Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Coding in graphs and linear orderings

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1903.06948 v2 pith:A5W6PIVU submitted 2019-03-16 math.LO

Coding in graphs and linear orderings

classification math.LO
keywords linearthereformulasgraphsorderingcomputablegraphdirected
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

There is a Turing computable embedding $\Phi$ of directed graphs $A$ in undirected graphs. Moreover, there is a fixed tuple of formulas that give a uniform interpretation; i.e., for all directed graphs $A$, these formulas interpret $A$ in $\Phi(G)$. It follows that A is Medvedev reducible to $\Phi(A)$ uniformly; i.e., there is a fixed Turing operator that serves for all $A$. We observe that there is a graph $G$ that is not Medvedev reducible to any linear ordering. Hence, $G$ is not effectively interpreted in any linear ordering. Similarly, there is a graph that is not interpreted in any linear ordering using computable $\Sigma_2$ formulas. Any graph can be interpreted in a linear ordering using computable $\Sigma_3$ formulas. Friedman and Stanley gave a Turing computable embedding L of directed graphs in linear orderings. We show that there is no fixed tuple of $L_{\omega_1,\omega}$ formulas that, for all $G$, interpret the input graph $G$ in the output linear ordering $L(G)$. Harrison-Trainor and Montalb\'an have also shown this, by a quite different proof.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.