Abstract We prove that there exists a $\varSigma ^{0}_{1}$ closed subset of $[0,1]$ which is not homeomorphic to any computably compact space. We show that the index set of c.e. subspaces of $[0,1]$ that admit a computably compact presentation is not arithmetical, as witnessed by subsets of $[0,1]$. The index set result is new for computable Polish spaces in general, not only for those realised as c.e. closed subsets of $[0,1]$.

Abstract We show that for every computable limit ordinal α, there is a computable structure that is categorical, but not relatively categorical (equivalently, it does not have a formally Scott family). We also show that for every computable limit ordinal α, there is a computable structure with an additional relation R that is intrinsically on , but not relatively intrinsically on (equivalently, it is not definable by a computable Σα formula with finitely many parameters). Earlier results in [7], [10], and [8] establish the same facts for computable successor ordinals α.

Abstract This paper calculates, in a precise way. the complexity of the index sets for three classes of computable structures: the class of structures of Scott rank , the class , of structures of Scott rank , and the class K of all structures of non-computable Scott rank. We show that I(K) is m-complete is m-complete relative to Kleene's and is m-complete relative to .

When bounds on complexity of some aspect of a structure are preserved under isomorphism, we refer to them as intrinsic. Here, building on work of Soskov [34], [33], we give syntactical conditions necessary and sufficient for a relation to be intrinsically on a structure. We consider some examples of computable structures and intrinsically relations R. We also consider a general family of examples of intrinsically relations arising in computable structures of maximum Scott rank. For three of the examples, the maximal well-ordered initial segment in a Harrison ordering, the superatomic part of a Harrison Boolean algebra, and the height-possessing part of a Harrison p-group, we show that the Turing degrees of images of the relation in computable copies of the structure are the same as the Turing degrees of paths through Kleene's . With this as motivation, we investigate the possible degrees of these paths. We show that there is a path in which ∅′ is not computable. In fact, there is one in which no noncomputable hyperarithmetical set is computable. There are paths that are Turing incomparable, or Turing incomparable over a given hyperarithmetical set. There is a pair of paths whose degrees form a minimal pair. However, there is no path of minimal degree.

Effective model theory is the subject that analyzes the typical notions and results of model theory to determine their effective content and counterparts. The subject has been developed both in the former Soviet Union and in the west with various names (recursive model theory, constructive model theory, etc.) and divergent terminology. (We use “effective model theory” as the most general and descriptive designation. Harizanov [6] is an excellent introduction to the subject as is Millar [13].) The basic subjects of model theory include languages, structures, theories, models and various types of maps between these objects. There are many ways to introduce considerations of effectiveness into the area. The two most prominent derive from starting, on the one hand, with the notion of a theory and its models or, on the other, with just structures. If one begins with theories, then a natural version of effectiveness is to consider decidable theories (i.e., ones with a decidable (equivalently, computable or recursive) set of theorems). When one moves to models and wants them to be effective, one might start with the requirement that the model (of any theory) have a decidable theory (i.e., Th ( ), the set of sentences true in , is decidable). Typically, however, one wants to be able to talk about the elements of the model as well as its theory in the given language. Thus one naturally considers the model as a structure for the language expanded by adding a constant ai, for each element ai of . Of course, one requires that the mapping from the constants to the corresponding elements of be effective (computable). We are thus lead to the following basic definition: A structure or model is decidable if there is a computable enumeration ai of A, the domain of , such that Th( , ai,) is decidable. (Of course, ai, is interpreted as ai, for each i Є ω.)