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)

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)

A classical theorem in computability is that every promptly simple set can be cupped in the Turing degrees to some complete set by a low c.e. set. A related question due to A. Nies is whether every promptly simple set can be cupped by a superlow c.e. set, i. e. one whose Turing jump is truth-table reducible to the halting problem θ'. A negative answer to this question is provided by giving an explicit construction of a promptly simple set that (...) is not superlow cuppable. This problem relates to effective randomness and various lowness notions. (shrink)