Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 1303.4902

Randomness and lowness notions via open covers

Abstract

One of the main lines of research in algorithmic randomness is that of lowness notions. Given a randomness notion R, we ask for which sequences A does relativization to A leave R unchanged (i.e., R^A = R)? Such sequences are call low for R. This question extends to a pair of randomness notions R and S, where S is weaker: for which A is S^A still weaker than R? In the last few years, many results have characterized the sequences that are low for randomness by their low computational strength. A few results have also given measure-theoretic characterizations of low sequences. For example, Kjos-Hanssen proved that A is low for Martin-L\"of randomness if and only if every A-c.e. open set of measure less than 1 can be covered by a c.e. open set of measure less than 1. In this paper, we give a series of results showing that a wide variety of lowness notions can be expressed in a similar way, i.e., via the ability to cover open sets of a certain type by open sets of some other type. This provides a unified framework that clarifies the study of lowness for randomness notions, and allows us to give simple proofs of a number of known results. We also use this framework to prove new results, including showing that the classes Low(MLR;SR) and Low(W2R;SR) coincide, answering a question of Nies. Other applications include characterizations of highness notions, a broadly applicable explanation for why low for randomness is the same as low for tests, and a simple proof that Low(W2R;S)=Low(MLR;S), where S is the class of Martin-L\"of, computable, or Schnorr random sequences. The final section gives characterizations of lowness notions using summable functions and convergent measure machines instead of open covers. We finish with a simple proof of a result of Nies, that Low(MLR) = Low(MLR; CR).

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Laurent Bienvenu, Joseph S. Miller. 2013-03-20. Randomness and lowness notions via open covers. https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.4902

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

There is no maximal $K$-degree

The Kolmogorov complexity of a string characterize how complex it is to describe the string. If every prefix of a real $x$ is more complex to describe than every prefix (of the same length) of real $y$, then it is seen as $x$ is more complex to describe than $y$. It is wondered if there is a real $x$ so that no other reals are strictly more complex (to describe) than $x$. The behavior of Kolmogorov complexity functions generated by reals (namely $n\mapsto$ the minimal description length of the real) is quite chaos. Therefore, it is widely believed that there are many reals that are maximally complex to describe. For instance, it is conjectured that all random enough reals have maximal $K$-degree. In this paper, it is shown that there is no real with maximal $K$-degree. Actually, for almost all real $x$, we can uniformly computably find another real whose $K$-degree is strictly above $x$.

math.LO

Quadruples and cubes

We prove, in $\mathsf{ZFC}$, that the $\lambda$-terraced cube relation fails whenever $\lambda$ is an uncountable cardinal. The corresponding terraced relation for quadruples fails for every $\lambda$. If $\lambda$ is $\aleph_0$ then the pretinent terraced relation has consistency strength of at least one Woodin cardinal. We prove positive polarized relations at a successor and a double successor from wondrous ideals. We show, however, that there are no such ideals over two consecutive cardinals simultaneously.

math.LO

Possibilistic Logic over a Logic of Formal Inconsistency

In this article, we have introduced a new possibilistic logic on a logic of formal inconsistency with the aim of developing a possibility theoretic framework to deal with uncertainty and inconsistency meaningfully without leading to a system collapse. We have discussed the syntax and semantics for this logic and have proved the soundness and completeness theorems. A set of new measures of consistency, contradictoriness, and triviality of a set of formulas have been defined. These have then been put to use in an example to show that this framework can provide better means of machine reasoning.

math.LO