We study computably enumerable equivalence relations (ceers), under the reducibility $R \le S$ if there exists a computable function f such that $x\,R\,y$ if and only if $f\left( x \right)\,\,S\,f\left( y \right)$ , for every $x,y$ . We show that the degrees of ceers under the equivalence relation generated by $\le$ form a bounded poset that is neither a lower semilattice, nor an upper semilattice, and its first-order theory is undecidable. We then study the universal ceers. We show that 1) the uniformly effectively inseparable ceers are universal, but there are effectively inseparable ceers that are not universal; 2) a ceer R is universal if and only if $R\prime \le R$ , where $R\prime$ denotes the halting jump operator introduced by Gao and Gerdes (answering an open question of Gao and Gerdes); and 3) both the index set of the universal ceers and the index set of the uniformly effectively inseparable ceers are ${\rm{\Sigma }}_3^0$ -complete (the former answering an open question of Gao and Gerdes).

We define and study quasidialectical systems, which are an extension of Magari’s dialectical systems, designed to make Magari’s formalization of trial and error mathematics more adherent to the real mathematical practice of revision: our proposed extension follows, and in several regards makes more precise, varieties of empiricist positions à la Lakatos. We prove several properties of quasidialectical systems and of the sets that they represent, called quasidialectical sets. In particular, we prove that the quasidialectical sets are ${\rm{\Delta }}_2^0$ sets in the arithmetical hierarchy. We distinguish between “loopless” quasidialectal systems, and quasidialectical systems “with loops”. The latter ones represent exactly those coinfinite c.e. sets, that are not simple. In a subsequent paper we will show that whereas the dialectical sets are ω-c.e., the quasidialectical sets spread out throughout all classes of the Ershov hierarchy of the ${\rm{\Delta }}_2^0$ sets.

No abstract

Computable reducibility is a well-established notion that allows to compare the complexity of various equivalence relations over the natural numbers. We generalize computable reducibility by introducing degree spectra of reducibility and bi-reducibility. These spectra provide a natural way of measuring the complexity of reductions between equivalence relations. We prove that any upward closed collection of Turing degrees with a countable basis can be realised as a reducibility spectrum or as a bi-reducibility spectrum. We show also that there is a reducibility spectrum of computably enumerable equivalence relations with no countable basis and a reducibility spectrum of computably enumerable equivalence relations which is downward dense, thus has no basis.

This paper is a continuation of Amidei, Pianigiani, San Mauro, Simi, & Sorbi (2016), where we have introduced the quasidialectical systems, which are abstract deductive systems designed to provide, in line with Lakatos’ views, a formalization of trial and error mathematics more adherent to the real mathematical practice of revision than Magari’s original dialectical systems. In this paper we prove that the two models of deductive systems (dialectical systems and quasidialectical systems) have in some sense the same information content, in that they represent two classes of sets (the dialectical sets and the quasidialectical sets, respectively), which have the same Turing degrees (namely, the computably enumerable Turing degrees), and the same enumeration degrees (namely, the ${\rm{\Pi }}_1^0$ enumeration degrees). Nonetheless, dialectical sets and quasidialectical sets do not coincide. Even restricting our attention to the so-called loopless quasidialectical sets, we show that the quasidialectical sets properly extend the dialectical sets. As both classes consist of ${\rm{\Delta }}_2^0$ sets, the extent to which the two classes differ is conveniently measured using the Ershov hierarchy: indeed, the dialectical sets are ω-computably enumerable (close inspection also shows that there are dialectical sets which do not lie in any finite level; and in every finite level n ≥ 2 of the Ershov hierarchy there is a dialectical set which does not lie in the previous level); on the other hand, the quasidialectical sets spread out throughout all classes of the hierarchy (close inspection shows that for every ordinal notation a of a nonzero computable ordinal, there is a quasidialectical set lying in ${\rm{\Sigma }}_a^{ - 1}$, but in none of the preceding levels).