Moran Cohen and Saharon Shelah - Stable Theories and Representation Over Sets

9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

STABLE THEORIES AND REPRESENTATION OVER SETS
[COSH:919]
MORAN COHEN AND SAHARON SHELAH
Abstract
In this paper we give characterizations of the stable, superstable, and -stable
theories, in terms of an external property called representation. In the sense of
the representation property, the mentioned classes of rst-order theories can be
regarded as not very complicated.
Introduction
Our motivation to investigate the properties under consideration in this paper comes
from the following
Thesis: It is very interesting to nd dividing lines and it is a fruitful approach
in investigating quite general classes of models. A natural dividing prop-
erty should have equivalent internal, syntactical, and external properties.
( see [Sheb] for more)
The main results presented in this paper are:
Characterization of stable theories (Theorem 13):
For a complete rst-order theory T, the following conditions are equiv-
alent
(1) T is stable
(2) T is representable in Ex
1
0,|T|
(k
eq
) (cf. denitions 2, 11, and 4).
(3) For some cardinals
1
,
1
,
2
,
2
, it holds that T is representable in
Ex
1
1,1
(Ex
2
2,2
(k
eq
)) (cf. denition 11).
0
,
(k
eq
) for some cardinals , (cf. denition
10).
0
0,|T|
(k
eq
).
Characterization of -stable theories (Theorem 40):
For a complete rst-order theory T, the following conditions are equiv-
alent
We thank Assaf Hasson for his constructive remarks.
1
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

americanSTABLE THEORIES AND REPRESENTATION OVER SETS [COSH:919] 2
(1) T is -stable.
2
(k
eq
).
1
,2
(k
eq
).
0,lf
,2
(k
eq
) (see denition 11)
Characterization of superstable theories (Theorem 42):
For a complete rst-order theory T the following conditions are equiva-
lent
(1) T is superstable.
2
2
|T|
,0
(k
eq
).
1
2
|T|
,2
(k
eq
).
0,lf
2
|T|
,2
(k
eq
).
2
,0
(k
eq
) for some cardinal .
0,lf
,
(k
eq
) for some cardinals , .
Discussion 0.1. It would seem natural to conjecture that if k
eq
is replaced by k
or
in
the above properties, we can nd an analogous characterization for dependent the-
ories. However, such characterization would imply strong theorems on existence of
indiscernible sequences. Lately (see [KS]), some dependent theories were discovered
for which it is quite hard to nd indiscernible subsequences, rendering the nave
conjecture false.
1. Preliminaries
The main model-theoretic denitions that we will use are
Denition 1. A theory T is called -stable i for every model M of T and A
M, [A[ it holds for every m < that [S
m
(A, M)[ .
T is called stable if T is -stable for some cardinal . T is called superstable if there
exists , such that T is -stable for every .
1.1. Structure classes and representation.
Convention 1. k denotes a class of structures with a given dictionary (signature)
k
. A structure I = , [I[ , [=) is a triple of dictionary, universe(domain) and the
interpretation relation for formulas in the language (usually logical closure of atomic
formulas). The dictionary may contain constants, partial nitary and innitary
functions and nitary and innitary relations.
Discussion 1.1. We will always have a rst-order complete theory T in the back-
ground. We separate the notions of structure and model to structures that
belong to a given class of structures and structures from EC(T), respectively.
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

Now we reach the central denition
Denition 2. For structures M and I, and sets of formulas . The function
f : M I is called a -representation of M in I if
tp
qf
(f(a), , I) = tp
qf
(f(b), , I) tp
(a, , M) = tp
(b, , M)
for any two sequences a, b
<
M. (qf = L
qf
I
denotes the quantier free formulas
in I.)
We say that a structure M is -represented in k if there exists an I k
such that M is -represented in I.
For two classes of structures k
0
, k we say that k
0
is -represented in k if
every M k
0
is -represented in k.
We say that a rst-order theory T is -represented in k if EC(T) is -
represented in k.
Denition 3. For a structure I we say that
1
a
t
: t I) is a -indiscernible struc-
ture over A if for all s, t I with the same quantier-free type it holds that
2
tp
(a
t
, A, M) = tp
(a
s
, A, M)
For a class of structures k, model M [= T and subset A M let
Ind
(k, A, M) = a : a = a
t
: t I) is a -indiscernible structure over A, I k
Convention 2. We omit the respective symbol from the above notation in the
specic cases = L(
M
) , M = C and A = .
Denition 4. k
eq
denotes the class of structures structures of the language =.
1.2. The free algebras M
,
.
Denition 5. The free algebra generated by a structure I and the functions (where
for each F
,
is a -ary function symbol)
F
,
: < , < ) is a structure denoted M
,
(I), whose dictionary,
,
con-
tains the equality relation, a unary relation I for the (given) set of atoms I, the
dictionary of I and the -ary functions F
,
: < ) for every < .universe is
3
:
M
,
(I) =
_
Ord
M
,,
(I)
Where M
= M
,,
(I) is dened as follows:
1
This denition also appears in [Shea],[She87, II]
2
for a sequence s we denote a
s
:= as
0
. . .
as
lg(s)1
3
This denes a set and not a proper class by remark 1.
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

