Rice’s theorem says that no non-trivial index set is computable. The arithmetic hierarchy measures how far from computable they are. To classify a set is to find the level of the hierarchy at which it is complete. This involves two steps: an upper bound, obtained by writing a definition and counting quantifiers, and a lower bound, obtained by reducing a complete set of that level to it. This lesson classifies the basic index sets; by Post’s theorem, the classification also determines their Turing degrees.
3.1 The method
If is -complete, then by Theorem 2.2, , so , and is not (Corollary 2.3). Hence to show that a set is -complete, it suffices to show that is and that for some -complete set , or directly that every set reduces to . Reductions are built with the SMN theorem, in the parameter form (Parameter form): from , one computes an index of a c.e. set or partial computable function whose behavior encodes the membership of in the given set.
3.2 The second level
The set is -complete, and is -complete.
is by Example 1.2. Let be : with computable. Consider the sets
The relation is c.e., by closure under bounded quantification, so there is a computable with for every . If , every has a with , so is infinite. If , let be such that ; then no belongs to , so is finite. Hence . The statement on follows by complementation.
The set is -complete.
is by Example 1.2. Let be : with computable. Let be computable with . Then is total if and only if every has a witness , that is, if and only if .
So , and are Turing equivalent to , as announced in Proposition 3.5 of “The Turing jump”. None of them is computable in .
3.3 The third level
The set is -complete.
is by Example 1.2. Let be : with a relation. By Theorem 3.1, is -complete, so there is a computable with is infinite. We build, uniformly in , a c.e. set which is cofinite if and only if some is infinite.
Construction. We enumerate by stages, starting with . At stage , let be the least such that , if there is one; we say that acts at stage . In that case, list the elements of in increasing order, and enumerate into all of them except the first . If no acts, do nothing. The construction is computable uniformly in , so there is a computable with .
The numbers not in at stage , in increasing order, are called the markers at stage . A stage at which acts keeps the first markers below and removes the others.
If some is infinite, is cofinite. Fix such an . Then receives new elements at infinitely many stages, and at each of them some acts. Suppose are numbers outside . Take a stage with at which some acts. The numbers are all below and outside , and is not among the first markers below , since precede it. So is enumerated into , a contradiction. Hence the complement of has at most elements.
If every is finite, is coinfinite. We show that for every , the -th marker (counting from ) eventually reaches a final value. Only actions of some remove the -th marker or a smaller one, since an action of keeps the first markers. Each acts only finitely often, since is finite. After the last action of the numbers , the first markers are never removed: they are final. So the complement of contains the final values of all markers, and is infinite.
Hence .
The construction is a first example of a marker argument: each may, when it acts, destroy all the markers below the current stage except the first . If some acts infinitely often, at most markers survive; if every acts finitely often, each marker settles. Arguments of this kind, with priorities between the actors, are the subject of the course on Post’s problem.
3.4 Summary
The following table collects the classification of the basic index sets. The sets marked as admitted are classified in the references; the others are classified in this lesson or its exercises.
| Set | Definition | Complete for |
|---|---|---|
| , | ; | |
| , , | ; | |
| (admitted) | see Σ⁰ₙ and Π⁰ₙ sets |
The completeness of requires a more elaborate construction, which we admit; a proof is in Soare’s Recursively Enumerable Sets and Degrees, Chapter IV, Section 3.
3.5 Exercises
Show that is -complete, and that is -complete.
Solution
, a condition, and , so the reduction of Theorem 3.2 also reduces every set to this set. The set is , and reduces to it by Proposition 3.5 of “The halting problem”.
Show that is not , and that is not .
Solution
If were , every set, being many-one reducible to , would be by Proposition 1.6, contradicting Corollary 2.3. The same argument applies to at level .
Show that the set is -complete.
Solution
is total and constant if and only if is total and ; this is the conjunction of a and a condition, hence . For completeness, let with computable, and let be computable with if , the program searching for and diverging if there is none. Then is defined exactly on the that have a witness, and takes the value there; it is total and constant if and only if .
3.6 Notes and references
The classification of the index sets of this lesson is presented in Rogers’ and Soare’s books. Marker arguments, of which the proof for is a simple instance, are a basic tool in the study of c.e. sets.
- H. Rogers, Theory of Recursive Functions and Effective Computability, McGraw-Hill, 1967.
- R. I. Soare, Recursively Enumerable Sets and Degrees, Springer, 1987.