We prove that a sequence of sets containing representatives of cupping partners for every nonzero ${\Delta^0_2}$ enumeration degree cannot have a ${\Delta^0_2}$ enumeration. We also prove that no subclass of the ${\Sigma^0_2}$ enumeration degrees containing the nonzero 3-c.e. enumeration degrees can be cupped to ${\mathbf{0}_e'}$ by a single incomplete ${\Sigma^0_2}$ enumeration degree.

In a rather general setting, we prove a number of basic theorems concerning computational complexity of derivability in adaptive logics. For that setting, the so-called standard format of adaptive logics is suitably adopted, and the corresponding completeness results are established in a very uniform way.

We study a strong enumeration reducibility, called bounded enumeration reducibility and denoted by ≤be, which is a natural extension of s-reducibility ≤s. We show that ≤s, ≤be, and enumeration reducibility do not coincide on the \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\Pi^0_1}$$\end{document} –sets, and the structure \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{D}_{\rm be}}}$$\end{document} of the be-degrees is not elementarily equivalent to the structure of the s-degrees. We show also that the first order theory (...) of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\boldsymbol{\mathcal{D}_{\rm be}}}$$\end{document} is computably isomorphic to true second order arithmetic: this answers an open question raised by Cooper (Z Math Logik Grundlag Math 33:537–560, 1987). (shrink)

We study the Medvedev degrees of mass problems with distinguished topological properties, such as denseness, closedness, or discreteness. We investigate the sublattices generated by these degrees; the prime ideal generated by the dense degrees and its complement, a prime filter; the filter generated by the nonzero closed degrees and the filter generated by the nonzero discrete degrees. We give a complete picture of the relationships of inclusion holding between these sublattices, these filters, and this ideal. We show that the sublattice (...) of the closed Medvedev degrees is not a Brouwer algebra. We investigate the dense degrees of mass problems that are closed under Turing equivalence, and we prove that the dense degrees form an automorphism base for the Medvedev lattice. The results hold for both the Medvedev lattice on the Baire space and the Medvedev lattice on the Cantor space. (shrink)

Artificial intelligence (AI) research enjoyed an initial period of enthusiasm in the 1970s and 80s. But this enthusiasm was tempered by a long interlude of frustration when genuinely useful AI applications failed to be forthcoming. Today, we are experiencing once again a period of enthusiasm, fired above all by the successes of the technology of deep neural networks or deep machine learning. In this paper we draw attention to what we take to be serious problems underlying current views of artificial (...) intelligence encouraged by these successes, especially in the domain of language processing. We then show an alternative approach to language-centric AI, in which we identify a role for philosophy. (shrink)

I develop a theory of counterfactuals about relative computability, i.e. counterfactuals such as 'If the validity problem were algorithmically decidable, then the halting problem would also be algorithmically decidable,' which is true, and 'If the validity problem were algorithmically decidable, then arithmetical truth would also be algorithmically decidable,' which is false. These counterfactuals are counterpossibles, i.e. they have metaphysically impossible antecedents. They thus pose a challenge to the orthodoxy about counterfactuals, which would treat them as uniformly true. What’s more, I (...) argue that these counterpossibles don’t just appear in the periphery of relative computability theory but instead they play an ineliminable role in the development of the theory. Finally, I present and discuss a model theory for these counterfactuals that is a straightforward extension of the familiar comparative similarity models. (shrink)

We investigate and extend the notion of a good approximation with respect to the enumeration ${({\mathcal D}_{\rm e})}$ and singleton ${({\mathcal D}_{\rm s})}$ degrees. We refine two results by Griffith, on the inversion of the jump of sets with a good approximation, and we consider the relation between the double jump and index sets, in the context of enumeration reducibility. We study partial order embeddings ${\iota_s}$ and ${\hat{\iota}_s}$ of, respectively, ${{\mathcal D}_{\rm e}}$ and ${{\mathcal D}_{\rm T}}$ (the Turing degrees) into (...) ${{\mathcal D}_{\rm s}}$ , and we show that the image of ${{\mathcal D}_{\rm T}}$ under ${\hat{\iota}_s}$ is precisely the class of retraceable singleton degrees. We define the notion of a good enumeration, or singleton, degree to be the property of containing the set of good stages of some good approximation, and we show that ${\iota_s}$ preserves the latter, as also other naturally arising properties such as that of totality or of being ${\Gamma^0_n}$ , for ${\Gamma \in \{\Sigma,\Pi,\Delta\}}$ and n > 0. We prove that the good enumeration and singleton degrees are immune and that the good ${\Sigma^0_2}$ singleton degrees are hyperimmune. Finally we show that, for singleton degrees a s < b s such that b s is good, any countable partial order can be embedded in the interval (a s, b s). (shrink)

