Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T18:17:40.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Independence, dimension and continuity in non-forking frames

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Adi Jarden  and
Alon Sitton
Adi Jarden
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science and Mathematics, Ariel University Center of Samaria, Ariel, Israeland Department of Mathematics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramatgan 52900, Israel, E-mail:[email protected]
Alon Sitton
Affiliation:
Institute of Mathematics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel, E-mail:[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The notion J is independent in (M, M0, N) was established by Shelah, for an AEC (abstract elementary class) which is stable in some cardinal λ and has a non-forking relation, satisfying the good λ-frame axioms and some additional hypotheses. Shelah uses independence to define dimension.

Here, we show the connection between the continuity property and dimension: if a non-forking satisfies natural conditions and the continuity property, then the dimension is well-behaved.

As a corollary, we weaken the stability hypothesis and two additional hypotheses, that appear in Shelah's theorem.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 602 - 632
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2013

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]Adler, H., Introduction to theories without the independence property, preprint, 2008.Google Scholar
[2]Baldwin, J. T., First order theories of abstract dependence relations, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 26 (1984), pp. 215–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Baldwin, J. T., Fundamentals of stability theory, Springer-Verlag, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Baldwin, J. T., Categoricity, in preparation, preprint available at http://www.math.uic.edu/~jbaldwin/put/AEClec.pdf.Google Scholar
[5]Baldwin, J. T., Kolesnikov, A., and Shelah, S., The amalgamation spectrum, in preparation.Google Scholar
[6]Baldwin, J. T., Larson, P. B., and Shelah, S., Saturated models of almost Galois stable classes, 11 2, 2011.Google Scholar
[7]Grossberg, Rami, Classification theory for abstract elementary classes, Logic and algebra (Zhang, Yi, editor), Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 302, 2002, pp. 165–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Grossberg, Rami, Classification of abstract elementary classes, in preparation.Google Scholar
[9]Grossberg, Rami and Kolesnikov, Alexei, Excellent abstract elementary classes are tame, preprint available at arxiv.org/abs/math.L0/0509307.Google Scholar
[10]Grossberg, Rami and Kolesnikov, Alexei, Superior abstract elementary classes are tame, submitted.Google Scholar
[11]Grossberg, Rami and VanDieren, Monica, Galois-stability for tame abstract elementary classes, Journal of Mathematical Logic, vol. 6 (2006), no. 1, pp. 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Grossberg, Rami and VanDieren, Monica, Shelah's categoricity conjecture from a successor for tame abstract elementary classes, this Journal, vol. 71 (2006), no. 2, pp. 553–568.Google Scholar
[13]Harnik, V. and Harrington, L., Fundamentals of forking, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 215 (1984), pp. 245–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Hrushovski, Ehud and Shelah, Saharon, A dichotomy theorem for regular types, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 45 (1989), pp. 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Jarden, Adi, Non-forking frames without conjugation, work in progress.Google Scholar
[16]Jarden, Adi and Shelah, Saharon, Good frames with an almost stability, Annal of Pure and Applied Logic, submitted, preprint available at http://front.math,ucdavis.edu/0901.0852.Google Scholar
[17]Jarden, Adi and Shelah, Saharon, Existence of uniqueness triples without stability, work in progress.Google Scholar
[18]Jarden, Adi and Shelah, Saharon, Weakening the local character, work in progress.Google Scholar
[19]Keisler, H. J., Model theory for infinitary logic, North-Holand, 1971.Google Scholar
[20]Kim, Byunghan and Pillay, Annand, Simple theories, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 88 (1997), pp. 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]Kolesnikov, Alexei, Dependence relations in non-elementary classes. Logic and its applications (Blass, Andreas and Zhang, Yi, editors), Contemporary Mathematics, 2005, pp. 203–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22]Rosenstein, Joseph G., Linear orderings, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 98, Academic Press, 1982.Google Scholar
[23]Shelah, Saharon, Classification theory and the number of nonisomorphic models, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, vol. 92, North-Holland, 1978, second ed., 1991.Google Scholar
[24]Shelah, Saharon, Classification theory for abstract elementary classes, Studies in Logic, College Publications, 2009.Google Scholar
[25]Shelah, Saharon, Non-structure in λ++ using instances of WGCH, Classification theory for abstract elementary classes, [24], Studies in Logic, College Publications, 2009.Google Scholar
[26]Shelah, Saharon, Categoricity of an abstract elementary class in two successive cardinals, preprint available at http://shelah.logic.at/liste.html.Google Scholar
[27]Shelah, Saharon, Weak forms of good frames, in preparation.Google Scholar