7
$\begingroup$

A tree $A\subseteq \omega^{<\omega}$ - possibly with dead ends - is pointed iff every path $p\in[A]$ has $p\ge_TA$. This lifts to two distinct notions of pointedness for closed sets in Baire space:

  • A closed $S\subseteq \omega^\omega$ is pointable if there is some pointed $A$ with $S=[A]$.

  • A closed $S\subseteq \omega^\omega$ is pre-pointable if for each $p\in S$ there is some tree $A_p\subseteq\omega^{<\omega}$ with $p\ge_TA_p$ and $[A_p]=S$.

These definitions also make sense for closed sets in Cantor space.

Now it's not hard to whip up a closed set in Baire space which is pre-pointable but not pointable ; however, the only argument I have at the moment breaks down for Cantor space. (Specifically, the set in Baire space we get has two elements, but in Cantor space compactness implies that pointed = pre-pointed for finite sets.) So my question is:

Is there a closed set in Cantor space which is pre-pointable but not pointable?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ What does $\leq_T$ mean? $\endgroup$ Jul 13, 2019 at 16:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JamesHanson Turing reducibility. $\endgroup$ Jul 13, 2019 at 16:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ah, I thought the subscript $T$ was the tree $T$. $\endgroup$ Jul 13, 2019 at 18:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JamesHanson That is a bit annoying - I've changed the notation now. $\endgroup$ Jul 13, 2019 at 22:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BjørnKjos-Hanssen No real motivation (as per usual, honestly) - I was just idly thinking about mass problems. A set of points determines two mass problems: the problem of finding an element of the set and the problem of finding a code (in whatever appropriate sense) for the set as a whole. Pre-pointability is then just saying that one problem reduces to the other, which is a neat structural property, and showing that it was nontrivial was a fun exercise (it's a sort of "toy tagged tree" forcing; nothing actually complicated, but a forcing condition is a finite tree with some ordinalish tags). $\endgroup$ Jul 21, 2019 at 4:07

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Let $\mu$ be a measure on $2^\omega$ which doesn't have a least Turing degree.

This exists by Theorem 4.2 of

Day, Adam R.; Miller, Joseph S., Randomness for non-computable measures, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 365, No. 7, 3575-3591 (2013). ZBL1307.03026.. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 365:3575–3591, 2013.

Let $S$ be the class of infinite sequences of reals $X_i$ that are Martin-Lof random with respect to the infinite product measure of $\mu$, $$\mu\times\mu\times\dots$$ with a fixed randomness deficiency constant $c$.

This $S$ is pre-pointable because by the Law of Large Numbers each element of $S$ can compute a representation of $\mu$.

If $S$ is pointable, it implies something close to saying that $\mu$ has a least Turing degree after all: there is a representation of $\mu$ that all the randoms compute.

Then we may use a de Leeuw, Moore, Shannon, Shapiro / Sacks Theorem:

Computability by Probabilistic Machines K. de Leeuw, E. F. Moore, C. E. Shannon & N. Shapiro Journal of Symbolic Logic 35 (3):481-482 (1970)

for $\mu$ to the effect that if a real $A$ [in particular $A$ could be a representation of $\mu$ or $S$] is computed by all sequences of mutually $\mu$-randoms, then $A$ is computed by all representations of $\mu$. This would be a generalization of a result for Bernoulli measures (which is are already infinite product measures) from

Kjos-Hanssen, Bjørn, Permutations of the integers induce only the trivial automorphism of the Turing degrees, ZBL06916706.

We also want a lemma to the effect that computing a representation of $\mu$ is equivalent to computing a representation of $S$. Computing a representation of $S$ from a representation of $\mu$ is I guess the familiar direction, similar to the case of Bernoulli measures. Computing a representation of $\mu$ from a representation of $S$ runs into the problem that some strings are dead ends and may mislead us. However we may again use a certain effectivity in the LLN to (nonuniformly) bound the rate of convergence and hopefully overcome this.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.