The low_n and low_m r.e. degrees are not elementarily equivalent

MaRDI QIDQ2386567zbMATH OpenFDO

Authors Richard A. Shore

Publication date 30 August 2005

Published in Science in China. Series A (Search for Journal in Brave)

zbMATH Keywords

computably enumerable degreesjump classesrecursively enumerable degreesTuring degrees

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Recursively (computably) enumerable sets and degrees (03D25) Hierarchies of computability and definability (03D55)

Review text

The author answers a question raised by \textit{C. G. Jockusch, A. Li} and \textit{Y. Yang} [``A join theorem for the computably enumerable degrees, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 356, 2557--2568 (2004; Zbl 1057.03030)]. Jockusch, Li and Yang showed that the low\(_n\) and low\(_1\) r.e. degrees are not elementarily equivalent for \(n>1\). They also asked the question: Are there any \(n\neq m\) such that \(L_n\equiv L_m\)? By making use of the results of \textit{A. Nies, R. A. Shore} and \textit{T. A. Slaman} [``Interpretability and definability in the recursively enumerable degrees, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., III. Ser. 77, 241--291 (1998; Zbl 0904.03028)], the author gives a complete answer to the question: For all \(n>m>1\), \(L_n\not\equiv L_m\).

Recommendations

• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 4164825
• A join theorem for the computably enumerable degrees
• Some Special Pairs of Σ2 e-Degrees
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1752644
• Infima in the d.r.e. degrees

Cited in

(3)

• Elementary differences among jump classes
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1523417 (Why is no real title available?)
• There are no maximal low d.c.e. degrees

This page was built for publication: The \(\text{low}_n\) and \(\text{low}_m\) r.e. degrees are not elementarily equivalent

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2386567)