Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T13:49:53.367Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On reduction properties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Hirotaka Kikyo  and
Akito Tsuboi
Hirotaka Kikyo
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Tokai University, Hiratsuka, Kanagawa 259-12, Japan, E-mail: [email protected]
Akito Tsuboi
Affiliation:
Institute of Mathematics, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Let us consider countable languages L containing a unary predicate symbol P and L− =L\{P}. We also assume that L is relational. Then for any L-structure M, N = PM can naturally be considered as an L−-substructure of M. The main object of this paper will be the study of the following question: Under what condition does M have to be ℵ0-categorical. ℵ1-categorical, or stable if N is?

Hodges and Pillay [6] proved that if M is a countable symmetric extension of N and T = Th(M) is minimal over P (they said that T is one-cardinal over P), then the total categoricity of N implies that of M. This is a solution to a problem in Ahlbrandt and Ziegler [1]. The condition that “M is a symmetric extension of N” is an interpretation of the condition “every relation on N definable in M is definable within N”. We shall give several interpretations of this phrase: They are the Ø-reduction property, the reduction property, the strong reduction property, and the uniform reduction property (Definition 1). Under the assumptions, we study the question proposed above.

In §3 we treat the case that M is countable and show that if T is minimal over P and M has the strong reduction property over N, then M is ℵ0-categorical if N is (Theorem 5). This is a slight extension of the result of Hodges and Pillay mentioned above. (If M is countable and saturated, then the strong reduction property is equivalent to the condition that M will be symmetric over N if we add a finite number of appropriate constants.) A counterexample to this theorem has been obtained by Hrushovski in the case that only the Ø-reduction property is assumed. We also give a stronger result: If M has the Ø-reduction property over N and is ℵ0-categorical, M\N is infinite, and N is algebraically closed, then there is an expansion M* of M such that M* is not ℵo-categorical but M* still has the Ø-reduction property over N (Theorem 6). Moreover, we give an example such that M has the uniform reduction property over N. Th(M*) is minimal over P. N is ℵ0-categorical but M is not.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 900 - 911
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1994

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]Ahjlbrandtand, G.Ziegler, M., What's so special about (Z/4Z)ω?, Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 31 (1991), pp. 115–132.Google Scholar
[2]Erimbetov, M. M., On complete theories with l-cardinal formulas, Algebra i Logika, vol. 14 (1975), pp. 245–257.Google Scholar
[3]Erimbetov, M. M., A connection between cardinalities of definable sets and the stability of formulas, Algebra i Logika, vol. 24 (1985), pp. 627–630.Google Scholar
[4]Evans, D. M., A note on automorphism groups of countably infinite structures, Archive der Mathematik (Basel), vol. 49 (1987), pp. 479–483.Google Scholar
[5]Hodges, W., Hodkinson, I. M., and MacPherson, D., Omega-categoricity, relative categoricity and coordinatization, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 46 (1990), pp. 169–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Hodges, W. and Pillay, A., Cohomology of structures and some problems of Ahlbrandt and Ziegler, preprint, 1991.Google Scholar