As a natural example of a 1-random real, Chaitin proposed the halting probability Ω of a universal prefix-free machine. We can relativize this example by considering a universal prefix-free oracle machine U. Let [Formula: see text] be the halting probability of UA; this gives a natural uniform way of producing an A-random real for every A ∈ 2ω. It is this operator which is our primary object of study. We can draw an analogy between the jump operator from computability theory (...) and this Omega operator. But unlike the jump, which is invariant under the choice of an effective enumeration of the partial computable functions, [Formula: see text] can be vastly different for different choices of U. Even for a fixed U, there are oracles A =* B such that [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] are 1-random relative to each other. We prove this and many other interesting properties of Omega operators. We investigate these operators from the perspective of analysis, computability theory, and of course, algorithmic randomness. (shrink)

We report on some recent work centered on attempts to understand when one set is more random than another. We look at various methods of calibration by initial segment complexity, such as those introduced by Solovay [125], Downey, Hirschfeldt, and Nies [39], Downey, Hirschfeldt, and LaForte [36], and Downey [31]; as well as other methods such as lowness notions of Kučera and Terwijn [71], Terwijn and Zambella [133], Nies [101, 100], and Downey, Griffiths, and Reid [34]; higher level randomness notions (...) going back to the work of Kurtz [73], Kautz [61], and Solovay [125]; and other calibrations of randomness based on definitions along the lines of Schnorr [117].These notions have complex interrelationships, and connections to classical notions from computability theory such as relative computability and enumerability. Computability figures in obvious ways in definitions of effective randomness, but there are also applications of notions related to randomness in computability theory. For instance, an exciting by-product of the program we describe is a more-or-less naturalrequirement-freesolution to Post's Problem, much along the lines of the Dekker deficiency set. (shrink)

We adjust the notion of typicality originated with Russell, which was introduced and studied in a previous paper for general first-order structures, to make it expressible in the language of set theory. The adopted definition of the class ${\rm NT}$ of nontypical sets comes out as a natural strengthening of Russell's initial definition, which employs properties of small (minority) extensions, when the latter are restricted to the various levels $V_\zeta$ of $V$. This strengthening leads to defining ${\rm NT}$ as the (...) class of sets that belong to some countable ordinal definable set. It follows that ${\rm OD}\subseteq {\rm NT}$ and hence ${\rm HOD}\subseteq {\rm HNT}$. It is proved that the class ${\rm HNT}$ of hereditarily nontypical sets is an inner model of ${\rm ZF}$. Moreover the (relative) consistency of $V\neq {\rm NT}$ is established, by showing that in many forcing extensions $M[G]$ the generic set $G$ is a typical element of $M[G]$, a fact which is fully in accord with the intuitive meaning of typicality. In particular it is consistent that there exist continuum many typical reals. In addition it follows from a result of Kanovei and Lyubetsky that ${\rm HOD}\neq {\rm HNT}$ is also relatively consistent. In particular it is consistent that ${\cal P}(\omega)\cap {\rm OD}\subsetneq{\cal P}(\omega)\cap {\rm NT}$. However many questions remain open, among them the consistency of ${\rm HOD}\neq {\rm HNT}\neq V$, ${\rm HOD}={\rm HNT}\neq V$ and ${\rm HOD}\neq {\rm HNT}= V$. (shrink)

Festschrift for Michiel van Lambalgen on the occasion of his retirement as professor of logic and cognitive science at the University of Amsterdam.

We give two new characterizations of K-triviality. We show that if for all Y such that Ω is Y-random, Ω is -random, then A is K-trivial. The other direction was proved by Stephan and Yu, giving us the first titular characterization of K-triviality and answering a question of Yu. We also prove that if A is K-trivial, then for all Y such that Ω is Y-random, ≡LRY. This answers a question of Merkle and Yu. The other direction is immediate, so (...) we have the second characterization of K-triviality.The proof of the first characterization uses a new cupping result. We prove that if A≰LRB, then for every set X there is a B-random set Y such that X is computable from Y⊕A. (shrink)

Ramsey’s theorem states that for any coloring of then-element subsets of ℕ with finitely many colors, there is an infinite setHsuch that alln-element subsets ofHhave the same color. The strength of consequences of Ramsey’s theorem has been extensively studied in reverse mathematics and under various reducibilities, namely, computable reducibility and uniform reducibility. Our understanding of the combinatorics of Ramsey’s theorem and its consequences has been greatly improved over the past decades. In this paper, we state some questions which naturally arose (...) during this study. The inability to answer those questions reveals some gaps in our understanding of the combinatorics of Ramsey’s theorem. (shrink)

