Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-d774m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-07T23:59:47.203Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The infinite injury priority method1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Robert I. Soare
Robert I. Soare*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Chicago Circle, Illinois 60680 University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the most important and distinctive tools in recursion theory has been the priority method whereby a recursively enumerable (r.e.) set A is constructed by stages to satisfy a sequence of conditions {Rn }n∈ω called requirements. If n < m, requirement Rn is given priority over Rm and action taken for Rm at some stage s may at a later stage t > s be undone for the sake of Rn thereby injuring Rm at stage t. The first priority method was invented by Friedberg [2] and Muchnik [11] to solve Post's problem and is characterized by the fact that each requirement is injured at most finitely often.

Shoenfield [20, Lemma 1], and then independently Sacks [17] and Yates [25] invented a much more powerful method in which a requirement may be injured infinitely often, and the method was applied and refined by Sacks [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] and Yates [25], [26] to obtain many deep results on r.e. sets and their degrees. In spite of numerous simplifications and variations this infinite injury method has never been as well understood as the finite injury method because of its apparently greater complexity.

The purpose of this paper is to reduce the Sacks method to two easily understood lemmas whose proofs are very similar to the finite injury case. Using these lemmas we can derive all the results of Sacks on r.e. degrees, and some by Yates and Robinson as well, in a manner accessible to the nonspecialist. The heart of the method is an ingenious observation of Lachlan [7] which is combined with a further simplification of our own.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 41 , Issue 2 , June 1976 , pp. 513 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

1

This research was supported by NSF grant 19958A#3. There have been several illuminating explanations of the infinite injury method including Sacks [16], Yates [24], Martin [8], Shoen-field [21] and Lachlan [5], [6], and [7]. We gratefully acknowledge our debt to all of these sources, particuarly the last. In addition this paper reflects conversations with C. G. Jockusch, Jr., A. H. Lachlan, M. Lermari, A. Manaster, D. A. Martin and R. A. Shore. This paper was presented on April 12, 1975 at a Special Session for Recursion Theory during the American Mathematical Society meeting in St. Louis.

References

REFERENCES

[1] Cooper, S. B., On a theorem of C. E. M. Yates, 1974 (preprint).Google Scholar
[2] Friedberg, R. M., Two recursively enumerable sets of incomparable degrees of unsolvability, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., vol. 43 (1957), pp. 236–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
[3] Lachlan, A. H., Lower bounds for pairs of r.e. degrees, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society (3), vol. 16 (1966), pp. 537–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Lachlan, A. H., On the lattice of recursively enumerable sets, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 130 (1968), pp. 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5] Lachlan, A. H., On some games which are relevant to the theory of recursively enumerable sets, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 91 (1970), pp. 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6] Lachlan, A. H., The priority method for the construction of recursively enumerable sets, Proceedings of the Cambridge Summer School in Logic, 1971, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1973.Google Scholar
[7] Lachlan, A. H., Recursively enumerable degrees, handwritten notes from lectures in Warsaw, 04 1973.Google Scholar
[8] Martin, D. A., The priority method of Sacks, mimeographed notes, 1966.Google Scholar
[9] Martin, D. A., Classes of recursively enumerable sets and degrees of unsolvability, Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen für Mathematik, vol. 12 (1966), pp. 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Morley, M. D. and Soare, R. I., Boolean algebras, splitting theorems and Δ2 0 sets, Fundamenta Mathematicae (to appear).Google Scholar
[11] Muchnik, A.A., Negative answer to the problem of reducibility of the theory of algorithms, Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, vol. 108 (1956), pp. 194–197. (Russian.)Google Scholar
[12] Robinson, R. W., Interpolation and embedding in the recursively enumerable degrees, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 93 (1971), pp. 285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13] Robinson, R. W., Jump restricted interpolation in the r.e. degrees, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 93 (1971), pp. 586–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Rogers, H. Jr., Theory of recursive functions and effective computability, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1967.Google Scholar
[15] Sacks, G. E., On the degrees less than 0′, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 77 (1963), pp. 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16] Sacks, G. E., A maximal set which is not complete, Michigan Mathematics Journal, vol. 11 (1964), pp. 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17] Sacks, G. E., Recursive enumerability and the jump operator, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 108 (1963), pp. 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] Sacks, G. E., Degrees of unsolvability, Annals of Mathematical Studies, no. 55, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1963.Google Scholar
[19] Sacks, G. E., The recursively enumerable degrees are dense, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 80 (1964), 300–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20] Shoenfield, J. R., Undecidable and creative theories, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 49 (1961), 171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21] Shoenfield, J. R., Degrees of unsolvability, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971.Google Scholar
[22] Soare, R. I., Automorphisms of the lattice of recursively enumerable sets. Part I: Maximal sets, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 100 (1974), pp. 80–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23] Soare, R. I., Recursively enumerable sets, (Omega Series), Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York (to appear).Google Scholar
[24] Yates, C. E. M., A minimal pair of r.e. degrees, this Journal, vol. 31 (1966), pp. 159–168.Google Scholar
[25] Yates, C. E. M., On the degrees of index sets, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 121 (1966), pp. 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[26] Yates, C. E. M., On the degrees of index sets. II, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 135 (1969), pp. 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar