There is no low maximal d. c. e. degree - Corrigendum

Marat M. Arslanov,S. Barry Cooper,Angsheng Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/malq.200410006

2004-01-01

Mathematical Logic Quarterly

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

There is No Low Maximal D. C. E. Degree – Corrigendum

M. M. Arslanov,S. Barry Cooper,Angsheng Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/malq.200410006

2004-01-01

Mathematical Logic Quarterly

Abstract:We give a corrected proof of an extension of the Robinson Splitting Theorem for the d. c. e. degrees. (© 2004 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)
There is No Low Maximal D.C.E. Degree

M Arslanov,SB Cooper,AS Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1521-3870(200008)46:3<409::aid-malq409>3.0.co;2-p

2000-01-01

Mathematical Logic Quarterly

Abstract:We show that for any computably enumerable (c. e.) set A and any Delta(2)(0) set L, if L is low and L <(T) A, then there is a c. e. splitting A(0) box with open top A(1) = A such that A(i) + L <(T) A. In particular, if L is low and n-c. e., then A(i) + L is n-c. e. and hence there is no low maximal n-c. e. degree. Mathematics Subject Classification: 03D25, 03D30, 03D35.
There Are No Maximal Low D.C.E. Degrees.

Rod Downey,Liang Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1099080209

2004-01-01

Abstract:We prove that there is no maximal low d.c.e degree. IntroductionA natural extension of the notion of a computably enumerable (c.e.) set is that of a d.c.e.set which is a set obtained as the difference of two c.e. sets A = W -V .Equivalently, a d.c.e set A is a set for which there exists a computable function f (x, s) so that A(x) = lim s f (x, s), f (x, 0) = 0, and ∀x|{s, f (x, s) = f (x, s + 1)}| ≤ 2. As well as being interesting in their own right, the d.c.e.Turing degrees can be studied both to give insight into the c.e. Turing degrees and into the 0 2 degrees.The investigation of the present paper can be viewed as contributing to all three of these goals.The uppersemilattice of the d.c.e.degrees is not elementarily equivalent to that of the c.e. degrees by Arslanov [1] and Downey [5].Perhaps the most striking difference between the d.c.e.degrees and the c.e. degrees comes from the following two theorems.Theorem 1.1 (Sacks [9]) The c.e. degrees are dense.Theorem 1.2 (Cooper, Harrington, Lachlan, Lempp, Soare [4]) The d.c.e.degrees are not dense.Indeed, there is a maximal d.c.e.degree a.That is, a < 0 ′ , and there are no d.c.e.degrees b with a < b < 0 ′ .Also notice that density properties allow us to compare the d.c.e.degrees and the 0 2 degrees.By an unpublished result of Lachlan, there are no minimal d.c.e.degrees, yet Sacks constructed a minimal 0 2 degree.Actually there is a very interesting theme here that "toward 0" the d.c.e.degrees are like the c.e.
Bounding Computably Enumerable Degrees in the Ershov Hierarchy

Angsheng Li,Guohua Wu,Yue Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apal.2005.10.004

IF: 0.776

2006-01-01

Annals of Pure and Applied Logic

Abstract:Lachlan observed that any nonzero d.c.e. degree bounds a nonzero c.e. degree. In this paper, we study the c.e. predecessors of d.c.e. degrees, and prove that given a nonzero d.c.e. degree a, there is a c.e. degree b below a and a high d.c.e. degree d > b such that b bounds all the c.e. degrees below d. This result gives a unified approach to some seemingly unrelated results. In particular, it has the following two known theorems as corollaries: (1) there is a low c.e. degree isolating a high d.c.e. degree [S. Ishmukhametov, G. Wu, Isolation and the high/low hierarchy, Arch. Math. Logic 41 (2002) 259-266]; (2) there is a high d.c.e. degree bounding no minimal pairs [C.T Chong, A. Li, Y Yang, The existence of high nonbounding degrees in the difference hierarchy, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 138 (2006) 31-51]. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
The Low Splitting Theorem in the Difference Hierarchy

