For a set , monotonicity of the jump gives . The two extreme cases define two classes of sets. A set is low if its jump is as small as possible, : from the point of view of the jump, it cannot be distinguished from a computable set. A set is high if its jump is as large as possible, : its jump has the power of the double jump. This lesson shows that both classes contain sets that are not trivial examples — non-computable low sets and incomplete high sets — and that the jump is therefore not injective on degrees.
6.1 Low sets
A set is low if , equivalently .
The two conditions are equivalent since for every (Corollary 3.3).
- Every computable set is low, and every low set is computable in .
- If and is low, then is low.
- No low set is Turing complete.
- If is low, every -c.e. set is computable in .
- If is computable, by monotonicity of the jump. If is low, .
- .
- If , then , and lowness would give , contradicting Theorem 3.2.
- An -c.e. set is one-one reducible to (Theorem 3.2), which is computable in .
Item 4 explains the name: for a low set , computing relative to adds nothing at the level of the jump. Non-computable low sets are provided by genericity.
If is 1-generic, then .
For each , let , a c.e. set of strings, uniformly in . Consider the following procedure with oracle . On input , for , let , and
- ask whether ; if so, answer ;
- ask whether some extension of belongs to ; if not, answer .
Both questions are c.e., uniformly in and , so answers them. Since is 1-generic, some prefix of is in or has no extension in , so the procedure terminates. The answers are correct: if , then by Proposition 1.5; if has no extension in , then , since otherwise for some , and is an extension of in .
Sets with are called generalized low: their jump is no more than what is required, namely itself together with . The theorem says that 1-generic sets are generalized low.
There is a non-computable low set. Consequently, the jump is not injective on degrees: there is with .
Let be 1-generic (Proposition 5.7). It is not computable, and .
There are also non-computable low sets that are c.e.; their construction requires the priority method, and is given in the course on Post’s problem.
6.2 High sets
A set is high if .
Historically, highness was defined for sets computable in , for which it means ; the definition has since been extended to all sets. Every set computing is high, by monotonicity of the jump. The interesting high sets are those that do not compute .
Highness is a strength property, and it is not obtained by diagonalization but by building a set whose jump computes . By the relativized limit lemma (Theorem 4.2), holds if has an -computable approximation. The construction below builds so that its columns are, from some point on, constant equal to ; then .
For every non-computable set , there is a high set with .
Conditions. A condition is a pair of a string and an integer. It represents the sets
beyond , the columns are fixed to their limit value. A condition extends if and ; for , this means that and for every position with and . Every set is non-empty. For a fixed , the relation ” extends ” is computable: it only involves the finite string , which can be written into the algorithm.
Requirements. For each , .
Construction. Start with . At step , given , find an extension forcing , that is, such that every satisfies , as shown below. Then let and let extend by one bit, chosen so that extends . Let be the unique set extending all .
Forcing . Write . Three cases are possible.
- There are and an extension of with . Then every satisfies , by the use principle.
- There is such that no extension of has . Then every satisfies : otherwise for some , and is an extension of , since . Take .
- Neither case holds. Then is computable: to compute , search for such that extends and , and output the value. The search terminates since case 2 fails, and the value is since case 1 fails. The search is computable, since the extension relation with second component is. This contradicts the hypothesis on .
Verification. Each condition of the construction extends the previous ones, and belongs to every : a position with lies below for some , and the bit placed there respects the column constraint of every condition in force, all of which fix column to . So for the condition chosen at step , every is satisfied, and . Fix . For , we have , and every position is assigned the value by the construction. Hence for all but finitely many . The sets form an -computable approximation of , so by Theorem 4.2 relativized to .
There is a high set that is not Turing complete: and .
Apply Theorem 6.6 with .
Sacks (1963) showed that there are high incomplete c.e. sets, and Friedberg (1957) that every degree is the jump of some degree , with (the jump inversion theorem). We admit these results.
6.3 Exercises
Show that a set is low if and only if has a computable approximation.
Solution
By Theorem 4.2, if and only if is limit computable.
Show that if is 1-generic, then .
Solution
One direction is Theorem 6.3. Conversely, and by Corollary 3.3, so .
Let be any set and a non-computable set. Show that there is a set with and .
Solution
Repeat the proof of Theorem 6.6 with in place of : the conditions fix the columns to the value . Case 3 is still computable, since for fixed it only involves . The columns of converge to , so by the relativized limit lemma.
6.4 Notes and references
The hierarchies of low and high sets were introduced by Soare and by Cooper in the early 1970s; high degrees had been studied before by Martin (1966), who characterized them by dominant functions. The theorem on 1-generic sets is due to Jockusch (1980). The jump inversion theorem is due to Friedberg (1957), and the existence of high incomplete c.e. sets to Sacks (1963).
- R. M. Friedberg, A criterion for completeness of degrees of unsolvability, Journal of Symbolic Logic 22 (1957), 159–160.
- G. E. Sacks, Recursive enumerability and the jump operator, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 108 (1963), 223–239.
- C. G. Jockusch, Degrees of generic sets, in Recursion Theory: its Generalisations and Applications, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series 45, Cambridge University Press, 1980, 110–139.
- R. I. Soare, Recursively Enumerable Sets and Degrees, Springer, 1987.