We study and compare two combinatorial lowness notions: strong jump-traceability and well-approximability of the jump, by strengthening the notion of jump-traceability and super-lowness for sets of natural numbers. A computable non-decreasing unbounded function h is called an order function. Informally, a set A is strongly jump-traceable if for each order function h, for each input e one may effectively enumerate a set Te of possible values for the jump JA, and the number of values enumerated is at most h. A′ (...) is well-approximable if can be effectively approximated with less than h changes at input x, for each order function h. We prove that there is a strongly jump-traceable set which is not computable, and that if A′ is well-approximable then A is strongly jump-traceable. For r.e. sets, the converse holds as well. We characterize jump-traceability and strong jump-traceability in terms of Kolmogorov complexity. We also investigate other properties of these lowness properties. (shrink)

In this paper we show that there is no minimal bound for jump traceability. In particular, there is no single order function such that strong jump traceability is equivalent to jump traceability for that order. The uniformity of the proof method allows us to adapt the technique to showing that the index set of the c.e. strongly jump traceables is image-complete.

We show that the class of strongly jump-traceable c.e. sets can be characterised as those which have sufficiently slow enumerations so they obey a class of well-behaved cost functions, called benign. This characterisation implies the containment of the class of strongly jump-traceable c.e. Turing degrees in a number of lowness classes, in particular the classes of the degrees which lie below incomplete random degrees, indeed all LR-hard random degrees, and all ω-c.e. random degrees. The last result implies recent results of (...) Diamondstone's and Ng's regarding cupping with superlow c.e. degrees and thus gives a use of algorithmic randomness in the study of the c.e. Turing degrees. (shrink)

The biinterpretability conjecture for the r.e. degrees asks whether, for each sufficiently large k, the [Formula: see text] relations on the r.e. degrees are uniformly definable from parameters. We solve a weaker version: for each k ≥ 7, the [Formula: see text] relations bounded from below by a nonzero degree are uniformly definable. As applications, we show that Low 1 is parameter definable, and we provide methods that lead to a new example of a ∅-definable ideal. Moreover, we prove that (...) automorphisms restricted to intervals [d, 1], d ≠ 0, are [Formula: see text]. We also show that, for each c ≠ 0, can be interpreted in [0, c] without parameters. (shrink)

We show that there is a low T-upper bound for the class of K-trivial sets, namely those which are weak from the point of view of algorithmic randomness. This result is a special case of a more general characterization of ideals in $\Delta _2^0 $ T-degrees for which there is a low T-upper bound.

Let [NB]₁ denote the ideal generated by nonbounding c.e. degrees and NCup the ideal of noncuppable c.e. degrees. We show that both [NB]₁ ∪ NCup and the ideal generated by nonbounding and noncuppable degrees are new, in the sense that they are different from M, [NB]₁ and NCup—the only three known definable ideals so far.

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)