Search

The Friedman–Stanley jump, extensively studied by descriptive set theorists, is a fundamental tool for gauging the complexity of Borel isomorphism relations. This paper focuses on a natural computable analog of this jump operator for equivalence relations on $\omega $ , written ${\dotplus }$ , recently introduced by Clemens, Coskey, and Krakoff. We offer a thorough analysis of the computable Friedman–Stanley jump and its connections with the hierarchy of countable equivalence relations under the computable reducibility $\leq _c$. In particular, we show that this jump gives benchmark equivalence relations going up the hyperarithmetic hierarchy and we unveil the complicated highness hierarchy that arises from ${\dotplus }$. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examine the degree structure $\operatorname {\mathrm {\mathbf {ER}}}$ of equivalence relations on $\omega $ under computable reducibility. We examine when pairs of degrees have a least upper bound. In particular, we show that sufficiently incomparable pairs of degrees do not have a least upper bound but that some incomparable degrees do, and we characterize the degrees which have a least upper bound with every finite equivalence relation. We show that the natural classes of finite, light, and dark degrees are definable in $\operatorname {\mathrm {\mathbf {ER}}}$. We show that every equivalence relation has continuum many self-full strong minimal covers, and that $\mathbf {d}\oplus \mathbf {\operatorname {\mathrm {\mathbf {Id}}}_1}$ needn't be a strong minimal cover of a self-full degree $\mathbf {d}$. Finally, we show that the theory of the degree structure $\operatorname {\mathrm {\mathbf {ER}}}$ as well as the theories of the substructures of light degrees and of dark degrees are each computably isomorphic with second-order arithmetic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this short paper, we analyse whether assuming that mathematical objects are "thin" in Linnebo's sense simplifies the epistemology of mathematics. Towards this end, we introduce the notion of transparency and show that not all thin objects are transparent. We end by arguing that, far from being a weakness of thin objects, the lack of transparency of some thin objects is a fruitful characteristic mark of abstract mathematics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]