Cite

This course has no released version yet: the text at this address may change. Cite a released version when one exists.

/courses/turing-degrees/low-and-high
@misc{turing-degrees-low-and-high,
  title = {{Low and high sets}},
  howpublished = {Lesson 6 of \emph{Oracles and Turing degrees}, Computability Theory course notes},
  url = {/courses/turing-degrees/low-and-high},
  note = {Unreleased working version}
}

To cite a single statement, use the # link that appears next to its heading.

Lesson 6 of 6

Low and high sets

Sets whose jump is as small or as large as possible; 1-generic sets are generalized low, so non-computable low sets exist; high sets that avoid a cone.

40 min4 questions
Oracles and Turing degrees · lesson 6 of 6
  1. Computation relative to an oracle
  2. Turing reducibility and degrees
  3. The Turing jump
  4. Limit computability
  5. The finite extension method
  6. Low and high sets

For a set A≤T∅′A \leq_T \emptyset', monotonicity of the jump gives ∅′≤TA′≤T∅′′\emptyset' \leq_T A' \leq_T \emptyset''. The two extreme cases define two classes of sets. A set is low if its jump is as small as possible, A′≡T∅′A' \equiv_T \emptyset': 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, A′≥T∅′′A' \geq_T \emptyset'': 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

Definition 6.1.#

A set AA is low if A′≤T∅′A' \leq_T \emptyset', equivalently A′≡T∅′A' \equiv_T \emptyset'.

The two conditions are equivalent since ∅′≤TA′\emptyset' \leq_T A' for every AA (Corollary 3.3).

Proposition 6.2.#
  1. Every computable set is low, and every low set is computable in ∅′\emptyset'.
  2. If B≤TAB \leq_T A and AA is low, then BB is low.
  3. No low set is Turing complete.
  4. If AA is low, every AA-c.e. set is computable in ∅′\emptyset'.
Proof of Proposition 6.2.
  1. If AA is computable, A′≡T∅′A' \equiv_T \emptyset' by monotonicity of the jump. If AA is low, A≤TA′≤T∅′A \leq_T A' \leq_T \emptyset'.
  2. B′≤TA′≤T∅′B' \leq_T A' \leq_T \emptyset'.
  3. If ∅′≤TA\emptyset' \leq_T A, then ∅′′≤TA′\emptyset'' \leq_T A', and lowness would give ∅′′≤T∅′\emptyset'' \leq_T \emptyset', contradicting Theorem 3.2.
  4. An AA-c.e. set is one-one reducible to A′A' (Theorem 3.2), which is computable in ∅′\emptyset'.

Item 4 explains the name: for a low set AA, computing relative to AA adds nothing at the level of the jump. Non-computable low sets are provided by genericity.

Theorem 6.3.#

If GG is 1-generic, then G′≤TG⊕∅′G' \leq_T G \oplus \emptyset'.

Proof of Theorem 6.3.

For each ee, let Ve={σ:Φeσ(e) ⁣ ⁣↓}V_e = \{ \sigma : \Phi^\sigma_e(e)\converge \}, a c.e. set of strings, uniformly in ee. Consider the following procedure with oracle G⊕∅′G \oplus \emptyset'. On input ee, for n=0,1,2,…n = 0, 1, 2, \dots, let σ=G ⁣↾n\sigma = G \uh n, and

  • ask ∅′\emptyset' whether σ∈Ve\sigma \in V_e; if so, answer e∈G′e \in G';
  • ask ∅′\emptyset' whether some extension of σ\sigma belongs to VeV_e; if not, answer e∉G′e \notin G'.

Both questions are c.e., uniformly in ee and σ\sigma, so ∅′\emptyset' answers them. Since GG is 1-generic, some prefix of GG is in VeV_e or has no extension in VeV_e, so the procedure terminates. The answers are correct: if G ⁣↾n∈VeG \uh n \in V_e, then ΦeG(e) ⁣ ⁣↓\Phi^G_e(e)\converge by Proposition 1.5; if G ⁣↾nG \uh n has no extension in VeV_e, then ΦeG(e) ⁣ ⁣↑\Phi^G_e(e)\diverge, since otherwise ΦeG ⁣↾k(e) ⁣ ⁣↓\Phi^{G \uh k}_e(e)\converge for some k≥nk \geq n, and G ⁣↾kG \uh k is an extension of G ⁣↾nG \uh n in VeV_e.

Sets with A′≡TA⊕∅′A' \equiv_T A \oplus \emptyset' are called generalized low: their jump is no more than what is required, namely AA itself together with ∅′\emptyset'. The theorem says that 1-generic sets are generalized low.