M
0
:= I
For limit : M
(I) =
<
M
(I)
For = + 1
M
= M

_
F
,
(b) : b
, < , <
_
Where F
,
(b) is treated as a formal object. The interpretation of I and its dic-
tionary is by reduction. The -ary function F
,
(x) is interpreted as the mapping
a F
,
(a) for all a
[M
,
(I)[, where F
,
(a) on the right side of the mapping
is the formal object.
Denition 6. We denote
=
_
_
_
= cf
+
otherwise
for every cardinal .
Remark 1. Since
is regular, for all < and sequence of terms

i
(c
i
)
M
, (i < ) there exists <
such that
i
(c
i
) M
for all i < . Therefore

F
,
(
i
(c
i
) : i < )) M
+1
M
, hence M
,
(S) = M
,,
(S) and particu-
larly M
,
(S) is a set (though dened as a class).
Observation 1.2. |M
,
(S)| ( +[S[)
<
. [M
[ ( +[S[)
<
can be proved
by induction on
.
Denition 7. For a sequence a M
,
(S) we dene its closure under subterms as
the set cl(a) dened by induction on the construction of the term and the sequence
length as
cl(a) := a for a S. If lg(a) = 1 and a
0
= F
,
(b) then cl(a) := a
0

cl(b
i
) : i < . Otherwise, cl(a) :=
cl(a
i
) : i < lg(a).
Denition 8. We say that
0
is closed under -terms if for every set S,
cardinal and sequence a
<
(M
,
(S)) the closure of a under subterms has
power less than .
Remark 2. If is closed under -terms then for every set S and sequence a
<
(M
,
(S)) there exist < , and a term (x
)
,
(x
) ( where x
= x
)
and a sequence b
S such that a = (b).

Observation 1.3. All regular are closed under -terms.
Denition 9. Denote
,
:=
M
,
(x
= (
+ )
<
.
Let /(S) a free algebra. we shall say that / L
M
is a minimal system of terms
for /, if and only if for every (v) /(S) there exists a single
(x) / such
that for some u S without repetitions it holds that (v) =
(u).
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

Observation 1.4. Every free algebra has a minimal system of terms. This follows
from the axiom of choice.
1.3. Extensions of classes of structures.
Discussion 1.5. For a class of structures k, we dene several classes of structures
that are based on k.
Denition 10. Ex
0
,
(k) is the class of structures dened by extending each I k
to a structure whose dictionary is
I
+
:= I, P
: < ) , F
: < ))
By additional relations and functions P
, F
/
I
for all < , < , such that:
_
P
I
+
: <
_
is a partition on [I[.
_
F
I
+
: <
_
are partial unary functions.
Denition 11. Ex
0,lf
,
(k) is the class of structures in Ex
0
,
(k) for which the closure
of every element under the new functions if nite. (lf stands for locally nite).
Ex
1
,
(k) is the class of structures in Ex
0
,
(k) for which F
(P
) P
<
:=
<
P
holds for every < , < .

Ex
2
,
(k) is the class of structures /
,
(I), where I k.
1.4. Some properties of representation and extension classes. Let us note
several properties of representation
Observation 1.6. Let M, I, J be structures. If f : J I is a -representation
of M in I and g : I J is an L
qf
I
-representation of I in J, then g f is a
-representation of M in J.
Observation 1.7. Ex
0
,
(k) Ex
0,lf
,
(k) Ex
1
,
(k).
Observation 1.8. k is qf-representable in all the extension classes of k dened
above, for any two cardinals , .
In the following observations we use Ex
to mean that each claim holds for one of

Ex
0
, Ex
0,lf
, Ex
1
, Ex
2
at a time.
Observation 1.9. The classes Ex
1+2,1+2
(k) and Ex
2,2
(Ex
1,1
(k)) are qf-
representable in each-other.
Observation 1.10. If
2

1
,
2

1
then Ex
2,2
(k) is qf-representable in
Ex
1,1
(k).
Observation 1.11. Ex
2
2,2
(Ex
1
1,1
(k)) is qf-representable in Ex
1
1,1
(Ex
2
2,2
(k)).
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

1
2
,
(k
eq
) is qf-representable in Ex
1
0,
(k
eq
).
Proof. Let I, P
: < 2
) , F
: < )) be the dictionary of I

