Weak density and cupping in the d-r.e. degrees (Q582288): Difference between revisions

A set A is called d-r.e. if there exist r.e. sets C and D with \(A=C-D\). Recently there has been renewed interest in the d-r.e. degrees particularly in view of their importance to the r.e. degrees (for example they were a crucial ingredient to \textit{S. B. Cooper}'s proof of the definability of the r.e. degrees, and of the jump [Bull. Am. Math. Soc. (to appear)]). Nevertheless, the d-r.e. degrees are not well understood. Sometimes they behave like r.e. degrees, sometimes like the \(\Delta_ 2\) degrees. (For example, it is known that there is no minimal d-r.e. degree (Lachlan, Cooper, Jockusch) but the non-diamond theorem fails for the d- r.e. degrees [the reviewer, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 21, 43-50 (1989; Zbl 0628.03030)] and the d-r.e. degrees are not dense (Lachlan, Harrington, Soare, Lempp, to appear).) In the present paper, the authors make an interesting contribution to our understanding of the structure of the d-r.e. degrees by proving that between any two r.e. degrees there exists a d-r.e. but not r.e. degree, and that if \({\mathfrak h}\) is r.e. and high, then if \({\mathfrak d}\leq {\mathfrak h}\) is d-r.e. there exists a low d-r.e. degree \({\mathfrak e}\) cupping \({\mathfrak d}\) to \({\mathfrak h}\). This last result should be contrasted with Harrington's anticupping theorem for the high r.e. degrees [see \textit{D. P. Miller}, Logic Year 1979-80, Lect. Notes Math. 859, 230-245 (1981; Zbl 0498.03033)]. Corollaries are discussed for the n-r.e. degrees. The proofs are \(\pi_ 2\) `tree of strategy' arguments, with a good discussion not wanting the full construction. The style of presentation is similar to that of Lempp's thesis. Reviewer's remark: The paper suggests a number of open questions. In particular, the high degree \({\mathfrak h}\) in Theorem 2 be d-r.e. instead of r.e. The reviewer conjectures not. Also is each high d-r.e. degree the top of a diamond in the d-r.e. degrees.