This paper continues the investigation into the relationship between good approximations and jump inversion initiated by Griffith. Firstly it is shown that there is a \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\Pi^{0}_{2}}$$\end{document} set A whose enumeration degree a is bad—i.e. such that no set \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${X \in a}$$\end{document} is good approximable—and whose complement \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\overline{A}}$$\end{document} has lowest possible jump, in other words (...) is low2. This also ensures that the degrees y ≤ a only contain \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\Delta^{0}_{3}}$$\end{document} sets and thus yields a tight lower bound for the complexity of both a set of bad enumeration degree, and of its complement, in terms of the high/low jump hierarchy. Extending the author’s previous characterisation of the double jump of good approximable sets, the triple jump of a \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\Sigma^{0}_{2}}$$\end{document} set A is characterised in terms of the index set of coinfinite sets enumeration reducible to A. The paper concludes by using Griffith’s jump interpolation technique to show that there exists a high quasiminimal \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\Delta^{0}_{2}}$$\end{document} enumeration degree. (shrink)

The Major Sub-degree Problem of A. H. Lachlan (first posed in 1967) has become a long-standing open question concerning the structure of the computably enumerable (c.e.) degrees. Its solution has important implications for Turing definability and for the ongoing programme of fully characterising the theory of the c.e. Turing degrees. A c.e. degree a is a major subdegree of a c.e. degree b > a if for any c.e. degree x, ${{\bf 0' = b \lor x}}$ if and only if (...) ${{\bf 0' = a \lor x}}$ . In this paper, we show that every c.e. degree b ≠ 0 or 0′ has a major sub-degree, answering Lachlan’s question affirmatively. (shrink)

We use certain strong Q-reducibilities, and their corresponding strong positive reducibilities, to characterize the hyperimmune sets and the hyperhyperimmune sets: if A is any infinite set then A is hyperimmune (respectively, hyperhyperimmune) if and only if for every infinite subset B of A, one has \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\overline{K}\not\le_{\rm ss} B}$$\end{document} (respectively, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\overline{K}\not\le_{\overline{\rm s}} B}$$\end{document}): here \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\le_{\overline{\rm (...) s}}}$$\end{document} is the finite-branch version of s-reducibility, ≤ss is the computably bounded version of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\le_{\overline{\rm s}}}$$\end{document}, and \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\overline{K}}$$\end{document} is the complement of the halting set. Restriction to \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\Sigma^0_2}$$\end{document} sets provides a similar characterization of the \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\Sigma^0_2}$$\end{document} hyperhyperimmune sets in terms of s-reducibility. We also show that no \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${A \geq_{\overline{\rm s}}\overline{K}}$$\end{document} is hyperhyperimmune. As a consequence, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\deg_{\rm s}(\overline{K})}$$\end{document} is hyperhyperimmune-free, showing that the hyperhyperimmune s-degrees are not upwards closed. (shrink)

Very large databases are a major opportunity for science and data analytics is a remarkable new field of investigation in computer science. The effectiveness of these tools is used to support a “philosophy” against the scientific method as developed throughout history. According to this view, computer-discovered correlations should replace understanding and guide prediction and action. Consequently, there will be no need to give scientific meaning to phenomena, by proposing, say, causal relations, since regularities in very large databases are enough: “with (...) enough data, the numbers speak for themselves”. The “end of science” is proclaimed. Using classical results from ergodic theory, Ramsey theory and algorithmic information theory, we show that this “philosophy” is wrong. For example, we prove that very large databases have to contain arbitrary correlations. These correlations appear only due to the size, not the nature, of data. They can be found in “randomly” generated, large enough databases, which—as we will prove—implies that most correlations are spurious. Too much information tends to behave like very little information. The scientific method can be enriched by computer mining in immense databases, but not replaced by it. (shrink)

We show that every nonzero Δ20\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\Delta^{0}_{2}}$$\end{document} enumeration degree bounds the enumeration degree of a 1-generic set. We also point out that the enumeration degrees of 1-generic sets, below the first jump, are not downwards closed, thus answering a question of Cooper.

We give an alternative and more informative proof that every incomplete ${\Sigma^{0}_{2}}$ -enumeration degree is the meet of two incomparable ${\Sigma^{0}_{2}}$ -degrees, which allows us to show the stronger result that for every incomplete ${\Sigma^{0}_{2}}$ -enumeration degree a, there exist enumeration degrees x 1 and x 2 such that a, x 1, x 2 are incomparable, and for all b ≤ a, b = (b ∨ x 1 ) ∧ (b ∨ x 2 ).