Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T05:20:55.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Metarecursive sets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

G. Kreisel  and
Gerald E. Sacks
G. Kreisel
Affiliation:
University of Paris Cornell University
Gerald E. Sacks
Affiliation:
University of Paris Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Our ultimate purpose is to give an axiomatic treatment of recursion theory sufficient to develop the priority method. The direct or abstract approach is to keep in mind as clearly as possible the methods actually used in recursion theory, and then to formulate them explicitly. The indirect or experimental approach is to look first for other mathematical theories which seem similar to recursion theory, to formulate the analogies precisely, and then to search for an axiomatic treatment which covers not only recursion theory but also the analogous theories as particular cases.

The first approach is more general because it does not depend on the existence of (familiar) analogues. A concrete mathematical theory, it seems, need have no such analogues and still be important, as e.g. classical number theory. In such a case, an axiomatic treatment may still be useful for exhibiting the mathematical structure of the theory considered and the assumptions on which it rests. However, it will lack one of the most heavily advertised advantages of the axiomatic method, namely, the “economy of thought” which results from an uniform theory for several different and interesting cases: we cannot hope for this if, by hypothesis, we know of only one particular case. In contrast, the second approach, if successful at all, is bound to achieve such “economy” because we start out with several interesting particular cases. Another possible virtue of the second approach is that of field work over insight: the abstract pattern that we are looking for and hoping to formalize in axioms, may not be evident in any one mathematical theory, but may spring to the eye if one happens to look simultaneously at several theories which happen to realize the pattern.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , September 1965 , pp. 318 - 338
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1965

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

REFERENCES

[1]Dekker, J. C. E., A theorem on hypersimple sets, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 5 (1954), 791–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Friedberg, R. M., Two recursively enumerable sets of incomparable degrees of unsolvoability, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, U.S.A., 43 (1957), 236–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Friedberg, R. M., Three theorems on recursive enumeration, this Journal, 23 (1958), 309–316.Google Scholar
[4]Gandy, R. O., Proof of Mostowski's conjecture, Bulletin de l'Académie Polonaise des Sciences, 8 (1960, 571–574.Google Scholar
[5]Gödel, K., Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I, Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38 (1931), 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Kleene, S. C., Introduction to Metamathematics, New York, Toronto, Amsterdam and Groningen, 1952.Google Scholar
[7]Kleene, S. C., On the forms of the predicates in the theory of constructive ordinals (second paper), American Journal of Mathematics, 77 (1955), 405–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Kreisel, G., Set theoretic problems suggested by the notion of potential totality, Infinitistic Methods, Warsaw 1961, 103–140.Google Scholar
[9]Kreisel, G., Model theoretic invariants: applications to recursive and hyperarithmetic operations, Theory of Models Symposium, Berkeley, forthcoming.Google Scholar
[10]Kripke, S., Transfinite recursions on admissible ordinals, in preparation.Google Scholar
[11]Kripke, S., Admissible ordinals and the analytic hierarchy, in preparation.Google Scholar
[12]Mostowski, A., Sentences Undecidable in Formalized Arithmetic, Amsterdam, 1952.Google Scholar
[13]Mostowski, A., Representability of sets in formal systems, Recursive Function Theory, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, 5 (1962), 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Post, E. L., Recursively enumerable sets of positive integers and their decision problems, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 50 (1944), 284–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Sacks, G. E., On the degrees less than O, Annals of Mathematics, 77 (1963), 211–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[16]Sacks, G. E., The recursively enumerable degrees are dense, Annals of Mathematics, 80 (1964), 300–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Sacks, G. E., Admissible ordinals, Post's problem and regularity, in preparation.Google Scholar
[18]Spector, C., Recursive well-orderings, this Journal, 20 (1955), 151–163.Google Scholar
[19]Smullyan, R. M., Theory of Formal Systems, Princeton, 1961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Yates, C. E. M., Three theorems on the degrees of recursively enumerable sets, Duke Mathematical Journal, to appear.Google Scholar