Corollary 6.4.#

There is a non-computable low set. Consequently, the jump is not injective on degrees: there is a>0\abf > \obf with a′=0′\abf' = \obf'.

Proof of Corollary 6.4.

Let G≤T∅′G \leq_T \emptyset' be 1-generic (Proposition 5.7). It is not computable, and G′≤TG⊕∅′≡T∅′G' \leq_T G \oplus \emptyset' \equiv_T \emptyset'.

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

Definition 6.5.#

A set AA is high if ∅′′≤TA′\emptyset'' \leq_T A'.

Historically, highness was defined for sets computable in ∅′\emptyset', for which it means A′≡T∅′′A' \equiv_T \emptyset''; the definition has since been extended to all sets. Every set computing ∅′\emptyset' is high, by monotonicity of the jump. The interesting high sets are those that do not compute ∅′\emptyset'.

Highness is a strength property, and it is not obtained by diagonalization but by building a set whose jump computes ∅′′\emptyset''. By the relativized limit lemma (Theorem 4.2), ∅′′≤TA′\emptyset'' \leq_T A' holds if ∅′′\emptyset'' has an AA-computable Δ20\Delta^0_2 approximation. The construction below builds AA so that its columns A[x]={y:⟨x,y⟩∈A}A^{[x]} = \{ y : \langle x, y \rangle \in A \} are, from some point on, constant equal to ∅′′(x)\emptyset''(x); then ∅′′(x)=lim⁡yA(⟨x,y⟩)\emptyset''(x) = \lim_y A(\langle x, y \rangle).

Theorem 6.6.#

For every non-computable set CC, there is a high set AA with C̸≤TAC \not\leq_T A.

Proof of Theorem 6.6.

Conditions. A condition is a pair (σ,m)(\sigma, m) of a string and an integer. It represents the sets

[σ,m]={X≻σ:X(⟨x,y⟩)=∅′′(x) for every ⟨x,y⟩≥∣σ∣ with x<m}:[\sigma, m] = \{ X \succ \sigma : X(\langle x, y \rangle) = \emptyset''(x) \text{ for every } \langle x, y \rangle \geq |\sigma| \text{ with } x < m \}:

beyond σ\sigma, the columns x<mx < m are fixed to their limit value. A condition (τ,n)(\tau, n) extends (σ,m)(\sigma, m) if n≥mn \geq m and [τ,n]⊆[σ,m][\tau, n] \subseteq [\sigma, m]; for n=mn = m, this means that σ⪯τ\sigma \preceq \tau and τ(⟨x,y⟩)=∅′′(x)\tau(\langle x, y \rangle) = \emptyset''(x) for every position ⟨x,y⟩\langle x, y \rangle with ∣σ∣≤⟨x,y⟩<∣τ∣|\sigma| \leq \langle x, y \rangle < |\tau| and x<mx < m. Every set [σ,m][\sigma, m] is non-empty. For a fixed mm, the relation ”(τ,m)(\tau, m) extends (σ,m)(\sigma, m)” is computable: it only involves the finite string ∅′′ ⁣↾m\emptyset'' \uh m, which can be written into the algorithm.

Requirements. For each ee, Se:ΦeA≠C\mathcal S_e : \Phi^A_e \neq C.

Construction. Start with (σ0,m0)=(ε,0)(\sigma_0, m_0) = (\varepsilon, 0). At step ee, given (σe,me)(\sigma_e, m_e), find an extension (τ,me)(\tau, m_e) forcing Se\mathcal S_e, that is, such that every X∈[τ,me]X \in [\tau, m_e] satisfies ΦeX≠C\Phi^X_e \neq C, as shown below. Then let me+1=me+1m_{e+1} = m_e + 1 and let σe+1\sigma_{e+1} extend τ\tau by one bit, chosen so that (σe+1,me+1)(\sigma_{e+1}, m_{e+1}) extends (τ,me)(\tau, m_e). Let AA be the unique set extending all σe\sigma_e.

Forcing Se\mathcal S_e. Write (σ,m)=(σe,me)(\sigma, m) = (\sigma_e, m_e). Three cases are possible.