Angsheng Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11494645_35

2005-01-01

Abstract:It is shown that for any 2-computably enumerable Turing degrees a, l, if l ′ = 0′, and l < a, then there are 2-computably enumerable Turing degrees x 0, x 1 such that both l ≤ x 0, x 1 < a and x 0 ∨ x 1 = a hold, extending the Robinson low splitting theorem for the computably enumerable degrees to the difference hierarchy.
A proof of a Dumortier-Roussarie's conjecture

Chengzhi Li,Changjian Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3934/dcdss.2022095

2022-01-01

Abstract:Dumortier and Roussarie proposed a conjecture in their paper (2009, Discrete Con. Dyn. Sys., 2,723-781): For any \begin{document}$ q\in {\mathbb{N}} $\end{document} , the Abelian integrals \begin{document}$ J_{2j+1}(h) = \int_{\gamma_h}x^{2j-1}\,\mathrm dy $\end{document} , \begin{document}$ j = 0, 1, 2, \cdots, q $\end{document} , form a strict Chebyshev system on intervals \begin{document}$ h\in (0, \frac{1}{2}] $\end{document} , where \begin{document}$ \gamma_h = \{(x, y)| \mathrm e^{-2y}(y+\frac{1}{2}-x^2) = h\} $\end{document} . If this conjecture holds, then they obtain the precise upper bound of the number of limit cycles that appear near a slow-fast Hopf point of any codimension. In the present paper we develop a method to estimate the number of zeros of Abelian integrals and prove this conjecture.
Splitting and Nonsplitting, II: A Low2 C.e. Degree above Which 0′ is Not Splittable

SB Cooper,AS Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2178/jsl/1190150292

2002-01-01

Abstract:It is shown that there exists a low(2) Harrington non-splitting base-that is a low(2) computably enumerable (c,e,) degree a such that for an c,e, degrees x, y, if 0' = x boolean OR y, then either 0' = x boolean OR a or 0' = y boolean OR a. Contrary to prior expectations, the standard Harrington non-splitting construction is incompatible with the low(2)-ness requirements to be satisfied. and the proof given involves new techniques with potentially wider application.
On A Conjecture of Lempp

Angsheng Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s001530050148

2000-01-01

Archive for Mathematical Logic

Abstract:In this paper, we first prove that there exist computably enumerable (c.e.) degrees a and b such that ${\bf a\not\leq b}$, and for any c.e. degree u, if ${\bf u\leq a}$ and u is cappable, then ${\bf u\leq b}$, so refuting a conjecture of Lempp (in Slaman [1996]); secondly, we prove that: (A. Li and D. Wang) there is no uniform construction to build nonzero cappable degree below a nonzero c.e. degree, that is, there is no computable function $f$ such that for all $e\in\omega,$ (i) $W_{f(e)}\leq_{\rm T}W_e$, (ii) $W_{f(e)}$ has a cappable degree, and (iii) $W_{f(e)}\not\leq_{\rm T}\emptyset$ unless $W_e\leq_{\rm T}\emptyset.$
Splitting and Cone Avoidance in the D.C.E. Degrees

S. B. Cooper,Angsheng Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1360/02ys9124

2002-01-01

Science China Mathematics

Abstract:It is shown that the Cooper splitting theorem for the n-c.e. degrees is not compatible with cone avoidance: For any n > 1, there exist n-c.e. degree a, c.e. degree b such that 0 < b < a and such that for any n-c.e. degrees x,y, if x ∨ y = a, then either b ≤ x or b ≤ y. This provides a new type of elementary difference between the classes of c.e. and d.c.e. degrees, implementable at lower levels of the high/low hierarchy.
Corrigendum to “A note on (signless) Laplacian spectral ordering with maximum degrees of graphs” [Linear Algebra Appl. 521 (2017) 135–141]

Shuting Liu,Huiqiu Lin,Jinlong Shu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.laa.2017.04.018

IF: 1.307

2017-01-01

Linear Algebra and its Applications

Abstract:There is a mistake in the proof of Theorem 2.7 of Liu et al. [A note on (signless) Laplacian spectral ordering with maximum degrees of graphs, Linear Algebra Appl. 521 (2017) 135–141], and the corrected proof is provided in this Corrigendum note.
Finite final segments of the d.c.e. Turing degrees

Steffen Lempp,Yiqun Liu,Yong Liu,Keng Meng Ng,Cheng Peng,Guohua Wu

2024-03-21

Abstract:We prove that every finite distributive lattice is isomorphic to a final segment of the d.c.e. Turing degrees (i.e., the degrees of differences of computably enumerable sets). As a corollary, we are able to infer the undecidability of the EAE-theory of the d.c.e. degrees in the language of partial ordering.

