Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T00:59:19.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Stability to Simplicity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2014

Byunghan Kim  and
Anand Pillay
Byunghan Kim
Affiliation:
Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, 1000 Centennial Drive, Berkeley, CA 94720, USAE-mail: [email protected]
Anand Pillay
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of Illinois Urbana, IL 61801, USA and Mathematical Sciences Research Institute 1000 Centennial Drive Berkeley, CA 94720, USAE-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

§1. Introduction. In this report we wish to describe recent work on a class of first order theories first introduced by Shelah in [32], the simple theories. Major progress was made in the first author's doctoral thesis [17]. We will give a survey of this, as well as further works by the authors and others.

The class of simple theories includes stable theories, but also many more, such as the theory of the random graph. Moreover, many of the theories of particular algebraic structures which have been studied recently (pseudofinite fields, algebraically closed fields with a generic automorphism, smoothly approximable structures) turn out to be simple. The interest is basically that a large amount of the machinery of stability theory, invented by Shelah, is valid in the broader class of simple theories. Stable theories will be defined formally in the next section. An exhaustive study of them is carried out in [33]. Without trying to read Shelah's mind, we feel comfortable in saying that the importance of stability for Shelah lay partly in the fact that an unstable theory T has 2λ many models in any cardinal λ ≥ ω1 + |T| (proved by Shelah). (Note that for λ ≥ |T| 2λ is the maximum possible number of models of cardinality λ.)

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 1998 , pp. 17 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Ax, J., The elementary theory of finite fields, Annals of Mathematics, vol. 88 (1968), pp. 239–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2] BuechLer, S., Lascar strong types in simple theories, preprint, 1997.Google Scholar
[3] Casanovas, E., The number of types in simple theories, preprint, 1997.Google Scholar
[4] Chatzidakis, Z. and Hrushovski, E., Model theory of difference fields, preprint, 1996.Google Scholar
[5] Chatzidakis, Z. and Pillay, A., Generic structures and simple theories, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic (to appear).Google Scholar
[6] Chatzidakis, Z., van den Dries, L., and Macintyre, A. J., Definable sets over finite fields, Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik, vol. 427 (1992), pp. 107–135.Google Scholar
[7] Cherlin, G., Large finite structures with few types, Proceedings of 1996 NATO ASI meeting at Fields Institute, to appear.Google Scholar
[8] Cherlin, G., Harrington, L., and Lachlan, A. H., ω-categorical, ω-stable structures, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 28 (1985), pp. 103–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Duret, J.-L., Les corps faiblement algébriquement clos non séparablement clos ont la propriété d'indépendance, Model theory of algebra and arithmetic, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, no. 834, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980, pp. 136–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Hart, B., Kim, B., and Pillay, A., Coordinatization and canonical bases in simple theories, in preparation.Google Scholar
[11] Hrushovski, E., Pseudofinite fields and related structures, preprint, 1992.Google Scholar
[12] Hrushovski, E., Finite structures with few types, Finite and infinite combinatorics in sets and logic, NATO ASI Series C: Mathematics and Physical Sciences, no. 411, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993, pp. 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13] Hrushovski, E., The Manin-Mumford conjecture and difference fields, preprint, 1996.Google Scholar
[14] Hrushovski, E. and Pillay, A., Groups definable in local fields and pseudo-finite fields, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 85 (1994), pp. 203–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15] Hrushovski, E. and Pillay, A., Definable subgroups of algebraic groups over finite fields, Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik, vol. 462 (1995), pp. 69–91.Google Scholar
[16] Kantor, W. M., Liebeck, M. W., and Macpherson, H. D., ω-categorical structures smoothly approximated by finite structures, Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, vol. 59 (1989), no. 3, pp. 439–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17] Kim, B., Simple first order theories, Ph.D. thesis , University of Notre Dame, 1996.Google Scholar
[18] Kim, B., Forking in simple unstable theories, Journal of the London Mathematical Society (to appear).Google Scholar
[19] Kim, B., A note on Lascar strong types in simple theories, The Journal of Symbolic Logic (to appear).Google Scholar
[20] Kim, B., On the number of countable models of a countable supersimple theory, Journal of the London Mathematical Society (to appear).Google Scholar
[21] Kim, B. and Pillay, A., Simple theories, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic (to appear).Google Scholar
[22] Lachlan, A. H., On the number of countable models of a countable superstable theory, Logic, methodology, philosophy of science, vol. IV, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1973, pp. 45–56.Google Scholar
[23] Lascar, D., On the category of models of a complete theory, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 82 (1982), pp. 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24] Lascar, D., Recovering the action of an automorphism group, Logic: from foundations to applications (Hodges, W., Hyland, M., Steinhorn, C., and Truss, J., editors), Oxford University Press, 1996, European Logic Colloquium, Keele, 1993, pp. 313–326.Google Scholar
[25] Lascar, D. and Pillay, A., Hyperimaginaries and automorphism groups, in preparation.Google Scholar
[26] Lascar, D. and Poizat, B., An introduction to forking, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 44 (1979), pp. 330–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[27] Pillay, A., An introduction to stability theory, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1983.Google Scholar
[28] Pillay, A., Definability and definable groups in simple theories, The Journal of Symbolic Logic (to appear).Google Scholar
[29] Pillay, A. and Poizat, B., Pas d'imaginaires dans l'infini!, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 52 (1987), pp. 400–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[30] Pillay, A. and Poizat, B., Corps et chirurgie, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 60 (1995), pp. 528–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[31] Poizat, B., Groupes stables, Nur Al-Mantiq Wal-Ma'rifah, Villeurbanne, 1987.Google Scholar
[32] Shelah, S., Simple unstable theories, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 19 (1980), pp. 177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[33] Shelah, S., Classification theory and the number of non-isomorphic models, 2nd ed., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
[34] Wagner, F. O., Groups in simple theories, preprint, 1997.Google Scholar