  1. There are xx and an extension (τ,m)(\tau, m) of (σ,m)(\sigma, m) with Φeτ(x) ⁣ ⁣↓≠C(x)\Phi^\tau_e(x)\converge \neq C(x). Then every X∈[τ,m]X \in [\tau, m] satisfies ΦeX(x) ⁣ ⁣↓≠C(x)\Phi^X_e(x)\converge \neq C(x), by the use principle.
  2. There is xx such that no extension (τ,m)(\tau, m) of (σ,m)(\sigma, m) has Φeτ(x) ⁣ ⁣↓\Phi^\tau_e(x)\converge. Then every X∈[σ,m]X \in [\sigma, m] satisfies ΦeX(x) ⁣ ⁣↑\Phi^X_e(x)\diverge: otherwise ΦeX ⁣↾k(x) ⁣ ⁣↓\Phi^{X \uh k}_e(x)\converge for some k≥∣σ∣k \geq |\sigma|, and (X ⁣↾k,m)(X \uh k, m) is an extension of (σ,m)(\sigma, m), since X∈[σ,m]X \in [\sigma, m]. Take τ=σ\tau = \sigma.
  3. Neither case holds. Then CC is computable: to compute C(x)C(x), search for τ\tau such that (τ,m)(\tau, m) extends (σ,m)(\sigma, m) and Φeτ(x) ⁣ ⁣↓\Phi^\tau_e(x)\converge, and output the value. The search terminates since case 2 fails, and the value is C(x)C(x) since case 1 fails. The search is computable, since the extension relation with second component mm is. This contradicts the hypothesis on CC.

Verification. Each condition of the construction extends the previous ones, and AA belongs to every [σe,me][\sigma_e, m_e]: a position ⟨x,y⟩≥∣σe∣\langle x, y \rangle \geq |\sigma_e| with x<mex < m_e lies below ∣σk∣|\sigma_k| for some k>ek > e, and the bit placed there respects the column constraint of every condition in force, all of which fix column xx to ∅′′(x)\emptyset''(x). So A∈[τ,me]A \in [\tau, m_e] for the condition (τ,me)(\tau, m_e) chosen at step ee, every Se\mathcal S_e is satisfied, and C̸≤TAC \not\leq_T A. Fix xx. For e>xe > x, we have me>xm_e > x, and every position ⟨x,y⟩≥∣σx+1∣\langle x, y \rangle \geq |\sigma_{x+1}| is assigned the value ∅′′(x)\emptyset''(x) by the construction. Hence A(⟨x,y⟩)=∅′′(x)A(\langle x, y \rangle) = \emptyset''(x) for all but finitely many yy. The sets Ay={x:A(⟨x,y⟩)=1}A_y = \{ x : A(\langle x, y \rangle) = 1 \} form an AA-computable Δ20\Delta^0_2 approximation of ∅′′\emptyset'', so ∅′′≤TA′\emptyset'' \leq_T A' by Theorem 4.2 relativized to AA.

Corollary 6.7.#

There is a high set that is not Turing complete: ∅′′≤TA′\emptyset'' \leq_T A' and ∅′̸≤TA\emptyset' \not\leq_T A.

Proof of Corollary 6.7.

Apply Theorem 6.6 with C=∅′C = \emptyset'.

Sacks (1963) showed that there are high incomplete c.e. sets, and Friedberg (1957) that every degree d≥0′\dbf \geq \obf' is the jump of some degree a\abf, with a∨0′=d\abf \vee \obf' = \dbf (the jump inversion theorem). We admit these results.

6.3 Exercises

Exercise 6.8 ★.

Show that a set AA is low if and only if A′A' has a computable Δ20\Delta^0_2 approximation.

Solution

By Theorem 4.2, A′≤T∅′A' \leq_T \emptyset' if and only if A′A' is limit computable.

Exercise 6.9 ★.

Show that if GG is 1-generic, then G′≡TG⊕∅′G' \equiv_T G \oplus \emptyset'.

Solution

One direction is Theorem 6.3. Conversely, G≤TG′G \leq_T G' and ∅′≤TG′\emptyset' \leq_T G' by Corollary 3.3, so G⊕∅′≤TG′G \oplus \emptyset' \leq_T G'.

Exercise 6.10 ★★.

Let BB be any set and CC a non-computable set. Show that there is a set AA with B≤TA′B \leq_T A' and C̸≤TAC \not\leq_T A.

Solution

Repeat the proof of Theorem 6.6 with BB in place of ∅′′\emptyset'': the conditions fix the columns x<mx < m to the value B(x)B(x). Case 3 is still computable, since for fixed mm it only involves B ⁣↾mB \uh m. The columns of AA converge to BB, so B≤TA′B \leq_T A' by the relativized limit lemma.

6.4 Notes and references

The hierarchies of lown_n and highn_n 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.