Results 1 
3 of
3
On the Structure of Degrees of Inferability
 Journal of Computer and System Sciences
, 1993
"... Degrees of inferability have been introduced to measure the learning power of inductive inference machines which have access to an oracle. The classical concept of degrees of unsolvability measures the computing power of oracles. In this paper we determine the relationship between both notions. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 32 (19 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Degrees of inferability have been introduced to measure the learning power of inductive inference machines which have access to an oracle. The classical concept of degrees of unsolvability measures the computing power of oracles. In this paper we determine the relationship between both notions. 1 Introduction We consider learning of classes of recursive functions within the framework of inductive inference [21]. A recent theme is the study of inductive inference machines with oracles ([8, 10, 11, 17, 24] and tangentially [12]; cf. [10] for a comprehensive introduction and a collection of all previous results.) The basic question is how the information content of the oracle (technically: its Turing degree) relates with its learning power (technically: its inference degreedepending on the underlying inference criterion). In this paper a definitive answer is obtained for the case of recursively enumerable oracles and the case when only finitely many queries to the oracle are allo...
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
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.
Every 1generic computes a properly 1generic
 Journal of Symbolic Logic
"... Abstract. A real is called properly ngeneric if it is ngeneric but not n + 1generic. We show that every 1generic real computes a properly 1generic real. On the other hand, if m> n � 2 then an mgeneric real cannot compute a properly ngeneric real. ..."
Abstract

Cited by 1 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract. A real is called properly ngeneric if it is ngeneric but not n + 1generic. We show that every 1generic real computes a properly 1generic real. On the other hand, if m> n � 2 then an mgeneric real cannot compute a properly ngeneric real.