Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:54:50.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SMOOTHNESS OF BOUNDED INVARIANT EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2016

KRZYSZTOF KRUPIŃSKI  and
TOMASZ RZEPECKI
KRZYSZTOF KRUPIŃSKI
Affiliation:
INSTYTUT MATEMATYCZNY UNIWERSYTET WROCŁAWSKI PL. GRUNWALDZKI 2/4, 50-384 WROCŁAW POLANDE-mail: [email protected]
TOMASZ RZEPECKI
Affiliation:
INSTYTUT MATEMATYCZNY UNIWERSYTET WROCŁAWSKI PL. GRUNWALDZKI 2/4, 50-384 WROCŁAW POLANDE-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We generalise the main theorems from the paper “The Borel cardinality of Lascar strong types” by I. Kaplan, B. Miller and P. Simon to a wider class of bounded invariant equivalence relations. We apply them to describe relationships between fundamental properties of bounded invariant equivalence relations (such as smoothness or type-definability) which also requires finding a series of counterexamples. Finally, we apply the generalisation mentioned above to prove a conjecture from a paper by the first author and J. Gismatullin, showing that the key technical assumption of the main theorem (concerning connected components in definable group extensions) from that paper is not only sufficient but also necessary to obtain the conclusion.

Keywords

03C4503E1503C60bounded invariant equivalence relationsBorel cardinalitymodel-theoretic connected components
Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 81 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 326 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Symbolic Logic 2016 

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

Kaplan, Itay and Miller, Benjamin D., An embedding theorem of with model theoretic applications. Journal of Mathematical Logic, vol. 14 (2014), no. 2, 1450010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Itay, Miller, Benjamin, and Simon, Pierre, The Borel cardinality of Lascar strong types. Journal of London Mathematical Society (2), vol. 90 (2014), no. 2, pp. 609–630.Google Scholar
Gismatullin, Jakub and Krupiński, Krzysztof, On model-theoretic connected components in some group extensions, Version 2, 2013, arXiv: 1201.5221v2, submitted.Google Scholar
Krupiński, Krzysztof, Pillay, Anand, and Solecki, Sławomir, Borel equivalence relations and Lascar strong types. Journal of Mathematical Logic, vol. 13 (2013), no. 2, 1350008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conversano, Annalisa and Pillay, Anand, Connected components of definable groups and o-minimality I. Advances in Mathematics, vol. 231 (2012), no. 2, pp. 605–623.Google Scholar
Gismatullin, Jakub, Model theoretic connected components of groups. Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 184 (2011), no. 1, pp. 251–274.Google Scholar
Gismatullin, Jakub and Newelski, Ludomir, G-compactness and groups. Archive of Mathematical Logic, vol. 47 (2008), no. 5, pp. 479–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanovei, Vladimir, Borel Equivalence Relations, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2008.Google Scholar
Pillay, Anand, Type-definability, compact lie groups, and o-minimality. Journal of Mathematical Logic, vol. 4 (2004), no. 2, pp. 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newelski, Ludomir, The diameter of a lascar strong type. Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 176 (2003), no. 2, pp. 157–170, doi. 10.4064/fm176-2-4.Google Scholar
Rotman, Joseph J., Advanced Modern Algebra, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI 2002.Google Scholar
Casanovas, Enrique, Lascar, Daniel, Pillay, Anand, and Ziegler, Martin, Galois Groups of First Order Theories. Journal of Mathematical Logic, vol. 1 (2001), no. 2, pp. 305–319.Google Scholar
Becker, Howard and Kechris, A. S., The Descriptive Set Theory of Polish Group Actions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kechris, Alexander S., Classical Descriptive Set Theory, Springer, New York, 1995.Google Scholar