18
$\begingroup$

It is conjectured that the automorphism group of the Turing degrees, $Aut(\mathcal{D})$, is trivial. However, to the best of my knowledge, the current state-of-the-art is that $Aut(\mathcal{D})$ is countable.

My question is twofold: first, is my understanding correct? Is there any countable group $G$ which we know can't be isomorphic to $Aut(\mathcal{D})$?

Second, and more interesting to me: what if anything could we conclude from some group-theoretic information about $Aut(\mathcal{D})$? I.e., what new computability theory would we know if we knew that $Aut(\mathcal{D})$ is abelian, or is simple, or is not finitely generated? (This is admittedly a slightly awkward question, given that we think $ZFC$ proves "$Aut(\mathcal{D})=\lbrace e\rbrace$.")

My reason for asking is that as a rule I am interested in interaction between computability theory and other subjects (for instance, the proof via Higman that there is a universal finitely presented group is dear to my heart), but I am especially interested in examples of other mathematics being applied to computability theory, and I'd be very interested in what the group-theoretic nature of $Aut(\mathcal{D})$ (assuming it's nontrivial) has to say about other parts of computability theory.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, your understanding is correct. This is proved (among many other related results) in Ted and Hugh's notes "Definability in degree structures", available at math.berkeley.edu/~slaman/talks $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 23, 2013 at 19:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The key question here is the bi-interpretability conjecture, but as far as I know there is no concrete (interesting) information on what groups are known to be excluded as candidates. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 23, 2013 at 19:05
  • $\begingroup$ I'm trying to figure out a precise sense for the loose term "the turing degrees". Do you mean the set of Turing degrees? Endowed with which structure? the partial order? $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented Mar 19, 2014 at 18:05
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "The Turing degrees" refers to the poset of the Turing degrees - this is a standard term, and its standard meaning, in computability theory. Note that trivially the join is definable, and by results of (oh dear, I'm probably missing someone) Woodin, Slaman, and Shore, the jump is definable in this partial order; so really the poset structure already captures all the 'basic' operations on the degrees. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 19, 2014 at 18:14

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

Let $p_i$ denote the $i$th prime number, and let $\oplus$ be the recursive join on $\omega$. Let $\mathcal O$ be Kleene's $\Pi^1_1$-complete set and $\mathcal O'$ its Turing jump.

For any $B$, let $G_B$ be the direct sum of $\mathbb Z/p_i\mathbb Z$ over all $i\in B\oplus\overline B$. So $G_B$ is a countably infinite abelian group.

I claim that

Aut($\mathcal D$) is not isomorphic to $G_B$ with $B=\mathcal O'$.

I'll show this by showing that Aut($\mathcal D$) has a presentation which is recursive in $\mathcal O$, hence not $\ge_T B$. This will suffice because Richter, in her famous paper,

Richter, Linda Jean, Degrees of structures, J. Symb. Log. 46, 723-731 (1981). ZBL0512.03024.

showed that for all $B$, $G_B$ has isomorphism type of degree $[B]_T$, i.e., all presentations of $G_B$ have degree $\ge_T B$.

Note that if Aut($\mathcal D$) is finite then it is not isomorphic to $G_B$ for any $B$, since the latter is countably infinite. So assume Aut($\mathcal D$) is infinite.

Slaman and Woodin showed that each automorphism $\pi$ of $\mathcal D$ is represented by an arithmetic function in the sense that there is an $n_0$ such that for all $\pi$ and all $X$, $\pi([X]_T)= [P(X)]_T$ where $P(X)=\{e\}({X^{(n_0)}})$.

Now we consider the necessary questions about numbers $e$ in order to present Aut($\mathcal D$). We let $E=\{e_0<e_1<e_2<\dots\}$ be the set of those $e$ for which $P_e$ given by $X\mapsto \{e\}^{X^{(n_0)}}$ is an arithmetic representation of some automorphism.

We claim that the set $E$ is $\Pi^1_1$: First, let $F$ be the $\Pi^1_1$ set of all $e$ for which \begin{equation} \forall A(P_e(A)\text{ is total}), \end{equation} \begin{equation} \forall A\forall B(A\le _T B\to P_e(A)\le_T P_e(B)),\text{ and } \end{equation} \begin{equation} \forall A\forall B(P(A)\equiv_T P(B)\to A\equiv_T B). \end{equation} Then $$E=\{e: e\in F\text{ and }(\exists d\in F) \forall A(P_d(P_e(A))\equiv_T A\text{ and }P_d(P_e(A))\equiv_T A)\}.$$

The multiplication is given by defining $*$ by $$ P_{e_1* e_2} = P_{e_1}\circ P_{e_2} $$ which is equivalent to $$\forall A\forall B\forall C(B=P_{e_2}(A)\text{ and }C=P_{e_1}(B)\to C=P_{e_1*e_2}(A))$$ We also have to mod out by equality of the automorphisms induced by $e_1$ and $e_2$, which we check by: $$\forall A (P_{e_1}(A)\equiv_T P_{e_2}(A))$$ Overall, we get a subset of $\omega$ recursive in the $\Pi^1_1$-complete set Kleene's $\mathcal O$, with an $\mathcal O$-recursive group operation. This is then isomorphic to all of $\omega$ with an $\mathcal O$-recursive group operation, as desired.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Lovely, thanks for putting this to rest! I'm still interested in the general question of whether there is more natural algebraic behavior which is ruled out, but this definitely answers the question. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 5, 2018 at 19:22

You must log in to answer this question.

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