Logic
Proof of the Kresch-Tamvakis Conjecture

John S. Caughman,Taiyo S. Terada

2023-09-16

Abstract:In this paper we resolve a conjecture of Kresch and Tamvakis. Our result is the following. Theorem: For any positive integer $D$ and any integers $i,j$ $(0\leq i,j \leq D)$, the absolute value of the following hypergeometric series is at most 1: \begin{equation*} {_4F_3} \left[ \begin{array}{c} -i, \; i+1, \; -j, \; j+1 \\ 1, \; D+2, \; -D \end{array} ; 1 \right]. \end{equation*} To prove this theorem, we use the Biedenharn-Elliott identity, the theory of Leonard pairs, and the Perron-Frobenius theorem.

Number Theory,Algebraic Geometry,Classical Analysis and ODEs,Combinatorics
On Lachlan'S Major Sub-Degree Problem

S. Barry Cooper,Angsheng Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00153-008-0083-5

2008-01-01

Archive for Mathematical Logic

Abstract:The Major Sub-degree Problem of A. H. Lachlan (first posed in 1967) has become a long-standing open question concerning the structure of the computably enumerable (c.e.) degrees. Its solution has important implications for Turing definability and for the ongoing programme of fully characterising the theory of the c.e. Turing degrees. A c.e. degree a is a major subdegree of a c.e. degree b > a if for any c.e. degree x, ${{\bf 0' = b \lor x}}$ if and only if ${{\bf 0' = a \lor x}}$ . In this paper, we show that every c.e. degree b ≠ 0 or 0′ has a major sub-degree, answering Lachlan’s question affirmatively.
A Join Theorem for the Computably Enumerable Degrees

CG Jockusch,AS Li,Y Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1090/s0002-9947-04-03585-8

IF: 1.3529

2004-01-01

Transactions of the American Mathematical Society

Abstract:It is shown that for any computably enumerable (c.e.) degree w \mathbf {w} , if w ≠ 0 \mathbf {w\not =0} , then there is a c.e. degree a \mathbf {a} such that ( a ∨ w ) ′ = a = 0 \mathbf {(a\lor w)’} = \mathbf {a}= \mathbf {0} (so a \mathbf {a} is low 2 _2 and a ∨ w \mathbf {a\lor w} is high). It follows from this and previous work of P. Cholak, M. Groszek and T. Slaman that the low and low 2 _2 c.e. degrees are not elementarily equivalent as partial orderings.
An Extension of Harrington’s Noncupping Theorem

Liang Yu,Decheng Ding

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1360/03yf9017

2003-01-01

Abstract:(i) Call a c.e. degree b anti-cupping relative to x , if there is a c.e. a < b such that for any c.e. w, w ≱ x implies a ∪ w ≱∪ x . (ii) Call a c.e. degree b everywhere anti-cupping (e.a.c.), if it is anti-cupping relative to x for each c.e. degree x . By a tree method, we prove that every high c.e. degree has e.a.c. property by extending Harrington’s anti-cupping theorem.
Corrections of minor misstatements in several papers on ECS manifolds

Andrzej Derdzinski,Ivo Terek

2024-04-15

Abstract:In the paper [3] the value of the invariant denoted by d and often called "rank" was misstated for a narrow class of examples of ECS manifolds: they were identified as having d = 1 instead of the correct value d = 2. The error was repeated, by citing [3], in [1], [2] and [4] -- [7]. We briefly describe the class in question, explain why it has d = 2, and list the required corrections of the affected papers.