+
. Without loss of
generality
P
I
+
0
2 (every model such that
P
I
+
0
= 1 can be represented in such

a model). We select two distinct t
0
, t
1
P
I
+
0
and let h : 2
T() a bijection.
Consider the structure I
= I, F
: < ) , G
: < )) whose universe is [I

+
[,
F
I
= F
I
+
and also dene for all < , x P

I
+
,
G
I
(x) =
_
_
_
t
0
h()
t
1
, h()
it is easy to verify that the identity is a L
qf
I
+
-representation of I
+
in I
.
2
(k
eq
1
,2
(k
eq
) for
0
.
Proof. Let
(x
) : < ) be a minimal system of terms of /
(S) (see denition

9, is the upper bound on function symbol arities, is the number of functions).
W.l.o.g lg (x
0
) = 1,
0
(x
0
) = x
0
. Consider the structure I
+
whose dictionary is
I, f
last
, f
head
, P
: < )) and has universe

, i, s
0
. . . s
i
) : < , i < lg (x
) , s
0
. . . s
i1
S
Let
, i
) : i < ) enumerate the pairs , i) : < , i < lg (x
) in increasing
lexical order. Let P
I
+
the set of sequences in [I

+
[ whose head is
, i
), and let
f
I
+
last
(, i, s
0
. . . s
i
)) := 0, 0, s
i
)
f
I
+
head
(, i, s
0
. . . s
i
)) := , i 1, s
0
. . . s
i1
) (i > 0)
we dene a map h : /
(S) [I
+
[ as follows:
h(
(v)) =
, lg (x
) 1, v
0
, . . . , v
lg(x)1
_
That h is a qf-representation of /
(S) in I
+
is easy to verify.
Denition 12. We say that a function f with domain and range contained in a
structure I is a partial automorphism when for every sequence a [I[ it holds that
tp
qf
(a, , I) = tp
qf
(f(a), , I).
2. Stable theories
The central result for this section is
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

Theorem 13. for a complete rst-order theory T, the following conditions are
equivalent
(1) T is stable
1
0,|T|
(k
eq
) (cf. denitions 2, 11, and 4).
1
|T|
+
,|T|
(k
eq
).
1
2
|T|
,|T|
(k
eq
).
(5) For some cardinals
1
,
1
,
2
,
2
, it holds that T is representable in Ex
1
1,1
(Ex
2
2,2
(k
eq
))
(cf. denition 11).
0
,
(k
eq
) for some cardinals , (cf. denition 10).
0
0,|T|
(k
eq
).
Proof. 1 3 is by theorem 30. 2 3 4 5 are immediate by 1.10. 4 5, 7
6 are immediate. 5 1 by theorem 15. 3 2 by observations 1.6,1.12 giving us
equivalence of conditions 1 5. 2 7 by 1.7. We leave 6 1 without a complete
proof, since it is very similar to 5 1.
Stability of representable theories.
Discussion 2.1. We shall rst prove the rst direction of the main theorem.
Namely, that a theory which is representable in Ex
2
2,2
_
Ex
1
1,1
(k
eq
)
_
is stable.
The method relies on the combinatorial properties of models of stable theories, par-
ticularly that all order indiscernibles are indiscernible sets.
For this subsection we assume that T is representable in Ex
2
2,2
_
Ex
1
1,1
(k
eq
)
_
, for
some cardinals $
1
,
2
,
1
,
2
$.
Theorem 14. For cardinals , , if the following holds:
a.
2
+
+
1
b. > +
2,2
+
1
a regular cardinal (see denition 9)
g. >
<
for all cardinals <
then, for every sequence b =
: <
_
C of length < and < there
exists S []
such that
: S
_
is an indiscernible set.
Proof. Let M [= T such that b [M[ and assume that f : M I
+
:= (/
2,2
(I), P
, F
)
<1,<1
is a representation, I =
<1
P
and let a
= f(b
) for all < .

w.l.o.g we can add the following assumptions
Each a
is closed under subterms in /

2,2
(I):
2
is regular, so it is
closed under
2
-terms.
The set F
: <
1
is closed under composition. ( including the empty
composition = the identity )
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

Each a
is closed under the partial functions F
: To nd the closure of a
under the functions we need to add at most

1
elements, so the closure of
a
is < .
lg a
= =[[ for all < : since =
<
< : = lg a
and >
is regular, and by reordering.
The rest of the proof is by taking subsequences of the original sequence, while
preserving the length , as follows (in brackets we note the common property of
the sought subsequence):
First subsequence (sequences constructed by the same terms) : By 2, for each i <
, < there exist terms
,i
(x
,i
) M
2,2
(x
2
) and sequences t
,i

<
2
I such
that a
,i
=
,i
(t
,i
). since > [
2,2
]
is regular, there exist

i
(x
i
) : i < )
, S
0
[]
such that
,i
(x
,i
) : i < ) =
i
(x
i
) : i < ) for all S
0
.
Second subsequence (the quantier free type of a
relative to the P
): since (
1
)
<
, there exists a S
1
[S
0
]
such that the function

