Exploring Turing Degrees: Computability, Unsolvability, and Randomness, Assignments of Mathematics

A set of exercises from a university mathematics course, math 497a, focusing on the structure of turing degrees. Topics include the least upper and greatest lower bounds of turing degrees, turing jumps, and pairwise equivalence of turing oracles. Exercises involve proving theorems and constructing turing degrees using finite approximations.

Typology: Assignments

Pre 2010

Uploaded on 09/24/2009

koofers-user-ldx
koofers-user-ldx 🇺🇸

9 documents

1 / 2

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Computability, Unsolvability, Randomness
Math 497A: Homework #4
Stephen G. Simpson
Due Monday, September 24, 2007
In this set of exercises we explore the structure of the Turing degrees.
Given two Turing degrees aand b, we know that the least upper bound
sup(a,b) always exists. Exercises 2, 4, and 7 below show that the greatest
lower bound inf(a,b) sometimes exists and sometimes does not exist.
For any Turing oracle fwe have
f0=Hf={x|ϕ(1),f
x(0) ↓} = the Halting Problem relative to f.
We kn ow tha t f0is a complete Σ0
1set relative to the oracle f. For any Turing
degree a=deg
T(f) we define
a0=deg
T(f0) = the Turing jump of a.
Clearly a<a0holds for all a. Thus, starting with any Turing degree a,we
have an ascending sequence of Turing degrees
a<a0<a00 <···<a(n)<a(n+1) <···
In particular, starting with the zero Turing degree 0, we have the ascending
sequence
0<00<000 <···<0(n)<0(n+1) <···
corresponding to the arithmetical hierarchy.
1. Given Turing oracles fand g, prove that the following conditions are
pairwise equivalent:
(a) fTg
(b) HfmHg
(c) all partial f-recursive functions are partial g-recursive
(d) all total f-recursive functions are g-recursive.
1
pf2

Partial preview of the text

Download Exploring Turing Degrees: Computability, Unsolvability, and Randomness and more Assignments Mathematics in PDF only on Docsity!

Computability, Unsolvability, Randomness

Math 497A: Homework

Stephen G. Simpson

Due Monday, September 24, 2007

In this set of exercises we explore the structure of the Turing degrees. Given two Turing degrees a and b, we know that the least upper bound sup(a, b) always exists. Exercises 2, 4, and 7 below show that the greatest lower bound inf(a, b) sometimes exists and sometimes does not exist. For any Turing oracle f we have

f ′^ = Hf^ = {x | ϕ(1)x ,f(0) ↓} = the Halting Problem relative to f.

We know that f ′^ is a complete Σ^01 set relative to the oracle f. For any Turing degree a = degT (f ) we define

a′^ = degT (f ′) = the Turing jump of a.

Clearly a < a′^ holds for all a. Thus, starting with any Turing degree a, we have an ascending sequence of Turing degrees

a < a′^ < a′′^ < · · · < a(n)^ < a(n+1)^ < · · ·

In particular, starting with the zero Turing degree 0 , we have the ascending sequence 0 < 0 ′^ < 0 ′′^ < · · · < 0 (n)^ < 0 (n+1)^ < · · ·

corresponding to the arithmetical hierarchy.

  1. Given Turing oracles f and g, prove that the following conditions are pairwise equivalent:

(a) f ≤T g (b) Hf^ ≤m Hg (c) all partial f -recursive functions are partial g-recursive (d) all total f -recursive functions are g-recursive.

  1. Use finite approximations to construct Turing degrees a, b such that a > 0 and b > 0 and inf(a, b) = 0.
  2. Use finite approximations to construct Turing degrees a, b such that a < 0 ′^ and b < 0 ′^ and sup(a, b) = 0 ′.
  3. Combine and generalize Exercises 2 and 3 to prove the following:

Given two Turing degrees c, d such that c′^ ≤ d, we can find two Turing degrees a, b such that inf(a, b) = c and sup(a, b) = d.

  1. Prove the following result.

Given an ascending sequence of Turing degrees

d 0 < d 1 < · · · < dn < dn+1 < · · ·

we can find a pair of Turing degrees a, b such that for all Turing degrees c

∃n (c ≤ dn) if and only if c ≤ a and c ≤ b.

  1. Use the result of Exercise 5 to prove that no ascending sequence of Turing degrees has a least upper bound.
  2. For any pair of Turing degrees a, b as in Exercise 5, prove that the greatest lower bound inf(a, b) does not exist.