Differential Geometry
Erratum to: A note on the Brück conjecture

Sheng Li,ZongSheng Gao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00013-012-0413-z

2012-01-01

Archiv der Mathematik

Abstract:In the article “A note on the Brück conjecture” (Arch. Math. 95 ( 2010 ), 257–268), the proofs of our results Theorem 1.4 and Theorem 1.6 mainly depend on Lemma 2.6, which is wrong. In this corrigendum, we give a correct proof of Theorem 1.4. Theorem 1.6 can be proved similarly; so we omit its proof.
Corrigendum to the equivalent statement of the Laplacian Spread Conjecture

Borchen Li,Qingzhong Ji

2024-11-02

Abstract:For a graph $G,$ let $\alpha(G)$ denote its second smallest Laplacian eigenvalue. The Laplacian Spread Conjecture states that $\alpha(G)+\alpha(\overline{G}) \geq 1,$ where $\overline{G}$ is the complement of $G.$ In this paper, we have corrected two conclusions: First, the necessary and sufficient condition for $\alpha(G) + \alpha(\overline{G}) \geq 1$ is $\parallel \bigtriangledown_{x} - \bigtriangledown_{y} \parallel^{2} \geq 1$ rather than $\parallel \bigtriangledown_{x} - \bigtriangledown_{y} \parallel^{2} \geq 2$ which has been proved in \cite{BS} as demonstrated in our study. Second, we show that the Laplacian spread of balanced digraph $\Gamma$ satisfies $LS(\Gamma) \leq n - \frac{1}{2}$ but not $LS(\Gamma) \leq n - 1$ in \cite{BCEHK}, since inequality $\parallel \bigtriangledown_{x} - \bigtriangledown_{y} \parallel^{2} \geq 2$ does not hold.

Combinatorics
Corrigendum to "A New Uniqueness Theorem for the Tight C*-algebra of an Inverse Semigroup" [C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Soc. R. Can. 44 (2022), no. 4, 88--112]

Chris Bruce,Charles Starling

2024-03-21

Abstract:We correct the proof of Theorem 4.1 from [C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Soc. R. Can. \textbf{44} (2022), no. 4, 88--112].

Operator Algebras,Dynamical Systems
The House of a Reciprocal Algebraic Integer

Dragan Stankov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1806.06424

2018-06-18

Abstract:Let $\alpha$ be an algebraic integer of degree $d$, which is reciprocal. The house of $\alpha$ is the largest modulus of its conjugates. We compute the minimum of the houses of all reciprocal algebraic integers of degree $d$ which are not roots of unity, say $\mathrm{mr}(d)$, for $d$ at most 34. We prove several lemmata and use them to avoid unnecessary calculations. The computations suggest several conjectures. The direct consequence of the last one is the conjecture of Schinzel and Zassenhaus. We demonstrate the utility of $d$-th power of the house of $\alpha$.

Number Theory

There is no low maximal d. c. e. degree - Corrigendum

There is No Low Maximal D. C. E. Degree – Corrigendum

There is No Low Maximal D.C.E. Degree

There Are No Maximal Low D.C.E. Degrees.

Bounding Computably Enumerable Degrees in the Ershov Hierarchy

The Low Splitting Theorem in the Difference Hierarchy

A proof of a Dumortier-Roussarie's conjecture

Splitting and Nonsplitting, II: A Low2 C.e. Degree above Which 0′ is Not Splittable

On A Conjecture of Lempp

Splitting and Cone Avoidance in the D.C.E. Degrees

Corrigendum to “A note on (signless) Laplacian spectral ordering with maximum degrees of graphs” [Linear Algebra Appl. 521 (2017) 135–141]

Finite final segments of the d.c.e. Turing degrees

Proof of the Kresch-Tamvakis Conjecture

On Lachlan'S Major Sub-Degree Problem

A Join Theorem for the Computably Enumerable Degrees

An Extension of Harrington’s Noncupping Theorem

Corrections of minor misstatements in several papers on ECS manifolds

Erratum to: A note on the Brück conjecture

Corrigendum to the equivalent statement of the Laplacian Spread Conjecture

Corrigendum to "A New Uniqueness Theorem for the Tight C*-algebra of an Inverse Semigroup" [C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Soc. R. Can. 44 (2022), no. 4, 88--112]

The House of a Reciprocal Algebraic Integer