_
(i, )
1
: a
i
_
is constant on S
1
( denote this constant as the relation R
1
).
Third subsequence - ( the quantier free type of a
relative to the F
): since
1+

<
< , there exists a S
2
[S
1
]
such that the function

_
(,
0
,
1
) :
0
,
1
< , <
1
, F
(a
0
) = a
1
_
is constant on S
2
( denote this constant as the relation R
2
).
Final subsequence: By the -system lemma theorem (48) there exist S
3
[S
2
]
,
U , E such that:
a
U = a
U for all , S
3
.
E is an equivalence relation such that for all S
3
: a
i
= a
j
(i, j) E.
a
i
= a
j
i, j U for all ,= S
3
.
We now show that for any nite u, v S
3
of length without repetition, it holds
that a
v
and a
u
have the same quantier-free type in I
+
.
Let (x
) an atomic formula. By symmetry, it suces to show that (a

u
)
(a
v
).
Case (x
) =
1
(x
) =
2
(x
):
proof is carried by induction on the complexity of the term
1
.
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

For
1
(x
) = F
,
(
1
(x
)) it follows from properties of the free al-

gebra that for some sequence of terms
2
(x
) it holds that
2
(x
) =
F
,
(
2
(x
)) and also
1,i
(a
u
) =
2,i
(a
u
) for all i < . The induc-
tion hypothesis implies that
1,i
(a
v
) =
2,i
(a
v
) and thus
1
(a
v
) =
2
(a
v
) as required.
For
1
(x
) = F
1
(
1
(x
)), the validity of (a

u
) implies that
2
(a
u
) =
1
(a
u
) I. It is easy to verify (by induction on the com-
plexity of the term) that the terms
s
(s = 1, 2) contains only symbols
from x
, F
( since Dom(F
) I ). Now, for a nite sequence of

ordinals , denote F
:= F
0
. . . F
lg()
, (F

- the identity). It is
easy to verify that the term
s
(x
) takes the form F

s
(x
is,s
). for
some sequence .
And the formula can be rewritten as:
F
1
(x
i1,1
) = F
2
(x
i2,2
)
Since the family F
: <
1
) is closed under composition ( see above
), there exists an
s
<
1
such that F
s
= F
s
. The sequences
a
uis
are closed under F
: <
1
), hence for some
s
< it holds
that F
s
(a
uis
,s
) = a
uis
,
s
and a
ui
1
,
1
= a
ui
2
,
2
. The former implies
s
,
s
,
s
) R
2
and the latter implies that
1
,
2
U and
1
,
2
)
E. Now, since a
vi
1
U = a
vi
2
U it follows that F
s
(a
vis
,s
) = a
vis
,
s
and a
vi
1
,
1
= a
vi
2
,
2
so easily [= (a
v
).
(x
) = P
((x
)): [= (a
v
) implies that (x
) = F
(x
i,
) for some
i < , < . Now by the closure of the functions under composition, formula
is equivalent to P
(F
(x
i,
)). And for some
we get that F
(a
ui,
) =
a
ui,
and P
(a
ui,
) implying , ,
) R
2
and ,
) R
1
, respectively.
Similar arguments give [= (a
u
).
Theorem 15. If T is representable in Ex

2
2,2
(Ex
1
1,1
(k
eq
)), then T is stable.
Proof. Assume towards contradiction that T is unstable. Recall from classication
theory that
Theorem 16. (the order property) T is unstable if and only if there exist a formula
(x, y) and a sequence a
n
: n < ) such that [= (a
i
, a
j
)
if(i<j)
holds for all i, j < .
(see [She90, II.2.13])
By this fact, and compactness, we can construct a sequence a
i
: i < ), where
=
2
( +
2,2
+
1
)
+
, =
2
+
+
1
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

such that [= (a
i
, a
j
)
if(i<j)
holds for all i, j < .
Now by the assumptions let f : M I
+
be a represent M in Ex
2
2,2
(Ex
1
1,1
(k
eq
)).
It is easily veried that the conditions in 14 hold. Hence, there exists S []
such
that a
i
: i S is an indiscernible set and particularly [= (a
i
, a
j
) (a
j
, a
i
)
holds for all i, j S, contradicting the assumption.
Stability implies representability.
Discussion 2.2. We turn to proving the other direction. We recall several facts
about stable theories (see [She90, II, III]).
Denition 17. The formula (x, a) divides over a set A i there exists a sequence
a
n
: n < ) such that tp(a
n
, A) = tp(a, A) for all n < , but there exists an m <
such that [= x
_
nw
(x, a
n
) holds for all w []
m
.
The type p(x) forks over A if there exist formulas
i
(x, a
i
) (i < n), such that for
all i < n,
i
divides over A and p(x)
_
i<n
i
(x, a
i
).
Fact 18. (Monotonicity of forking) If p(x) forks over A and B A, q p then q
forks over B.
For a stable T,
(1) (Symmetry) tp(a, A b) does not fork over A i tp(b, A a) does not fork
over A.
(2) (Transitivity) For sets A B C such that tp(a, C) does not fork over B,
and tp(a, B) does not fork over A it holds that tp(a, C) does not fork over
A.
Fact 19. (Forking preserved under elementary maps) If p(x) forks over A, and f
is an elementary map in M, Dom(f) Dom(p) A, then f(p) forks over f(A).
(see [She90, III.1.5])
Denition 20. We say that I C is strongly independent over A if
For any a I, the type tp(a, A I a , M) is the unique extension in S(A
I a) of tp(a, A, M) which does not fork over A.
Denition 21. We say that a sequence I
: < ) is a strongly independent

decomposition of M of length i for all < , it holds that I
is strongly
independent over I
<
(in M), and that [M[ = I
<
.
Claim 22. Let a
1
, a
2
C, A B
1
, B
2
such that tp(a
i
, A a
3i
) does not fork
over B
i
and tp(a
i
, A) is the unique non-forking extension of tp(a
i
, B
i
) in S(A).
Then ()
1
()
2
where:
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

()
i
The type tp(a
i
, B
i
) has a unique extension to Aa
3i
which is non-forking.
Proof. By symmetry it suces to show that ()
2
()
1
.
Assume that tp(a
2
, B
2
) has two dierent non-forking extensions p
1
, p
2
S(A
a
1
).
Since both types are complete, there exists a formula = (x, a
1
, c) over Aa
1
such that p
1
, p
2
. Let b
1
, b
2
realize p
1
, p
2
, respectively.
tp(b
i
, A) = p
i
A is a non-forking extension of p, by uniqueness it follows that
p
1
A = p
2
A. Hence, for i < 2 there exist elementary maps F
i
in C such that
F
i
A = id
A
, F
i
(b
i
) = a
2
.
Let q
i
S(A b
i
) be a non-forking extension of tp(a
1
, B
1
).
Then F
i
(q
i
) S(A a
2
) is a non-forking extension of tp(a
1
, B
1
) (F
i
A = id
A
,
and non-forking is preserved under elementary maps).
Now, note that [= (b
1
, a
1
, c) (b
2
, a
1
, c) which implies (a
2
, x, c) F
1
(q
1
) and
also (a
2
, x, c) F
2
(q
2
). This implies that F
1
(q
1
), F
2
(q
2
) are distinct extensions
of tp(a
1
, B
1
), as needed.
Claim 23. If I
: < ) is a strongly independent decomposition of M, then every

order-preserving renement of this partition is also a strongly independent decom-
position of M.
Remark 3. An order-preserving renement is a partition J
: <
) which re-
nes I
: < ) such that for all < < ,
<
, I
imply
<
.
Proof. Using the basic properties of non-forking
Fact 24. For stable T, distinct types p, q S(B) non-forking over A B, there
exists E FE(A) such that
p(x) q(y) E(x, y)
(see [She90, III.2.9(2)] )
Denition 25. We say that a formula (x, c) ( with parameters from C) is almost
over A C i for some E(x, y) FE(A) and some d C it holds that T [=
E(x, d) (x, c).
A formula is over A C i it is equivalent in T to a formula with parameters taken
only from A.
Remark 4. It should be clear that in the following, the notions formula over A
and formula with parameters from A are interchangeable.
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

Theorem 26. For stable T, Let A B such that for every formula over B
which is almost over A, is equivalent (in T) to a formula over A. If p, q S(B)
are distinct and non-forking over A, there exists a
(x, c) over A such that p
, q
.
Proof. By 24, there exists an equivalence relation E FE(A) such that p(x)q(y)
E(x, y).
Let b
i
: i < n(E) C enumerate representatives for all the distinct equivalence
classes of E and let
w := i < n(E) : p(x) E(x, b
i
) is consistent
W.l.o.g assume that b
i
realizes p for all i w . Let (x) :=
_
iw
E(x, b
i
). It can
be easily veried that p(x) (x) and similarly, q(x) (x). We will show that
(x) is preserved by every f Aut(C/B):
Since p is over B and E is a formula over B, they are preserved by f and so:
p(x) E(x, b
i
) p(x) E(x, f(b
i
)) holds for all i < n(E) .
E(b
i
, b
j
) holds for every i, j < n(E), i ,= j and hence also E(f(b
i
), f(b
j
)).
Hence, f can be regarded as a permutation on b
i
/E : i w, the equivalence
classes of E in C:
f((C)) = f(
_
iw
b
i
/E) =
_
iw
f(b
i
)/E = (C)
Consequently, [= (x) f((x)). Now we use a well known fact:
Fact 27. A formula (x, c) is equivalent to a formula over B if and only if
(x, f(c)) (x, c) holds for every f Aut(C/B) . (see [She90, III.2.3(2)] )
Giving the required equivalent formula.
Lemma 28. Let = [T[
+
. For a stable T, for each model M [= T there exists a
strongly independent decomposition of length
Proof. We choose by induction a sequence I
: < ) such that I
is strongly
independent over I
<
, and is also maximal in [M[ I
<
with respect to this property
for every < .
Assume towards contradiction that the elements of M were not exhausted after
iterations, then there exists an a MI
<
. Recall that for a stable theory (T)
(see [She90, III;3.2,3.3]) and so, by the denition of (T) there exists a set
B I
<
, [B[ < (T)
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

Such that p(x) := tp(a, I
<
) is non-forking over B, and by regularity of there
exists
0
() < [[ such that I
<0()
B.
Now, let
:=
_
(x; c) : B almost over (x, c), (x; y) L, c
lg y
I
<
_
Recall that
Fact 29. (see [She90] III;2.2(2)) There are (up to logical equivalence mod T) at
most [T[ +[A[ formulas almost over A.
Hence, let
, [
[ [B[ + [T[ < cf() represent all formulas almost over

B up to logical equivalence. By regularity of there exists
1
() < such that
b I
<()
for all (x, b)
. Let () = max
0
(),
1
().
We will prove that p I
()
is the unique extension in S(I
<()
) of p
I
<()
.
Since p does not fork over B, there exists a q S(I
()
) which extends p I
<()
,
and does not fork over I
<()
.
By the transitivity of non-forking, q does not fork over B. Assume towards con-
tradiction that p ,= q. By fact 24 there exists E FE(B) such that q(x) p(y)
E(x, y), and particularly q(x) E(x, a).
The formula E(x, a) is almost over B. By choice of
1
(), there exist a b I
<()
and (x, b) logically equivalent to E(x, a).
Now since E(a, a) holds, we also get [= (a, b), and since b I
<()
, we get (x, b)
tp(a, I
<()
) = q I
<()
, a contradiction.
We proved that tp(a, I
()
) is the unique non-forking extension of tp(a, I
<()
) in
S
_
I
()
b
_
. Recall from the choice of I
()
that for all b I
()
, tp(b, I
()
b)
is the unique extension in S
_
I
()
b
_
which does not fork over I
<()
.
Now, claim 22 implies that tp(b, I
()
b a) is the unique non-forking exten-
sion of tp(b, I
<()
) in S(I
()
b a).
This implies that the condition above holds for I
()
a over I
<()
, contra-
dicting the maximality of I
()
.
Theorem 30. A stable rst order theory T is representable in Ex
1
|T|
+
,|T|
(k
eq
).
Proof. Let M [= T. By lemma 28 we get a strongly independent decomposition of
M:
_
I
: < [T[
+
_
. By claim 23 we can assume w.l.o.g that [I
1
[ = [I
0
[ = 1.
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

Dene I
+
=
i
, P
, F
(x,y),j
: < , i < [T[ , (x, y) L, j < k
(x,y)
_
k
eq
as
follows:
[I
+
[ = [M[, P
I
+
= I
for all < .

Now dene the functions
_
(F
i
)
I
+
: i < [T[
_
: Dom(F
i
) = [M[ (I
0
I
1
) for all
i < [T[. Fix > 1, a I
. Let F
i
(a) = b
i
, (i < [T[) where b
i
: i < [T[) enumerates
(possibly with repetitions) B from lemma 34 (substitute A = I
<
there).
Now, recall
Fact 31. (Type denability in stable theories) Let A M, [A[ 2. For every
formula (x, y) there exists another formula
(y, z) such that: For all b C there

exists a c such that
[= (b, a) [=
(a, c)
for all a A (see [She90, II.2.2]).
And for each (x, y) L let
(y, z
) as above, and dene the partial unary

functions
_
F
I
+
(x,y),j
(x) : j < k
(x,y)
_
as follows: Dom
_
F
I
+
(x,y),j
_
= [M[ (I
0
I
1
).
Let c
a

lg(z)
I
<
for all 2 < and a I
such that [= [a, b] [=
[b, c
a
]
and dene for all j < lg(z
) the function
F
I
+
(x,y),j
(a) := (c
a
)
j
Thus we have dened I
+
and we dene f : M I
+
as f(a) = a for all a [M[.
We turn to prove that f is indeed a representation.
By 33 it is suces to prove:
For every partial automorphism h of I
+
with domain and range closed under func-
tions
tp(h(a), , M) = tp(a, , M)
holds for all a Dom(h).
Let D
= I
Dom(h), R
= I
Rang(h). It is easily veried that for < ,

h D
is a partial automorphism of I
+
from D
onto R
. We will prove by
induction on < that
h(tp (a, D
<
, M)) = tp (h(a), R
<
, M)
,n
holds for all n < , and a D
of length n without repetitions.
,n
holds for < 2 since by the denition, [I
[ = 1.
Now let 2 and assume that
,n
holds for all n < , < . We prove by
induction on n < that
,n
holds.
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

First,
,1
: Let a I
, = (x, c) a formula over D

<
. W.l.o.g assume [=
[a, c]. by the denition of the functions it follows [=
[c, F
,0
(a) . . . F
,lg z1
(a)].
This formula contains only constants from D
<
, so by the induction hypothesis,
[=
[h(c), h(F
,0
(a)) . . . h(F
,lg z1
(a))] holds. Since h is a partial automorphism
(with closed range and domain) of I
+
, h commutes with the functions on I
+
so
[=
[h(c), F
,0
(h(a)) . . . F
,lg z1
(h(a))] holds. By the denitions of F
,j
(j <
lg z),
we get M [= [h(a), h(c)], as needed.

For n > 1 we continue by induction, but rst we state a lemma about I
+
( to be
proven later)
Lemma 32. If A I
+
is closed under the partial functions I
+
then A I
Is
strongly independent over A I
<
.
Now, let a D
of length n and b D
a. By the induction hypothesis (on n), it

follows that h (D
<
a) is elementary. By 32, D
is strongly independent over

D
<
. Hence, tp(b, D
b) does not fork over D

<
and particularly tp(b, D
<
a)
does not fork over D
<
.
By the induction hypothesis, h (D
<
a) is elementary, and so q := h(tp(b, D
<
a)) does not fork over h(D

<
) = R
<
. Note that q h(tp(b, D
<
)) and by
,1
(see above) h(tp(b, D
<
)) = tp(h(b), R
<
) holds. Hence, q extends tp(h(b), R
<
)
to a type over R
<
a and does not fork over R
<
. Therefore there exists an
extension q q
S(R
h(b)) which does not fork over R

<
.
Since R
is closed under the partial functions, it follows from lemma 32 that R
is
strongly independent over R
<
, meaning that q
= tp(h(b), R
h(b)). Now we
reduce both types to the domain R
<
h(a) to get
tp(h(a), R
<
h(a)) = h(tp(b, D
<
a)
and the induction step on n:
tp(h(b
a), R
<
) = h(tp(b
a, D
<
))
Hence, f is a representation.
Proof of lemma 32:
Proof. Let A
= I
A, a A
, B := F
i
(a) : i < [T[. We prove that tp(a, A
I
a) is the unique non-forking extension in S(AI
a) of tp(a, AI
<
) .
Since A
<
is closed under the F
i
, it follows that B A
<
, and tp(a, I
<
) does
not fork over B (see lemma 34). Now, by transitivity of non forking tp(a, I
a)
which is a non-forking extension of tp(a, I
<
), does not fork over B either. By the
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

denition of B, we also get that every formula over I
<
which is almost over B is
equivalent to a formula over B (again, see lemma 34).
Now, by monotonicity of non-forking we get that tp(a, A
a) tp(a, I
a)
does not fork over A
<
.
To prove uniqueness, let q
0
S(A
a) a non-forking extension of tp(a, A

<
).
q
0
has a non-forking extension q S(I
a). By transitivity, q does not fork

over B . Recall that the functions F
i
are dened so that every formula over I
<
and almost over B is equivalent to a formula over B. The types q I
<
, tp(a, I
<
)
are both non-forking over B. Since q extends tp(a, A
<
) tp(a, B) we get that
q I
<
, tp(a, I
<
) (both non-forking over B) agree on all formulas over B, and by
theorem 26 this implies q I
<
= tp(a, I
<
). Now, since q is a non-forking extension
of tp(a, I
<
) and I
is strongly independent over I

<
we get that q = tp(a, I
)
and so
q
0
= q (A
a) = tp(a, A
a)
as required.
Claim 33. Let I
+
Ex
1
,
(k
or
) and f : M I
+
a function such that
h(f(a)) = f(b) tp(a, , M) = tp(b, , M)
holds for every partial automorphism h of I
+
which has closed domain and range
under the partial functions and sequences a, b M. Then f is a representation.
Proof. Let f be as described above. Now assume towards contradiction that f is
not a representation. Therefore there exist a, b M which have dierent types in
M such that the map f(a) f(b) is a partial automorphism of I
+
. It is possible
to extend this partial automorphism to one with domain and range closed under
the partial functions, contrary to the denition of f.
Lemma 34. For stable T, Let A M [= T. there exists B A such that:
[B[ [T[
For every (x, c) over A which is almost over B there exists (x, d) over B
such that [= x
_
(x, d) (x, c)
_
.
tp(a, A) does not fork over B.
Proof. First, dene an increasing sequence B
n
by induction on n.
Let [B
0
[ < (T) [T[
+
, B
0
A such that tp(a, A) does not fork over B
0
.
Now assume B
n
was dened and let
S
n
:= (x, c) L
T
: c A, (x, c) is almost over B
n
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

