Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    An Introduction to Stability Theory
    An Introduction to Stability Theory
    An Introduction to Stability Theory
    Ebook267 pages4 hours

    An Introduction to Stability Theory

    By Anand Pillay

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    This introductory treatment covers the basic concepts and machinery of stability theory. Lemmas, corollaries, proofs, and notes assist readers in working through and understanding the material and applications. Full of examples, theorems, propositions, and problems, it is suitable for graduate students in logic and mathematics, professional mathematicians, and computer scientists. Chapter 1 introduces the notions of definable type, heir, and coheir. A discussion of stability and order follows, along with definitions of forking that follow the approach of Lascar and Poizat, plus a consideration of forking and the definability of types. Subsequent chapters examine superstability, dividing and ranks, the relation between types and sets of indiscernibles, and further properties of stable theories. The text concludes with proofs of the theorems of Morley and Baldwin-Lachlan and an extension of dimension theory that incorporates orthogonality of types in addition to regular types.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherDover Publications
    Release dateMay 17, 2013
    ISBN9780486150437
    An Introduction to Stability Theory

    Related to An Introduction to Stability Theory

    Titles in the series (100)

    View More
    View More

    Related ebooks

    Mathematics For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      The Deepest Uncertainty

      May 16, 2019

      Georg Cantor died in 1918 in a sanatorium in Halle, Germany. A pre-eminent mathematician, he had laid the foundation for the theory of infinite numbers in the 1870s. At the time, his ideas received hostile opposition from prominent mathematicians in

      4 min read

    • Article

      The Deepest Uncertainty: When a hypothesis is neither true nor false.

      Jun 6, 2013

      Georg Cantor died in 1918 in a sanatorium in Halle, Germany. A pre-eminent mathematician, he had laid the foundation for the theory of infinite numbers in the 1870s. At the time, his ideas received hostile opposition from prominent mathematicians in

      4 min read

    • Article

      Infinite Energy

      Apr 19, 2021

      Infinite Energy
      11 min read

    • Article

      Art The of Logical Thinking

      Jun 12, 2022

      Art The of Logical Thinking
      13 min read

    • Article

      How Physics Is Like Three-Chord Rock: Like a set of common chords, the same math appears in diverse fields of physics.

      Jun 12, 2014

      A few years back, 12 million of us clicked over to watch the “Pachelbel Rant” on YouTube. You might remember it. Strumming repetitive chords on his guitar, comedian Rob Paravonian confessed that when he was a cellist, he couldn’t stand the Pachelbel

      6 min read

    • Article

      Chaos Makes the Multiverse Unnecessary

      Nov 29, 2018

      Scientists look around the universe and see amazing structure. There are objects and processes of fantastic complexity. Every action in our universe follows exact laws of nature that are perfectly expressed in a mathematical language. These laws of n

      17 min read

    • Article

      Chaos Makes the Multiverse Unnecessary

      Nov 29, 2018

      Scientists look around the universe and see amazing structure. There are objects and processes of fantastic complexity. Every action in our universe follows exact laws of nature that are perfectly expressed in a mathematical language. These laws of n

      17 min read

    • Article

      Chaos Makes the Multiverse Unnecessary

      Jun 22, 2017

      Scientists look around the universe and see amazing structure. There are objects and processes of fantastic complexity. Every action in our universe follows exact laws of nature that are perfectly expressed in a mathematical language. These laws of n

      17 min read

    • Article

      The Observer Effect

      Nov 2, 2018

      The Observer Effect
      6 min read

    • Article

      Researchers Gain New Understanding From Simple AI

      Apr 15, 2022

      In the last two years, artificial intelligence programs have reached a surprising level of linguistic fluency. The biggest and best of these are all based on an architecture invented in 2017 called the transformer. It serves as a kind of blueprint fo

      5 min read

    • Article

      The Trouble with Theories of Everything: There is no known physics theory that is true at every scale—there may never be.

      Oct 1, 2015

      Whenever you say anything about your daily life, a scale is implied. Try it out. “I’m too busy” only works for an assumed time scale: today, for example, or this week. Not this century or this nanosecond. “Taxes are onerous” only makes sense for a ce

      8 min read

    • Article

      The Universe Began With a Big Melt, Not a Big Bang

      Oct 5, 2017

      There are two tantalizing mysteries about our universe, one dealing with its final fate and the other with its beginning, that have intrigued cosmologists for decades. The community has always believed these to be independent problems—but what if the

      10 min read

    • Article

      Master The Melodic Minor

      May 18, 2021

      Master The Melodic Minor
      3 min read

    • Article

      The Sentence That Is a Period

      Nov 9, 2017

      The Sentence That Is a Period
      4 min read

    • Article

      When Words Are Not Enough

      Sep 1, 2021

      When Words Are Not Enough
      12 min read

    • Article

      Is The Law Of Conservation Of Energy Cancelled?

      Dec 12, 2019

      Physics is often baffling, but one principle seems rock-solid: the law of conservation of energy. The world contains this thing called “energy” whose amount never changes. It can change its form or go from one body to another, but its total amount re

      6 min read

    • Article

      To Infinity And (way) Beyond

      May 31, 2019

      To Infinity And (way) Beyond
      6 min read

    • Article

      The Math That Takes Newton Into the Quantum World

      Feb 28, 2019

      In my 50s, too old to become a real expert, I have finally fallen in love with algebraic geometry. As the name suggests, this is the study of geometry using algebra. Around 1637, René Descartes laid the groundwork for this subject by taking a plane,

      9 min read

    • Article

      Why Should I Care about the Abhidharma?

      Jun 5, 2020

      Why Should I Care about the Abhidharma?
      12 min read

    • Article

      How Black Holes Nearly Ruined Time

      Apr 11, 2019

      This essay is one of the five winners in the 2019 writing competition held by the Black Hole Initiative at Harvard University. “The Black Hole Initiative offers a unique environment for thinking about the topic of black holes more creatively and comp

      6 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for An Introduction to Stability Theory

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      An Introduction to Stability Theory - Anand Pillay

      INDEX

      0

      NOTATION AND PRELIMINARIES

      α, β, γ . . . will denote ordinals, κ, λ, µ cardinals, and m, n, k natural numbers. i, j may denote natural numbers, ordinals, or members of some particular set, it being always clear from the context what is meant. β also has a technical meaning when used in the expression β(p) which is introduced in Chapter 3. We work in ZFC set theory.

      Our model-theoretic notation is fairly standard, as in Chang and Keisler (1973) for example, with one or two differences, which we point out below.

      L, L′ . . . is always a first-order language (with equality). M, N, etc. will denote structures (i.e. L-structures for some L) and A, B, etc. subsets of structures. If M is an L-structure, then we also denote the universe (or domain) of M by M. M is the cardinality of (the universe of) M. We will allow our languages to contain an unlimited supply of variables. Clearly the cardinality of the set of L-sentences modulo logical equivalence is unaffected by this. (In fact, as in pointed out later, we shall work essentially with just countable languages, the cardinality of a language being the cardinality of its set of predicates, function symbols, and constant symbols.) L(A) denotes the language obtained by adjoining to L names for the elements of A. We do not normally distinguish between elements of A and their names. Variables are denoted by x, y, z, xi, etc.

      is the length of xcome from A ∈ A.

      , this means that all the free variables in the formula are among the members of xmay also contain ‘parameters’ (i.e. names of elements from some A, .

      I of course assume the compactness theorem a set of formulae of Lis consistent (i.e. there is a L-structure M and an assignment of elements of M is true in Mis consistent.

      Another basic fact is the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem. This states that, if M is an infinite L-structure and A ⊂ M, then

      (i) For any λ M , L ), there is N >M such that IN = λ;

      (ii) If λ ≤ |M and ≥ max(|A L ) then there is N< M such that A ⊂ N and |N| λ.

      I now discuss notation for the important notion of a type. Let T be a complete theory in L. A (complete n-type of T (n < ωof L-formulae in n free variables, say x0, ... , xn—1, which is maximal consistent with T. This is equivalent to saying:

      (i) T is consistent;

      (ii) For any φ = φ(x0, ... , xn−1) ∈ L, either φ φ .

      A type of T is an n-type for some n < ω. Note that a type of T is closed under conjunctions. The set of n-types of T is denoted Sn(T) and we put S(T. Types are denoted by p, q, r. ∈ Sn(T).

      If M is an L-structure, A ⊂ M, is an n-tuple from M, the type over A in M. ∈ S(T) if there is a model M of T ∈ M .

      We also use what are in effect types in infinitely many variables, although we have no developed notation for this. Let M be an L-structure, A ⊂ M, and B ⊂ M. Let B be listed as 〈bi : i ∈ I〉 and assume that we have available variables xi for i ∈ I. Then by tpM(B/A) we mean

      Of course, this depends (up to permutation or change of, variables) on the particular indexing of B that we use. Clearly tpM(B/A) is essentially the same as Th(M, a)a∈A ∪ B where we replace the names for B in the latter by variables.

      is the result of replacing xi by yi for relevant i. .

      ∈ Sn(Th(M, a)a∈A) (M an Lbe an L-formula. Then by p φ I mean

      If S is some statement, and φ a formula then φif S denotes φ if S φ if S is false.

      If M is an L∈ L(M, then øM ∈ Mn M φ )}.

      A formula with n free variables is often called an n-formula.

      Sn(T) is sometimes viewed as a topological space, the topology being as follows: for an nThen the sets [φ] are taken as basic open sets, and the topology is generated accordingly.

      An isolated point of Sn(Tis said to isolate p (relative to T of course).

      Let me review a few more of the results which I shall be assuming.

      Proposition 0.1. (The Beth definability theorem.) Let L be a language, P an n-ary predicate not in L and L′ = L ∪ {P}. Let T′ be an L′-theory. Suppose that any L-structure M has at most one expansion to an L′-structure M′ for which T′. Then there is an n-formula of L such that .

      Proposition 0.2. (Omitting types.) Let T be a countable theory, in a countable language L. For each n < ω let n be a set of L-formulae with free variables, say. Suppose that, for each n is nonprincipal over T, i.e. that there is no consistent with T such that for all ψ n. Then T has a countable model which omits each n.

      I(λ, T) denotes the number of models of T of cardinality λ, up to isomorphism. If I(λ, T) = 1, we say that T is λ-categorical.

      Proposition 0.3. Let T be a complete theory in a countable language L. Then Tis 0-categorical if and only if, for each n < ω, all p ∈ Sn(T) are isolated.

      A prime model of the theory T is a model M of T such that, for all N T, there is an elementary embedding of M into N.

      Proposition 0.4. Let T be a complete theory in the countable language L.

      T, then M is a prime model of T if and only if

      M is countable;

      For every ∈ M, tp) is isolated (as a type of S(T)).

      (ii) Any two prime models of T are isomorphic.

      (iii) If S(T) is countable then, for any model M of T and )) is also countable.

      (iv) If S(T) is countable, then T has a prime model.

      If M T∈ M, and (N, ) is a prime model of Th((M, )), we also say that N . (N is clearly a model of T.)

      M is said to be κ-saturated if, for any A ⊂ M with |A| < κ, for all p(x) ∈ S1(Th(M, a)a∈A ), p is realized in M.

      Proposition 0.5. Let M be κ-saturated (κ 0). Then

      (i) |M| ≥ κ, if M is infinite;

      (ii) If A ⊂ M, lAl< κ, and is a set of formulae of L(A) in less than κ free variables which is consistent with Th(M, a)a∈A, then is realized in M. In particular every ∈ S(Th(M, a)a∈A) is realized in M;

      (iii) Let N ≡ M and |N| κ; then there is an elementary embedding of N into M;

      (iv) Suppose that |M| = κ and that = κ, and N is also κ-saturated.Then N ≅ M;

      (v) Suppose that |M| = κ. Let A ⊂ M, |A| < κ, and let f be an elementarymap of A into M (i. e. (M, a)a∈A ≡ (M, f(a))a∈A, or, less accurately, tpM(A) = tpM(f(A))), then there is an automorphism g of M which extends f.

      Note 0.6. The property M is said to have in (v) above is called κ-homogeneity (iv) and (v) above are proved by a back-and-forth argument. The rest are easy.

      Now any complete theory has κ-saturated models for arbitrarily large κbe a κ-saturated model of T. If N T, |N| < κ, then, by (iii) of Proposition 0.4, N . Thus, without loss of generality, all models of T of cardinality less than κ . If φ then N φ whenever N < M and the parameters from φ are in N. φ and so, if N is a model of T, |N| < κ, and φ is an L(N)-sentence, then N φ φ.Now let A, B , with A, B of cardinality < κ. Suppose that A has a property P taking A to B whereby B also has P. If |M| ≠ κ, be a κtaking A to B. So again B has P . Let me note that the existence in general of a κ-saturated model of cardinality κ (κ 0) cannot be shown without some set-theoretic hypothesis on κ (e.g. κ is weakly inaccessible) although, as we shall see, if T is stable, then T has such models for arbitrarily large κ.

      From now on L will be a countable language and T a complete theory in L be a κ-saturated model of T and is thus κtaking A to Bcan be bypassed using an argument as in the previous paragraph, or using directly the saturation of M.

      By a set we will mean a subset of and by a model an elementary substructure of . By what we have said above we lose nothing in generality. If φ φ φ and, as we pointed out above, if N is a model and φ an L (N)-sequence, then N φ φ.

      , and carry on as before.

      is sometimes referred to as the big model. Note that by our conventions, if M and N are models and M ⊂ N, then this means that M < N (as M and N< , A /A. Similarly for a set A, we write Sn(A), S(A.

      Definition 0.7.

      (i) Let λ 0. T is λ-stable if, for all A, |A | ≤ λ implies |S1(A) | ≤ λ.

      (ii) T is stable if T is λ-stable for some λ.

      Note 0.8. Clearly T is λ-stable iff, for all M, |M| ≤ λ implies |S1 (M) | ≤ λ. Note also that, for any A, |S1 (A) | ≥ |A|, because, for a, b ∈ A, a ≠ b implies tp(a/A) ≠ tp(b/A).

      Lemma 0.9. T is λ-stable iff, for n < ω and A with |A|≤ λ, |Sn(A) | ≤ λ.

      Proof. ⇐ is immediate.

      ⇒. By induction on n. Suppose, for all A with |A | ≤ λ, |Sn(A)| ≤ λ. Now let |A| ≤ λ and we consider Sn+1 (A). Suppose by way of contradiction that |Sn+1(A)| > λ. For each p(x0, ... , xn) ∈ Sn+1(A), let p′(x0, ... , xn−1) be the restriction of p to the variables x0, ... ,xn−1. So, clearly, p′ ∈ Sn(A). Thus, by hypothesis, there are pi(x0, ... , xn) ∈ Sn+1(A), for i < λ+, such that i < j < λ+ implies pi ≠ pj(for some q ∈ Sn(A)) for all i < j < λrealize q. Then it is clear that, for each i < λ+, pi(c0, ... , cn−1 xnand moreover, that i < j and so we have a contradiction to the λ-stability of T.

      Proposition 0.10. Let T be 0-stable (or as we shall say, ω-stable). Then T is λ-stable for all λ.

      Proof. We will use the following simple lemma whose proof is left as an exercise.

      Lemma 0.11. Let |A| ≤ λ, (λ 0) and, for each φ(x) ∈ L(A), let us denote by [φ]A the set {p(x) ∈ S1(A) : φ(x) ∈ p}. Suppose that |[φ] A |> λ, where φ ∈ L(A). Then there is ψ(x) ∈ L(A) such that |[φ ψ]Al > λ and l[φψ> λ.

      Now we prove the proposition. Suppose that T were not λ-stable (λ arbitrary). I show that T is not ωA ≤ λ S1(A> λ[x = x> λ. (Notation as in Lemma 0.11.) Thus using repeatedly Lemma 0.11 we find L(A)-formulae φn(x) for each n ∈ ω>2, such that

      (i) φ<> = ‘x = x’;

      (ii) For each n [φn(x> λ;

      (iii) For each nand i φn^<i>(x) →φn(x):

      (iv) For each n .

      Let B be the set of elements of A that occur in the formulae φn(x). So clearly B is countable. For each τ ∈ ωτ(x) = {φτ n(x) : n < ωτ(x) is a consistent set of L(Bτ(x) to some pτ(x) ∈ S1(B) for each τ ∈ ω2 (by Zorn’s lemma).

      Then by (iv) τ1 ≠ τand T is not ω-stable.

      Note 0.12. To explain the notation above, for X a set and a an ordinal, αX is the set of sequences of length α of elements from X.

      Now I define indiscernible sequences and sets.

      Definition 0.13. be a total ordering on a set I. Let n < ω, and, for each i ∈ Ii be an nof course). Let A i : i ∈ I〉 is said to be indiscernible over A relative to , if for any m < ω, and i1 , ... , im, j1 , ... , jm in I such that iiim and jjjmis an L(Afor k = 1 , ... , m, then

      If, for some i ≠ j in Ii ji : i ∈ I〉 nontrivial.

      (ii) Let I i an n-tuple for each i ∈ Ii : i ∈ I〉 is said to be an indiscernible set over A, if, for any m < ω, if i1 , ... , im are distinct elements of I, j1 , ... , jm are distinct elements of Iis an L(A)-formula, then

      Note 0.14. Suppose that α is an ordinal and < is the usual ordering on αi : i < α〉 is indiscernible over A i : i < α〉 is an indiscernible sequence over A.

      Ramsey’s theorem says that, if m, n < ω, X is an infinite set and if the set of m element subsets of X, (called [X] m) is partitioned into n sets, i.e. [X] m = P1 ∪ P2 ∪ ... ∪ Pn, then there is Y ⊂ X such that Y is infinite and, for some i≤ n, [Y] m ⊂ Pi.

      Ramsey’s theorem (for the case n = 2) can be used to produce infinite sequences of indiscernibles satisfying certain requirements. See Chang and Keisler (1973) for the details.

      is consistent (with φ), where A . In a few cases we use compactness in this latter sense.

      We also engage commonly in a certain kind of arugment which goes as follows; suppose we have sets A and B and we seek C such that tp(C ∪ B/A. Suppose that we have found C′ and B′ such that tp(C′ ∪ B′/Aand tp(B′/A) = tp(B/A). Then we say that we can assume that B′ = B and that thus C′ is the required C. This is because there is an automorphism of the big model taking B′ to B and fixing pointwise A whereby, if C is the image of C′ under this automorphism, then C ′ be the result of replacing the variables for B by the corresponding names for B. Then as tp(C′ ∪ B′/Aand tp(B′/A) = tp(B/A′ will be consistent and thus, by the saturation of the big model, will be realized by C, say. Then tp(C U B/Aand so C is as required.

      Notes for Chapter 0.

      See Chang and Keisler (1973) for attributions of classical results and Propositions 0.1 – 0.5.

      The notion of a theory being κ-stable is due to Rowbottom (1964). What are in effect ω-stable theories were studied by Morley as totally transcendental theories. The definition of a theory being stable is due to Shelah (1971). Lemma 0.10 is due to Morley (1965). The notion of an indiscernible sequence is due to Ehrenfeucht and Mostowski (1956) and the notion of an indiscernible set is due to Morley (1965).

      1

      DEFINABLE TYPES

      Definition 1.1. (i) Let p(x) ∈ S(A) and B ⊂ A. p is definable over B ∈ L∈ L(B∈ A with l.

      (ii) p(x) ∈ S(A) is said to be definable if p is definable over A.

      Remark 1.2. ∈ S(A) be definable over B ⊂ A, and let, for each Lbe an L(Bin Definition 1.1 (i). d into the set of L(B) formulae and we call d a defining schema over B for p. If B = A, d is simply a defining schema for p.

      Example 1.3. Let p(x) ∈ S(A. Then p .d is clearly a defining

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1