Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T07:53:06.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

MAXIMAL TOWERS AND ULTRAFILTER BASES IN COMPUTABILITY THEORY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2022

STEFFEN LEMPP*
Affiliation:
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN–MADISON 480 LINCOLN DRIVE MADISON, WI 53706, USA E-mail: jmiller@math.wisc.edu E-mail: msoskova@math.wisc.edu
JOSEPH S. MILLER
Affiliation:
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN–MADISON 480 LINCOLN DRIVE MADISON, WI 53706, USA E-mail: jmiller@math.wisc.edu E-mail: msoskova@math.wisc.edu
ANDRÉ NIES
Affiliation:
SCHOOL OF COMPUTER SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND PRIVATE BAG 92019 AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND E-mail: andre@cs.auckland.ac.nz
MARIYA I. SOSKOVA
Affiliation:
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN–MADISON 480 LINCOLN DRIVE MADISON, WI 53706, USA E-mail: jmiller@math.wisc.edu E-mail: msoskova@math.wisc.edu

Abstract

The tower number ${\mathfrak t}$ and the ultrafilter number $\mathfrak {u}$ are cardinal characteristics from set theory. They are based on combinatorial properties of classes of subsets of $\omega $ and the almost inclusion relation $\subseteq ^*$ between such subsets. We consider analogs of these cardinal characteristics in computability theory.

We say that a sequence $(G_n)_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ of computable sets is a tower if $G_0 = {\mathbb N}$, $G_{n+1} \subseteq ^* G_n$, and $G_n\smallsetminus G_{n+1}$ is infinite for each n. A tower is maximal if there is no infinite computable set contained in all $G_n$. A tower ${\left \langle {G_n}\right \rangle }_{n\in \omega }$ is an ultrafilter base if for each computable R, there is n such that $G_n \subseteq ^* R$ or $G_n \subseteq ^* \overline R$; this property implies maximality of the tower. A sequence $(G_n)_{n \in {\mathbb N}}$ of sets can be encoded as the “columns” of a set $G\subseteq \mathbb N$. Our analogs of ${\mathfrak t}$ and ${\mathfrak u}$ are the mass problems of sets encoding maximal towers, and of sets encoding towers that are ultrafilter bases, respectively. The relative position of a cardinal characteristic broadly corresponds to the relative computational complexity of the mass problem. We use Medvedev reducibility to formalize relative computational complexity, and thus to compare such mass problems to known ones.

We show that the mass problem of ultrafilter bases is equivalent to the mass problem of computing a function that dominates all computable functions, and hence, by Martin’s characterization, it captures highness. On the other hand, the mass problem for maximal towers is below the mass problem of computing a non-low set. We also show that some, but not all, noncomputable low sets compute maximal towers: Every noncomputable (low) c.e. set computes a maximal tower but no 1-generic $\Delta ^0_2$-set does so.

We finally consider the mass problems of maximal almost disjoint, and of maximal independent families. We show that they are Medvedev equivalent to maximal towers, and to ultrafilter bases, respectively.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Association for Symbolic Logic

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blass, A. R., Combinatorial cardinal characteristics of the continuum , Handbook of Set Theory , vol. 1 (Foreman, M. and Kanamori, A., editors), Springer, Dordrecht–Heidelberg–London–New York, 2010, pp. 395489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brendle, J., Brooke-Taylor, A. D., Ng, K. M., and Nies, A., An analogy between cardinal characteristics and highness properties of oracles , Proceedings of the 13th Asian Logic Conference: Guangzhou, China , World Scientific Publishing, Hackensack, NJ, 2015, pp. 128.Google Scholar
Brendle, J., Fischer, V. V., and Khomskii, Y. D., Definable maximal independent families . Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society , vol. 147 (2019), no. 8, pp. 35473557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downey, R. G. and Hirschfeldt, D. R., Algorithmic Randomness and Complexity , Springer, Berlin, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downey, R. G., Hirschfeldt, D. R., Nies, A., and Stephan, F., Trivial reals , Proceedings of the 7th and 8th Asian Logic Conferences , Singapore University Press, Singapore, 2003, pp. 103131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, N., Kuyper, R., and Turetsky, D. D., Cardinal invariants, non-lowness classes, and Weihrauch reducibility . Computability , vol. 8 (2019), nos. 3–4, pp. 305346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haught, C. A., The degrees below a 1-generic degree <0 , this Journal, vol. 51(1986), pp. 770–777.Google Scholar
Jockusch, C. G. Jr., Degrees in which the recursive sets are uniformly recursive . Canadian Journal of Mathematics , vol. 24 (1972), pp. 10921099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jockusch, C. G. Jr. and Stephan, F., A cohesive set which is not high . Mathematical Logic Quarterly , vol. 39 (1993), pp. 515530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kučera, A. and Slaman, T. A., Low upper bounds of ideals, this Journal, vol. 74 (2009), pp. 517–534.Google Scholar
Lempp, S., Nies, A., and Solomon, D. R., On the filter of computably enumerable supersets of an r-maximal set . Archive for Mathematical Logic , vol. 40 (2001), no. 6, pp. 415423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malliaris, M. and Shelah, S., General topology meets model theory, on p and t . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , vol. 110 (2013), no. 33, pp. 1330013305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nies, A., Computability and Randomness , Oxford Logic Guides, vol. 51, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nies, A. (ed.), Logic blog 2019, preprint, 2019, arXiv:2003.03361.Google Scholar
Rupprecht, N. A., Effective correspondents to cardinal characteristics in Cichoń’s diagram , Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, 2010.Google Scholar
Rupprecht, N. A., Relativized Schnorr tests with universal behavior . Archive for Mathematical Logic , vol. 49 (2010), no. 5, pp. 555570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slaman, T. A. and Solovay, R. M., When oracles do not help , Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Workshop on Computational Learning Theory , Morgan Kaufmann, 1991, pp. 379383.Google Scholar
Soare, R. I., Recursively Enumerable Sets and Degrees , Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Omega Series, Springer, Heidelberg, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soukup, D. T., Two infinite quantities and their surprising relationship, preprint, 2018, arXiv:1803.04331.Google Scholar
Wimmers, E. L., The Shelah P-point independence theorem . Israel Journal of Mathematics , vol. 43 (1982), pp. 2848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar