Beginning with the theory of computable sets and functions described above, the field of computability theory has grown to include the study of many closely related topics. These are not independent areas of research: each of these areas draws ideas and results from the others, and most computability theorists are familiar with the majority of them.
The natural examples of sets that are not computable, including many different sets that encode variants of the halting problem, have two properties in common:
Much recent research on Turing degrees has focused on the overall structure of the set of Turing degrees and the set of Turing degrees containing computably enumerable sets. A deep theorem of Shore and Slaman (1999) states that the function mapping a degree x to the degree of its Turing jump is definable in the partial order of the Turing degrees. A recent survey by Ambos-Spies and Fejer (2006) gives an overview of this research and its historical progression.
Further reducibilities (positive, disjunctive, conjunctive, linear and their weak and bounded versions) are discussed in the article Reduction (computability theory).
The major research on strong reducibilities has been to compare their theories, both for the class of all computably enumerable sets as well as for the class of all subsets of the natural numbers. Furthermore, the relations between the reducibilities has been studied. For example, it is known that every Turing degree is either a truth-table degree or is the union of infinitely many truth-table degrees.
Priority arguments have been employed to solve many problems in computability theory, and have been classified into a hierarchy based on their complexity (Soare 1987). Because complex priority arguments can be technical and difficult to follow, it has traditionally been considered desirable to prove results without priority arguments, or to see if results proved with priority arguments can also be proved without them. For example, Kummer published a paper on a proof for the existence of Friedberg numberings without using the priority method.
When Post defined the notion of a simple set as an c.e. set with an infinite complement not containing any infinite c.e. set, he started to study the structure of the computably enumerable sets under inclusion. This lattice became a well-studied structure. Computable sets can be defined in this structure by the basic result that a set is computable if and only if the set and its complement are both computably enumerable. Infinite c.e. sets have always infinite computable subsets; but on the other hand, simple sets exist but do not always have a coinfinite computable superset. Post (1944) introduced already hypersimple and hyperhypersimple sets; later maximal sets were constructed which are c.e. sets such that every c.e. superset is either a finite variant of the given maximal set or is co-finite. Post's original motivation in the study of this lattice was to find a structural notion such that every set which satisfies this property is neither in the Turing degree of the computable sets nor in the Turing degree of the halting problem. Post did not find such a property and the solution to his problem applied priority methods instead; Harrington and Soare (1991) found eventually such a property.
Besides the lattice of computably enumerable sets, automorphisms are also studied for the structure of the Turing degrees of all sets as well as for the structure of the Turing degrees of c.e. sets. In both cases, Cooper claims to have constructed nontrivial automorphisms which map some degrees to other degrees; this construction has, however, not been verified and some colleagues believe that the construction contains errors and that the question of whether there is a nontrivial automorphism of the Turing degrees is still one of the main unsolved questions in this area (Slaman and Woodin 1986, Ambos-Spies and Fejer 2006).