively enumerable Turing degrees. Although RT is known to be structurally rich, a major source of frustration is that no specific, natural degrees in RT have been discovered, except the bottom and top degrees, 0 and 0 ′. In order to overco ..."
Abstract

Cited by 22 (16 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Consider the countable semilattice RT consisting of the recursively enumerable Turing degrees. Although RT is known to be structurally rich, a major source of frustration is that no specific, natural degrees in RT have been discovered, except the bottom and top degrees, 0 and 0 ′. In order to overcome this difficulty, we embed RT into a larger degree structure which is better behaved. Namely, consider the countable distributive lattice Pw consisting of the weak degrees (also known as Muchnik degrees) of mass problems associated with nonempty Π 0 1 subsets of 2ω. It is known that Pw contains a bottom degree 0 and a top degree 1 and is structurally rich. Moreover, Pw contains many specific, natural degrees other than 0 and 1. In particular, we show that in Pw one has 0 < d < r1 < inf(r2, 1) < 1. Here, d is the weak degree of the diagonally nonrecursive functions, and rn is the weak degree of the nrandom reals. It is known that r1 can be characterized as the maximum weak degree ofaΠ 0 1 subset of 2ω of positive measure. We now show that inf(r2, 1) can be characterized as the maximum weak degree of a Π 0 1 subset of 2ω, the Turing upward closure of which is of positive measure. We exhibit a natural embedding of RT into Pw which is onetoone, preserves the semilattice structure of RT, carries 0 to 0, and carries 0 ′ to 1. Identifying RT with its image in Pw, we show that all of the degrees in RT except 0 and 1 are incomparable with the specific degrees d, r1, and inf(r2, 1) inPw. 1.
Number theory and elementary arithmetic
 Philosophia Mathematica
, 2003
"... Elementary arithmetic (also known as “elementary function arithmetic”) is a fragment of firstorder arithmetic so weak that it cannot prove the totality of an iterated exponential function. Surprisingly, however, the theory turns out to be remarkably robust. I will discuss formal results that show t ..."
Abstract

Cited by 19 (6 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Elementary arithmetic (also known as “elementary function arithmetic”) is a fragment of firstorder arithmetic so weak that it cannot prove the totality of an iterated exponential function. Surprisingly, however, the theory turns out to be remarkably robust. I will discuss formal results that show that many theorems of number theory and combinatorics are derivable in elementary arithmetic, and try to place these results in a broader philosophical context. 1
Formalizing forcing arguments in subsystems of secondorder arithmetic
 Annals of Pure and Applied Logic
, 1996
"... We show that certain modeltheoretic forcing arguments involving subsystems of secondorder arithmetic can be formalized in the base theory, thereby converting them to effective prooftheoretic arguments. We use this method to sharpen conservation theorems of Harrington and BrownSimpson, giving an ..."
Abstract

Cited by 17 (8 self)
 Add to MetaCart
We show that certain modeltheoretic forcing arguments involving subsystems of secondorder arithmetic can be formalized in the base theory, thereby converting them to effective prooftheoretic arguments. We use this method to sharpen conservation theorems of Harrington and BrownSimpson, giving an effective proof that W KL+0 is conservative over RCA0 with no significant increase in the lengths of proofs. 1