An early, very preliminary edition of this book was circulated in 1962 under the title Set-theoretical Structures in Science. There are many reasons for maintaining that such structures play a role in the philosophy of science. Perhaps the best is that they provide the right setting for investigating problems of representation and invariance in any systematic part of science, past or present. Examples are easy to cite. Sophisticated analysis of the nature of representation in perception is to be found already (...) in Plato and Aristotle. One of the great intellectual triumphs of the nineteenth century was the mechanical explanation of such familiar concepts as temperature and pressure by their representation in terms of the motion of particles. A more disturbing change of viewpoint was the realization at the beginning of the twentieth century that the separate invariant properties of space and time must be replaced by the space-time invariants of Einstein's special relativity. Another example, the focus of the longest chapter in this book, is controversy extending over several centuries on the proper representation of probability. The six major positions on this question are critically examined. Topics covered in other chapters include an unusually detailed treatment of theoretical and experimental work on visual space, the two senses of invariance represented by weak and strong reversibility of causal processes, and the representation of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. The final chapter concentrates on different kinds of representations of language, concluding with some empirical results on brain-wave representations of words and sentences. (shrink)

We call A weakly low for K if there is a c such that $K^A(\sigma)\geq K(\sigma)-c$ for infinitely many σ; in other words, there are infinitely many strings that A does not help compress. We prove that A is weakly low for K if and only if Chaitin's Ω is A-random. This has consequences in the K-degrees and the low for K (i.e., low for random) degrees. Furthermore, we prove that the initial segment prefix-free complexity of 2-random reals is infinitely (...) often maximal. This had previously been proved for plain Kolmogorov complexity. (shrink)

It is time for a new paper about open questions in the currently very active area of randomness and computability. Ambos-Spies and Kučera presented such a paper in 1999 [1]. All the question in it have been solved, except for one: is KL-randomness different from Martin-Löf randomness? This question is discussed in Section 6.Not all the questions are necessarily hard—some simply have not been tried seriously. When we think a question is a major one, and therefore likely to be hard, (...) we indicate this by the symbol ▶, the criterion being that it is of considerable interest and has been tried by a number of researchers. Some questions are close contenders here; these are marked by ▷. With few exceptions, the questions are precise. They mostly have a yes/no answer. However, there are often more general questions of an intuitive or even philosophical nature behind. We give an outline, indicating the more general questions.All sets will be sets of natural numbers, unless otherwise stated. These sets are identified with infinite strings over {0, 1}. Other terms used in the literature are sequence and real. (shrink)

We show that van Lambalgen's Theorem fails with respect to recursive randomness and Schnorr randomness for some real in every high degree and provide a full characterization of the Turing degrees for which van Lambalgen's Theorem can fail with respect to Kurtz randomness. However, we also show that there is a recursively random real that is not Martin-Löf random for which van Lambalgen's Theorem holds with respect to recursive randomness.

In the first part of this paper we introduced products of modal logics and proved basic results on their axiomatisability and the f.m.p. In this continuation paper we prove a stronger result - the product f.m.p. holds for products of modal logics in which some of the modalities are reflexive or serial. This theorem is applied in classical first-order logic, we identify a new Square Fragment of the classical logic, where the basic predicates are binary and all quantifiers are relativised, (...) and for which we show the f.m.p. in the classical sense. Also we prove that SF not included in Guarded Fragment and that it can be embedded into the equational theory of relational algebras. (shrink)

We introduce agreement reducibility and highlight its major features. Given subsets A and B of, we write if there is a total computable function satisfying for all,.We shall discuss the central role plays in this reducibility and its connection to strong‐hyper‐hyper‐immunity. We shall also compare agreement reducibility to other well‐known reducibilities, in particular s1‐ and s‐reducibility. We came upon this reducibility while studying the computable reducibility of a class of equivalence relations on based on set‐agreement. We end by describing the (...) origin of agreement reducibility and presenting some results in that context. (shrink)

Van Lambalgen (1990) proposed a translation from a language containing a generalized quantifierQ into a first-order language enriched with a family of predicatesR i, for every arityi (or an infinitary predicateR) which takesQxg(x, y1,..., yn) to x(R(x, y1,..., y1) (x,y1,...,yn)) (y 1,...,yn are precisely the free variables ofQx). The logic ofQ (without ordinary quantifiers) corresponds therefore to the fragment of first-order logic which contains only specially restricted quantification. We prove that it is decidable using the method of analytic tableaux. Related (...) results were obtained by Andréka and Németi (1994) using the methods of algebraic logic. (shrink)

We reformulate slightly Russell's notion of typicality, so as to eliminate its circularity and make it applicable to elements of any first‐order structure. We argue that the notion parallels Martin‐Löf (ML) randomness, in the sense that it uses definable sets in place of computable ones and sets of “small” cardinality (i.e., strictly smaller than that of the structure domain) in place of measure zero sets. It is shown that if the domain M satisfies, then there exist typical elements and only (...) non‐typical ones. In particular this is true for the standard model of second‐order arithmetic. By allowing parameters in the defining formulas, we are led to relative typicality, which satisfies most of van Lambalgen's axioms for relative randomness. However van Lambalgen's theorem is false for relative typicality. The class of typical reals is incomparable (with respect to ⊆) with the classes of ML‐random, Schnorr random and computably random reals. Also the class of typical reals is closed under Turing degrees and under the jump operation (both ways). (shrink)

We consider the question “Is every nonzero generic degree a density-1-bounding generic degree?” By previous results [8] 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 [7] 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 [4], this paper provides a characterization of the level of randomness required to ensure quasiminimality in the uniform and nonuniform coarse and generic degrees. (shrink)