Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T22:36:40.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forking and Dividing in NTP2 theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Artem Chernikov  and
Itay Kaplan
Artem Chernikov
Affiliation:
Université Lyon 1, CNRS, Institut Camille Jordan UMR5208, 43 Boulevard du 11 Novembre 1918, 69622 Villeurbanne Cedex, France, E-mail: [email protected]
Itay Kaplan*
Affiliation:
Fachbereich Mathematik und Statistik, Universität Konstanz, 78457 Konstanz, Germany
*
Mathematisches Institut und Institut für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagenforschung Fachbereich Mathematik und Informatik, Universität Münster, Einsteinstrasse 62, 48149 Münster, Germany, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We prove that in theories without the tree property of the second kind (which include dependent and simple theories) forking and dividing over models are the same, and in fact over any extension base. As an application we show that dependence is equivalent to bounded non-forking assuming NTP2.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 77 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2012

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

[Adl05]Adler, Hans, Explanation of independence, 2005, http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai:arXiv.org:math/0511616.Google Scholar
[Adl08]Adler, Hans, An introduction to theories without the independence property, Archive for Mathematical Logic, accepted, 2008.Google Scholar
[Bue99]Buechler, Steven, Lascar strong types in some simple theories, this Journal, vol. 64 (1999), no. 2, pp. 817–824.Google Scholar
[CK]Chernikov, Artem and Kaplan, Itay, On non-forking spectra, work in progress.Google Scholar
[Dol04]Dolich, Alfred, Forking and independence in o-minimal theories, this Journal, vol. 69 (2004), no. 1, pp. 215–240.Google Scholar
[Hod93]Hodges, Wilfrid, Model theory, Encyclopedia of mathematics and its applications, vol. 42, Cambridge University Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[HP]Hrushovski, Ehud and Pillay, Anand, On NIP and invariant measures, submitted.Google Scholar
[Ker07]Keren, Aviv, Equivalence relations & topological automorphism groups in simple theories, Master's thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalm, Israel, 2007.Google Scholar
[Kim96]Kim, Byunghan, Simple first order theories, Ph.D. thesis, University of Notre Dame, 1996.Google Scholar
[Kim98]Kim, Byunghan, Forking in simple unstable theories, Journal of the London Mathematical Society. Second Series, vol. 57 (1998), no. 2, pp. 257–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[OU11a]Onshuus, Alf and Usvyatsov, Alexander, On dp-minimality, strong dependence and weight, this Journal, vol. 76 (2011), no. 3, pp. 737–758.Google Scholar
[OUlib]Onshuus, Alf, Thorn orthogonality and domination in unstable theories, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 214 (2011), no. 3, pp. 241–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Poi81]Poizat, Bruno, Theories instables, this Journal, vol. 46 (1981), no. 3, pp. 513–522.Google Scholar
[She80]Shelah, Saharon, Simple unstable theories, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 19 (1980), no. 3, pp. 177–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[She90]Shelah, Saharon, Classification theory and the number of nonisomorphic models, second ed., Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 92, North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
[She09]Shelah, Saharon, Dependent first order theories, continued, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 173 (2009), pp. 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Sta]Starchenko, Sergei, A note on Dolich's paper, preprint.Google Scholar
[Usv]Usvyatsov, Alex, Morley sequences in dependent theories, submitted.Google Scholar
[UK]Usvyatsov, Alex and Kaplan, Itay, Strict non-forking in NIP theories, work in progress.Google Scholar