Results 1 
3 of
3
How enumeration reducibility yields extended Harrington nonsplitting
 J. Symbolic Logic
"... Sacks [14] showed that every computably enumerable (c.e.) degree> 0 has a c.e. splitting. Hence, relativising, every c.e. degree has a Δ2 splitting above each proper predecessor (by ‘splitting ’ we understand ‘nontrivial splitting’). Arslanov [1] showed that 0 ′ has a d.c.e. splitting above each ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Sacks [14] showed that every computably enumerable (c.e.) degree> 0 has a c.e. splitting. Hence, relativising, every c.e. degree has a Δ2 splitting above each proper predecessor (by ‘splitting ’ we understand ‘nontrivial splitting’). Arslanov [1] showed that 0 ′ has a d.c.e. splitting above each c.e. a < 0′. On the other hand,
How Enumeration Reducibility Yields Extended
"... Sacks [16] showed that every computably enumerable (c.e.) degree> 0 has a c.e. splitting. Hence, relativising, every c.e. degree has a ∆2 splitting above each ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Sacks [16] showed that every computably enumerable (c.e.) degree> 0 has a c.e. splitting. Hence, relativising, every c.e. degree has a ∆2 splitting above each