A bounded jump for the bounded Turing degrees

We define the bounded jump of A by A^b = {x | Exists i <= x [phi_i (x) converges and Phi_x^[A|phi_i(x)](x) converges} and let A^[nb] denote the n-th bounded jump. We demonstrate several properties of the bounded jump, including that it is strictly increasing and order preserving on the bounded Turing (bT) degrees (also known as the weak truth-table degrees). We show that the bounded jump is related to the Ershov hierarchy. Indeed, for n > 1 we have X <=_[bT] 0^[nb] iff X is omega^n-c.e. iff X <=_1 0^[nb], extending the classical result that X <=_[bT] 0' iff X is omega-c.e. Finally, we prove that the analogue of Shoenfield inversion holds for the bounded jump on the bounded Turing degrees. That is, for every X such that 0^b <=_[bT] X <=_[bT] 0^[2b], there is a Y <=_[bT] 0^b such that Y^b =_[bT] X.Comment: 22 pages. Minor changes for publicatio

Bounded low and high sets

Anderson and Csima (Notre Dame J Form Log 55(2):245–264, 2014) defined a jump operator, the bounded jump, with respect to bounded Turing (or weak truth table) reducibility. They showed that the bounded jump is closely related to the Ershov hierarchy and that it satisfies an analogue of Shoenfield jump inversion. We show that there are high bounded low sets and low bounded high sets. Thus, the information coded in the bounded jump is quite different from that of the standard jump. We also consider whether the analogue of the Jump Theorem holds for the bounded jump: do we have A ≤bT B if and only if Ab ≤1 Bb ? We show the forward direction holds but not the reverse

Which Classes of Structures Are Both Pseudo-elementary and Definable by an Infinitary Sentence?

When classes of structures are not first-order definable, we might still try to find a nice description. There are two common ways for doing this. One is to expand the language, leading to notions of pseudo-elementary classes, and the other is to allow infinite conjuncts and disjuncts. In this paper we examine the intersection. Namely, we address the question: Which classes of structures are both pseudo-elementary and $\mathcal{L}_{\omega_1 \omega}$-elementary? We find that these are exactly the classes that can be defined by an infinitary formula that has no infinitary disjunctions

A possible rheological model of gum candies

An appropriate rheological model can be used in production of good quality gum candy required by consumers. For this purpose Creep-Recovery Test (CRT) curves were recorded with a Stable Micro System TA.XT-2 precision texture analyser with 75 mm diameter cylinder probe on gum candies purchased from the local market. The deformation speed was 0.2 mm s−1, the creeping- and recovering time was 60 s, while the loading force was set to 1 N, 2 N, 5 N, 7 N, and 10 N. The two-element Kelvin-Voigt-model, a three-element model, and the four-element Burgers-model were fitted on the recorded creep data, and then the parameters of the models were evaluated. The best fitting from the used models was given by the Burgers model

Which classes of structures are both pseudo-elementary and definable by an infinitary sentence?

When classes of structures are not first-order definable, we might still try to find a nice description. There are two common ways for doing this. One is to expand the language, leading to notions of pseudo-elementary classes, and the other is to allow infinite conjuncts and disjuncts. In this paper we examine the intersection. Namely, we address the question: Which classes of structures are both pseudo-elementary and Lω1,ω-elementary? We find that these are exactly the classes that can be defined by an infinitary formula that has no infinitary disjunctions.Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Discovery Grant 312501 || Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Banting Fellowshi

Which Classes of Structures are Both Pseudo-Elementary and Definable by an Infinitary Sentence

© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Association for Symbolic Logic.When classes of structures are not first-order definable, we might still try to find a nice description. There are two common ways for doing this. One is to expand the language, leading to notions of pseudo-elementary classes, and the other is to allow infinite conjuncts and disjuncts. In this paper we examine the intersection. Namely, we address the question: Which classes of structures are both pseudo elementary and Lω1,ω-elementary? We find that these are exactly the classes that can be defined by an infinitary formula that has no infinitary disjunctions

Lines, Circles, Planes and Spheres

Let $S$ be a set of $n$ points in $\mathbb{R}^3$, no three collinear and not all coplanar. If at most $n-k$ are coplanar and $n$ is sufficiently large, the total number of planes determined is at least $1 + k \binom{n-k}{2}-\binom{k}{2}(\frac{n-k}{2})$. For similar conditions and sufficiently large $n$, (inspired by the work of P. D. T. A. Elliott in \cite{Ell67}) we also show that the number of spheres determined by $n$ points is at least $1+\binom{n-1}{3}-t_3^{orchard}(n-1)$, and this bound is best possible under its hypothesis. (By $t_3^{orchard}(n)$, we are denoting the maximum number of three-point lines attainable by a configuration of $n$ points, no four collinear, in the plane, i.e., the classic Orchard Problem.) New lower bounds are also given for both lines and circles.Comment: 37 page