Advertisement

Israel Journal of Mathematics

, Volume 230, Issue 2, pp 693–713 | Cite as

The Hilbert’s-Tenth-Problem Operator

  • Kenneth Kramer
  • Russell MillerEmail author
Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

For a ring R, Hilbert’s Tenth Problem HTP(R) is the set of polynomial equations over R, in several variables, with solutions in R. We view HTP as an operator, mapping each set W of prime numbers to HTP(ℤ[W−1]), which is naturally viewed as a set of polynomials in ℤ[X1, X2,…]. For W = Ø, it is a famous result of Matijasevič, Davis, Putnam and Robinson that the jump Ø′ is Turing-equivalent to HTP(ℤ). More generally, HTP(ℤ[W−1]) is always Turing-reducible to W′, but not necessarily equivalent. We show here that the situation with W = Ø is anomalous: for almost all W, the jump W′ is not diophantine in HTP(ℤ[W−1]). We also show that the HTP operator does not preserve Turing equivalence: even for complementary sets U and \(\bar U\), HTP(ℤ[U−1]) and \(HTP(\mathbb{Z}{[\bar U]^{ - 1}})\) can differ by a full jump. Strikingly, reversals are also possible, with V <TW but HTP(ℤ[W−1]) <THTP(ℤ[V−1]).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    S. B. Cooper, Computability TheoryC. Chapman & Hall CR, Boca Raton, FL, 2004.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    D. A. Cox, Primes of the Form x 2 + ny 2, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    M. Davis, H. Putnam and J. Robinson, The decision problem for exponential diophantine equations, Annals of Mathematics 74 (1961), 425–436.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    K. Eisenträger, R. Miller, J. Park and A. Shlapentokh, As easy as Q: Hilbert’s Tenth Problem for subrings of the rationals, Transactions of the AmericanMathematical Society 369 (2017), 8291–8315.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    C. G. Jockusch, Degrees of generic sets, in Recursion Theory: its Generalisation and Applications (Proc. Logic Colloq., Univ. Leeds, Leeds, 1979), London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, Vol. 45, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge–New York, 1981, pp. 110–139.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    J. Koenigsmann, Definingin Q, Annals of Mathematics 183 (2016), 73–93.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    S. Kurtz, Randomness and Genericity in the Degrees of Unsolvability, Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1981.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Yu. V. Matijasevič, The Diophantineness of enumerable sets, Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 191 (1970), 279–282.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    R. Miller, Baire category theory and Hilbert’s Tenth Problem inside Q, in Pursuit of the Universal, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9709, Springer, Cham, 2016, pp. 343–352.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    R. Miller, Measure theory and Hilbert’s Tenth Problem inside Q, in Sets and Computations, Lecture Note Series, Institute for Mathematical Sciences, National University of Singapore, Vol. 33, World Scientific, Hackensack, NJ, 2017, pp. 253–269.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    J. Robinson, Definability and decision problems in arithmetic, Journal of Symbolic Logic 14 (1949), 98–114.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    J.-P. Serre, A Course in Arithmetic, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 7, Springer, New York–Heidelberg, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    R. I. Soare, Recursively Enumerable Sets and Degrees. Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsQueens College—City University of New YorkQueensUSA
  2. 2.Graduate Center—City University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations