Constructivity conditions on immune sets

Abstract Definitionally: strongly effectively immune sets are infinite and their c.e. subsets have maximums effectively bounded in their c.e. indices; whereas, for effectively immune sets, their c.e. subsets’ cardinalities are what’re effectively bounded. This definitional difference between these two kinds of sets is very nicely paralleled by the following difference between their complements . McLaughlin: strongly effectively immune sets can not have immune complements ; whereas, the main theorem herein: effectively immune sets can not have hyperimmune complements . Ullian: effectively immune sets can have effectively immune complements. The main theorem improves Arslanov’s, effectively hyperimmune sets can not have effectively hyperimmune complements: the improvement omits the second ‘ effectively ’. Two natural examples of strongly effectively immune sets are presented with new cases of the first proved herein. The first is the set of minimal-Blum-size programs for the partial computable functions; the second, the set of Kolmogorov-random strings. A proved, natural example is presented of an effectively dense simple , not strongly effectively simple set; its complement is a set of maximal run-times. Further motivations for this study are presented. Kleene recursion theorem proofs herein emphasize how to conceptualize them. Finally, is suggested, future, related work—illustrated by a first, natural , strongly effectively $$\Sigma _2^0$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msubsup> <mml:mi>Σ</mml:mi> <mml:mn>2</mml:mn> <mml:mn>0</mml:mn> </mml:msubsup> </mml:math> - immune set —included: solution of an open problem from Rogers’ book.