We give several characterizations of weakly minimal abelian structures. In two special cases, dual in a sense to be made explicit below, we give precise structure theorems:

1. when the only finite 0-definable subgroup is {0}, or equivalently 0 is the only algebraic element (the co-strongly minimal case);

2. when the theory of the structure is strongly minimal.

In the first case, we identify the abelian structure as a “near-subspace” A of a vector space V over a division ring D with its induced structure, with possibly some collection of distinguished subgroups of A of finite index in A and (up to acl(∅)) no further structure. In the second, the structure is that of V/A for a vector space and near-subspace as above, with the only further possible structure some collection of distinguished points. Here a near-subspace of V is a subgroup A such that for any nonzero d ∈ D. the index of A ∩ dA, in A is finite. We also show that any weakly minimal abelian structure is a reduct of a weakly minimal module.

In [1] we proved the following interpolation theorem for first-order (finitary) logic:

Theorem (Scott). Let A and B be sentences. There is an -sentence C such that A → C and C → B iff whenever and are -isomorphic structures and satisfies A then satisfies B.

We show here that the Theorem holds for A and B in Lω1, ω only if we permit the interpolant C to be in L(2ω)+, ω, where (2ω)+ is the successor of 2ω.

Our language contains the usual logical symbols and the relation symbols Ri, is i ∈ J. IfI ⊆ J define an I-sentence to be a sentence containing only relations with subscripts in I. If define an -sentence to be a boolean combination of I-sentences with , i.e., a sentence consisting of I-sentences, for various I's in , joined together by ∨, ∧ and ⌝; e.g., ∀xR1(x) ∨ ∀xR2(x)is a{{1}, {2}}-sentence but ∀x(R1(x) ∨ R2(x)) is not. If is a structure let , be the structure obtained by restricting to just the relations with subscripts in I. We say that is -isomorphic to if is isomorphic to for each .

This is the third and last part of an investigation in several topics of first order model theory of modules which I began in Some model theory of modules. I. On total transcendence of modules (this Journal, vol. 48 (1983), pp. 570–574) and continued in Some model theory of modules. II. On stability and categoricity of flat modules (this Journal, vol. 48 (1983), pp. 970–985). Throughout I refer to these papers as “Part I” and “Part II”.

Although these parts are only loosely connected, I will tacitly use the notation and preliminaries already introduced in the preceding ones. Further details are given in §0. Concerning Part II, the reader is assumed to be familiar with most of §1, a very small part of §4, and the criterion for elementary equivalence of modules over regular rings given in §3 (Lemma 20) of that part.

Using those tools in this paper I consider completeness of the (elementary) theory of all modules (and of some of its extensions) (§2), and eliminability of cardinality quantifiers in the elementary theories of modules (§3).

§2 is almost entirely devoted to a new short proof based on the technique developed in Part II of a theorem of Tukavkin which seems to be the first relevant result concerning the completeness of the theory of all modules (after the simple observation that any theory of infinite vector spaces is complete).

A union ultrafilter is an ultrafilter over the finite subsets of ω that has a base of sets of the form ${\text{FU}}\left( X \right)$, where X is an infinite pairwise disjoint family and ${\text{FU}}(X) = \left\{ {\bigcup {F|F} \in [X]^{ < \omega } \setminus \{ \emptyset \} } \right\}$. The existence of these ultrafilters is not provable from the $ZFC$ axioms, but is known to follow from the assumption that ${\text{cov}}\left( \mathcal{M} \right) = \mathfrak{c}$. In this article we obtain various models of $ZFC$ that satisfy the existence of union ultrafilters while at the same time ${\text{cov}}\left( \mathcal{M} \right) = \mathfrak{c}$.

We show that after forcing with a countable support iteration or a finite product of Sacks or splitting forcing over L, every analytic hypergraph on a Polish space admits a $\mathbf {\Delta }^1_2$ maximal independent set. This extends an earlier result by Schrittesser (see [25]). As a main application we get the consistency of $\mathfrak {r} = \mathfrak {u} = \mathfrak {i} = \omega _2$ together with the existence of a $\Delta ^1_2$ ultrafilter, a $\Pi ^1_1$ maximal independent family, and a $\Delta ^1_2$ Hamel basis. This solves open problems of Brendle, Fischer, and Khomskii [5] and the author [23]. We also show in ZFC that $\mathfrak {d} \leq \mathfrak {i}_{cl}$ , addressing another question from [5].

In the present paper we are interested in simple forcing notions and Forcing Axioms. A starting point for our investigations was the article [4] in which several problems were posed. We answer some of those problems here.

In the first section we deal with the problem of adding Cohen reals by simple forcing notions. Here we interpret simple as of small size. We try to establish as weak as possible versions of Martin Axiom sufficient to conclude that some forcing notions of size less than the continuum add a Cohen real. For example we show that MA(σ-centered) is enough to cause that every small σ-linked forcing notion adds a Cohen real (see Theorem 1.2) and MA(Cohen) implies that every small forcing notion adding an unbounded real adds a Cohen real (see Theorem 1.6). A new almost ωω-bounding σ-centered forcing notion ℚ⊚ appears naturally here. This forcing notion is responsible for adding unbounded reals in this sense, that MA(ℚ⊚) implies that every small forcing notion adding a new real adds an unbounded real (see Theorem 1.13).

In the second section we are interested in Anti-Martin Axioms for simple forcing notions. Here we interpret simple as nicely definable. Our aim is to show the consistency of AMA for as large as possible class of ccc forcing notions with large continuum. It has been known that AMA(ccc) implies CH, but it has been (rightly) expected that restrictions to regular (simple) forcing notions might help.

First order properties of direct products and direct sums (weak direct products) of relational systems have been studied extensively. For example, in Feferman and Vaught [3] an effective procedure is given for reducing such properties of the product to properties of the factors, and thus in particular elementary equivalence is preserved. We consider here two-sorted relational systems, with the direct product and sum operations keeping one of the sorts stationary. (See Feferman [4] for a similar definition of extensions.)

These considerations are motivated by the example of direct products and sums of modules [8], [9]. In [9] examples are given to show that the direct product of two modules (even having only a finite number of module elements) does not preserve two-sorted (even universal) equivalence for any finite or infinitary language Lκ, λ. So we restrict attention here to direct powers and multiples (many copies of one structure). Also in [9] it is shown (for modules, but the proofs generalize immediately to two-sorted structures with a finite number of relations) that the direct multiple operation preserves first order ∀E-equivalence and the direct power operation preserves first order ∀-equivalence. We show here that these results for general two-sorted structures in a finite first order language are, in a sense, best-possible. Examples are given to show that does not imply , and that does not imply .

For any group satisfying a suitable chain condition, we construct a finitely additive measure on it that is invariant under certain actions.

By inequation is meant an expression of the form,

where a, b are terms taken from any first-order formal language. An inequation is consistent iff it cannot be brought to the form,

by substitution.