A set is called d.r.e. if it is a difference of two recursively enumerable sets. Sacks showed that for each nonrecursive r.e. set \(A\) there are disjoint r.e. sets \(B\), \(C\) which cover \(A\) such that \(A\) is recursive in neither \(A\cap B\) nor \(A\cap C\). In this paper the author constructs a counterexample which shows that Sacks' theorem is not a general true when \(A\) is d.r.e. rather than r.e. More precisely the following is proved: Theorem. There exists a properly d.r.e. set \(D\) such that for all sets \(A_0\), \(A_1\): \[ D\subseteq A_0\cup A_1 \Rightarrow [D\leq_TA_0 \cap D\vee D\leq_TA_1 \cap D]. \] The proof of this theorem is long and complicated.
- A non-splitting theorem for d.r.e. sets
- A recursively enumerable degree which will not split over all lesser ones
- A Splitting Theorem for the N-R.E. Degrees
- D.R.E. Degrees and the Nondiamond Theorem
- Definability in the Turing degrees
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3784863 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 194103 (Why is no real title available?)
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 510777 (Why is no real title available?)
- On a Conjecture of Kleene and Post
- The d.r.e. degrees are not dense
- The density of the low\(_ 2\) \(n\)-r.e. degrees
- Weak density and cupping in the d-r.e. degrees
This page was built for publication: A non-splitting theorem for d.r.e. sets
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2564047)
