8
$\begingroup$

Let $A\subseteq\mathbb{N}$ be the set of Gödel codes of theorems of Peano arithmetic, and $B\subseteq\mathbb{N}$ be the set of codes of antitheorems (i.e, refutable statements, statements whose negation is a theorem). It is a standard fact (see, e.g., Cooper, Computability Theory (1994), exercise 9.2.13) that $A$ and $B$ are computably inseparable: any $D\subseteq\mathbb{N}$ such that $A\subseteq D$ and $B\cap D=\varnothing$ (“separating $A$ and $B$”) is of Turing degree $>\mathbf{0}$. Clearly, we can find such a $D$ having degree $\mathbf{0'}$, since $A$ itself (or, if we prefer, the complement of $B$) is such.

Main question: Does there exist $D$ separating $A$ and $B$ having degree $<\mathbf{0'}$?

Bonus questions: What can be said about the set of possible degrees of $D$ separating $A$ and $B$? Does it have a lower bound? Also, if we take $D$ at random w.r.t. the obvious probability measure (take $A$ and add teach element of the complement of $B$ with probability $\frac{1}{2}$ independently), what is the probability that $D$ has degree $\not\geq\mathbf{0'}$?

$\endgroup$
1

2 Answers 2

13
$\begingroup$

The class of sets (or rather, degrees of sets) $D$ separating $A$ and $B$ is a well-studied class in computability theory called `PA degrees'. Indeed there PA degrees that are low (hence below $0'$), other that are hyperimmune-free (hence incomparable with $0'$), etc.

For the bonus part: it is known that for every PA degree $\mathbf{a}$ there is another PA-degree $\mathbf{b}$ stricly below $\mathbf{a}$ (via an easy adaptation of the argument given by Carl Mummert on this other forum). As to the last question: if you build a separator $D$ probabilistically as proposed, then with probability $1$ you'll have $D \geq 0'$. Indeed, suppose you have built a $D$ in such a manner. You want to know if some program $p$ halts. You can computably find countably many distinct arithmetical statements that express that $p$ halts. If $p$ really does halt, the corresponding bits of $D$ will all be equal to $1$. If $p$ does not halt, then the corresponding bits of $D$ will either all be $0$ (if PA proves that $p$ does not halt) or will be $0-1$ with probability $1/2-1/2$ (if PA cannot decide the halting status of $p$). It thus suffices to sample enough bits of $D$ and if you see a single $0$, you know that $p$ does not halt. Otherwise, you know that with high probability that $p$ does. And you can make the probability of success as high as you want, even across all programs. Thus $D$ computes $0'$ with probability $1$.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Is it clear that any separator of $A$ and $B$, which does not even need to be closed under logical equivalence, actually computes a completion of PA? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 15, 2023 at 14:38
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilJeřábek Yes, because you can still use it as a consistency checker for greedily building a completion of PA (since PA is $\Sigma_1$-complete). $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 15, 2023 at 18:30
  • $\begingroup$ @NoahSchweber I tried to greedily build a completion before posting the comment as it is the obvious strategy, and failed. Can you provide the details of such a consistency checker? The separator will accept all true $\Sigma_1$ facts, but it will also accept some false $\Sigma_1$ facts, which ruins the consistency of the completion procedure (or the one I tried, anyway). $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 15, 2023 at 18:34
  • $\begingroup$ I mean, if at each step of the completion procedure, I add the sentence $\phi_n$ or its negation according to whether the conjuction of the sentences so far together with $\phi_n$ satisfies $D$, then the completion procedure may fail to be consistent. If I only add $\phi_n$ or nothing according to whether the conjunction satisfies $D$, then it will be consistent indeed, but it may fail to be complete. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 15, 2023 at 18:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @EmilJeřábek You also use Rosser's trick. E.g. in the first step of the construction, we want to decide whether to put $\varphi$ or $\neg\varphi$ into our completion. We ask whether the sentence $\xi\equiv$ "The shortest proof of a contradiction in $\mathsf{PA}+\neg\varphi$ is shorter than the shortest proof of a contradiction in $\mathsf{PA}+\varphi$" is in $E$ (with the convention that if no such proof of contradiction exists, the associated "length" is $\infty$, and we have $\infty<\infty$). $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 15, 2023 at 18:54
9
$\begingroup$

It is a standard consequence of the low basis theorem that $A$ and $B$ (or indeed, any disjoint pair of r.e. sets) have a separating set $D$ that is low, and therefore of Turing degree strictly below $0'$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To provide a little more detail for Gro-Tsen: one can form a computable tree of attempts to find a separation of two disjoint c.e. sets (some parts of the tree die off when you find you had made a wrong guess lower down), but every computable tree has a low branch by the low basis theorem, and this branch provides a separating set. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 15, 2023 at 12:12
  • $\begingroup$ Can you (or perhaps @JoelDavidHamkins) recommend a reference where I might learn more about the low basis theorem and especially its uses? For example one where this particular consequence is stated explicitly. $\endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    Commented Sep 15, 2023 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ Oh never mind, I just found this in Cooper's Computability Theory: theorem 15.4.3 and corollary 15.4.5. $\endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    Commented Sep 15, 2023 at 14:27
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You could also look at §3.7 of Soare's 2016 book Turing Computability; the low basis theorem is theorem 3.7.2. A nice survey is also given by Diamondstone, Dzhafarov and Soare, '$\Pi^0_1$ classes, Peano arithmetic, randomness, and computable domination' (NDJFL 51(1):127–159, 2010). $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 15, 2023 at 15:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .