{"title":"泛函度","authors":"Dag Normann","doi":"10.1016/0003-4843(79)90004-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In this paper we will discuss some problems of degree-theoretic nature in connection with recursion in normal objects of higher types.</p><p>Harrington [2] and Loewenthal [6] have proved some results concerning Post's problem and the Minimal Pair Problem, using recursion modulo subindividuals. Our degrees will be those obtained from Kleene-recursion modulo individuals. To solve our problems we then have to put some extra strength to ZFC. We will first assume <em>V</em> = <em>L</em>, and then we restrict ourselves to the situation of a recursive well-ordering and Martin's axiom.</p><p>We assume familiarity with recursion theory in higher types as presented in Kleene [3]. Further backround is found in Harrington [2], Moldestad [9] and Normann [11]. We will survey the parts of these papers that we need.</p><p>In Section 1 we give the general background for the arguments used later. In Section 2 we prove some lemmas assuming <em>V</em> = <em>L</em>. In section 3, assuming <em>V</em> = <em>L</em> we solve Post's problem and another problem using the finite injury method. We will thereby describe some of the methods needed for the more complex priority argument of Section 4 where we give a solution of the minimal pair problem for extended r.e. degress of functionals.</p><p>In Section 5 we will see that if Martin's Axiom holds and we have a minimal well-ordering of tp (1) recursive in <sup>3</sup><em>E</em>, we may use the same sort of arguments as in parts 3 and 4.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100093,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Mathematical Logic","volume":"16 3","pages":"Pages 269-304"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1979-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0003-4843(79)90004-4","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Degrees of functionals\",\"authors\":\"Dag Normann\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/0003-4843(79)90004-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In this paper we will discuss some problems of degree-theoretic nature in connection with recursion in normal objects of higher types.</p><p>Harrington [2] and Loewenthal [6] have proved some results concerning Post's problem and the Minimal Pair Problem, using recursion modulo subindividuals. Our degrees will be those obtained from Kleene-recursion modulo individuals. To solve our problems we then have to put some extra strength to ZFC. We will first assume <em>V</em> = <em>L</em>, and then we restrict ourselves to the situation of a recursive well-ordering and Martin's axiom.</p><p>We assume familiarity with recursion theory in higher types as presented in Kleene [3]. Further backround is found in Harrington [2], Moldestad [9] and Normann [11]. We will survey the parts of these papers that we need.</p><p>In Section 1 we give the general background for the arguments used later. In Section 2 we prove some lemmas assuming <em>V</em> = <em>L</em>. In section 3, assuming <em>V</em> = <em>L</em> we solve Post's problem and another problem using the finite injury method. We will thereby describe some of the methods needed for the more complex priority argument of Section 4 where we give a solution of the minimal pair problem for extended r.e. degress of functionals.</p><p>In Section 5 we will see that if Martin's Axiom holds and we have a minimal well-ordering of tp (1) recursive in <sup>3</sup><em>E</em>, we may use the same sort of arguments as in parts 3 and 4.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Mathematical Logic\",\"volume\":\"16 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 269-304\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1979-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/0003-4843(79)90004-4\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Mathematical Logic\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003484379900044\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Mathematical Logic","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003484379900044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
In this paper we will discuss some problems of degree-theoretic nature in connection with recursion in normal objects of higher types.
Harrington [2] and Loewenthal [6] have proved some results concerning Post's problem and the Minimal Pair Problem, using recursion modulo subindividuals. Our degrees will be those obtained from Kleene-recursion modulo individuals. To solve our problems we then have to put some extra strength to ZFC. We will first assume V = L, and then we restrict ourselves to the situation of a recursive well-ordering and Martin's axiom.
We assume familiarity with recursion theory in higher types as presented in Kleene [3]. Further backround is found in Harrington [2], Moldestad [9] and Normann [11]. We will survey the parts of these papers that we need.
In Section 1 we give the general background for the arguments used later. In Section 2 we prove some lemmas assuming V = L. In section 3, assuming V = L we solve Post's problem and another problem using the finite injury method. We will thereby describe some of the methods needed for the more complex priority argument of Section 4 where we give a solution of the minimal pair problem for extended r.e. degress of functionals.
In Section 5 we will see that if Martin's Axiom holds and we have a minimal well-ordering of tp (1) recursive in 3E, we may use the same sort of arguments as in parts 3 and 4.