Results 1 
3 of
3
Arithmetical Sacks Forcing
 Archive for Mathematical Logic
"... Abstract. We answer a question of Jockusch by constructing a hyperimmunefree minimal degree below a 1generic one. To do this we introduce a new forcing notion called arithmetical Sacks forcing. Some other applications are presented. 1. introduction Two fundamental construction techniques in set the ..."
Abstract

Cited by 3 (0 self)
 Add to MetaCart
(Show Context)
Abstract. We answer a question of Jockusch by constructing a hyperimmunefree minimal degree below a 1generic one. To do this we introduce a new forcing notion called arithmetical Sacks forcing. Some other applications are presented. 1. introduction Two fundamental construction techniques in set theory and computability theory are forcing with finite strings as conditions resulting in various forms of Cohen genericity, and forcing with perfect trees, resulting in various forms of minimality. Whilst these constructions are clearly incompatible, this paper was motivated by the general question of “How can minimality and (Cohen) genericity interact?”. Jockusch [5] showed that for n ≥ 2, no ngeneric degree can bound a minimal degree, and Haught [4] extended earlier work of Chong and Jockusch to show that that every nonzero Turing degree below a 1generic degree below 0 ′ was itself 1generic. Thus, it seemed that these forcing notions were so incompatible that perhaps no minimal degree could even be comparable with a 1generic one. However, this conjecture was shown to fail independently by Chong and Downey [1] and by Kumabe [7]. In each of those papers, a minimal degree below m < 0 ′ and a 1generic a < 0 ′ ′ are constructed with m < a. The specific question motivating the present paper is one of Jockusch who asked whether a hyperimmunefree (minimal) degree could be below a 1generic one. The point here is that the construction of a hyperimmunefree degree by and large directly uses forcing with perfect trees, and is a much more “pure ” form of SpectorSacks forcing [10] and [9]. This means that it is not usually possible to use tricks such as full approximation or forcing with partial computable trees, which are available to us when we only wish to construct (for instance) minimal degrees. For instance, minimal degrees can be below computably enumerable ones, whereas no degree below 0 ′ can be hyperimmunefree. Moreover, the results of Jockusch [5], in fact prove that for n ≥ 2, if 0 < a ≤ b and b is ngeneric, then a bounds a ngeneric degrees and, in particular, certainly is not hyperimmune free. This contrasts quite strongly with the main result below. In this paper we will answer Jockusch’s question, proving the following result.
Superbranching degrees
 Proceedings Oberwolfach 1989, Springer Verlag Lecture Notes in Mathematics
, 1990
"... Solovay ..."
On minimal wttdegrees and computably enumerable Turing degrees
, 2006
"... Computability theorists have studied many different reducibilities between sets of natural numbers including one reducibility (≤1), manyone reducibility (≤m), truth table reducibility (≤tt), weak truth table reducibility (≤wtt) and Turing reducibility (≤T). The motivation for studying reducibilitie ..."
Abstract
 Add to MetaCart
Computability theorists have studied many different reducibilities between sets of natural numbers including one reducibility (≤1), manyone reducibility (≤m), truth table reducibility (≤tt), weak truth table reducibility (≤wtt) and Turing reducibility (≤T). The motivation for studying reducibilities stronger that Turing reducibility stems from internally motivated