Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1512.09057

Density-1-bounding and quasiminimality in the generic degrees

Peter Cholak·Gregory Igusa
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We consider the question "Is every nonzero generic degree a density-1-bounding generic degree?" By previous results \cite{I2} either resolution of this question would answer an open question concerning the structure of the generic degrees: A positive result would prove that there are no minimal generic degrees, and a negative result would prove that there exist minimal pairs in the generic degrees. We consider several techniques for showing that the answer might be positive, and use those techniques to prove that a wide class of assumptions is sufficient to prove density-1-bounding. We also consider a historic difficulty in constructing a potential counterexample: By previous results \cite{I1} any generic degree that is not density-1-bounding must be quasiminimal, so in particular, any construction of a non-density-1-bounding generic degree must use a method that is able to construct a quasiminimal generic degree. However, all previously known examples of quasiminimal sets are also density-1, and so trivially density-1-bounding. We provide several examples of non-density-1 sets that are quasiminimal. Using cofinite and mod-finite reducibility, we extend our results to the uniform coarse degrees, and to the nonuniform generic degrees. We define all of the above terms, and we provide independent motivation for the study of each of them. Combined with a concurrently written paper of Hirschfeldt, Jockusch, Kuyper, and Schupp \cite{HJKS}, this paper provides a characterization of the level of randomness required to ensure quasiminimality in the uniform and nonuniform coarse and generic degrees.

Explore related subjects

math.LO

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Peter Cholak, Gregory Igusa. 2016-07-20. Density-1-bounding and quasiminimality in the generic degrees. https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.09057

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

There is no maximal $K$-degree

The Kolmogorov complexity of a string characterize how complex it is to describe the string. If every prefix of a real $x$ is more complex to describe than every prefix (of the same length) of real $y$, then it is seen as $x$ is more complex to describe than $y$. It is wondered if there is a real $x$ so that no other reals are strictly more complex (to describe) than $x$. The behavior of Kolmogorov complexity functions generated by reals (namely $n\mapsto$ the minimal description length of the real) is quite chaos. Therefore, it is widely believed that there are many reals that are maximally complex to describe. For instance, it is conjectured that all random enough reals have maximal $K$-degree. In this paper, it is shown that there is no real with maximal $K$-degree. Actually, for almost all real $x$, we can uniformly computably find another real whose $K$-degree is strictly above $x$.

math.LO↗
arXiv2026

Quadruples and cubes

We prove, in $\mathsf{ZFC}$, that the $\lambda$-terraced cube relation fails whenever $\lambda$ is an uncountable cardinal. The corresponding terraced relation for quadruples fails for every $\lambda$. If $\lambda$ is $\aleph_0$ then the pretinent terraced relation has consistency strength of at least one Woodin cardinal. We prove positive polarized relations at a successor and a double successor from wondrous ideals. We show, however, that there are no such ideals over two consecutive cardinals simultaneously.

math.LO↗
arXiv2026

Possibilistic Logic over a Logic of Formal Inconsistency

In this article, we have introduced a new possibilistic logic on a logic of formal inconsistency with the aim of developing a possibility theoretic framework to deal with uncertainty and inconsistency meaningfully without leading to a system collapse. We have discussed the syntax and semantics for this logic and have proved the soundness and completeness theorems. A set of new measures of consistency, contradictoriness, and triviality of a set of formulas have been defined. These have then been put to use in an example to show that this framework can provide better means of machine reasoning.

math.LO↗