By fact 29 there exist at most [T[ +[B
n
[ = [T[ non equivalent formulas almost over
B
n
. Therefore w.l.o.g [S
n
[ [T[ and dene B
n+1
as follows:
B
n+1
:= B
n
c : (x, c) S
n
That the required properties of B :=
n<
B
n
hold is easily veried.
3. -stable theories
In this section we will prove the following result:
Characterization of -stable theories(40): for a complete rst-order the-
ory T, the following conditions are equivalent
(1) T is -stable.
2
(k
eq
).
1
,2
(k
eq
).
0,lf
,2
(k
eq
) (see denition 11)
Proof. Theorem 40 gives 1 2. Claim 1.13 gives 2 3. 3 4 is immediate and
4 1 follows from claim 35.
Claim 35. If T is representable in Ex
0,lf
,2
(k
eq
) then T is stable.
Proof. By the denition of representation and -stability it suces to show that
for every structure I Ex
0,lf
,2
(k
eq
),
S
n
qf
(A)

0
for every countable A I, n < .
We give a proof sketch. Fix a countable A I.
(1) W.l.o.g A is closed under the functions of I.
(2) tp
qf
(a, A) S
n
qf
(A) is determined by formulas of the following types
P
((b)) (b x)
1
(b
0
) =
2
(b
1
) (b
0
, b
1
x)
1
(b
0
) = b
1
(b
0
x, b
1
A)
For ,
1
,
2
terms in the dictionary of I, and so necessarily unary.
(3) Moreover, since I is locally nite, tp
qf
(a, A) is determined by a nite subset
of these formulas.
So, the number of n-ary types over A is at most [A[
<

0

Convention 3. We assume for the rest of this chapter that T is stable in
0
.
Claim 36. Let p S(A), there exists a nite B A such that p does not fork over
B ( see [Pil83, 5.7])
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

Claim 37. Let p S(A). For a given B A there are only nitely many non-forking
extensions of p in S(B). (see [Pil83, 5.27])
Corollary 38. For p S(A) there exists a nite B A such that p is the unique
non-forking extension of p B to S(A).
Proof. By 37 there are nitely many extensions of p B in S(A), therefore there
exists a nite B
0
A such that q
0
B
0
,= q
1
B
0
holds for every distinct q
0
, q
1

S(A) non-forking extensions of p. Also p does not fork over some nite B
1
A.
Now, the conclusion easily follows for B = B
0
B
1
.
Claim 39. Let M [= T, and I
0
[M[ an indiscernible set (possibly nite). There
exists a sequence of sets I
n
: 0 < n < ) such that
(1) For all a I
n
, n < there exists a nite B
a
I
<n
such that tp(a, I
n
a)
is the unique non-forking extension of tp(a, B
a
) in S(I
n
a).
(2) I
n
I
<n
= and also I
<
= [M[.
Proof. Consider the family T of sequences I
n
: n < ) from M which fulll the
rst condition. Consider the following partial order on T
I
n
: n < ) _ J
n
: n < ) :=
n<
(I
n
J
n
)
First, every increasing chain in T has an upper bound in T by taking unions
element-by-element. By Zorns lemma T contains a maximal element I
n
: n < ).
Assume towards contradiction that there exists a MI
<
. By corollary 38 there
exists a nite B
a
I
<
such that tp(a, I
<
) is the unique non-forking extension of
tp(a, B
a
) in S(I
<
). Since B
a
A I
<
and q S(A) is a non-forking extension
of tp(a, A), by transitivity of non-forking there exists q q
S(I
<
) which does
not fork over B
a
. From the denition of B
a
it follows that q
= tp(a, I
<
), and so
tp(a, A) is the unique non-forking extension of tp(a, B
a
) in S(A). Now, since B
a
is nite there exists 0 < n
< such that B

a
I
<n
. On the other hand, from
the choice of I
n
: n < ) there exists a nite B
b
I
<n
such that tp(b, I
n
b)
is the unique non-forking extension of tp(b, B
b
) in S(I
n
b). From claim 22 we
get for all b I
n
that tp(b, I
n
b a) is the unique non-forking extension of
tp(b, B
b
) in S(I
n
b a). Hence, I
n
= I
n
(n ,= n
), I
n
= I
n
a belongs
to T contradicting the choice of I
n
: n < ).
Theorem 40. Let M [= T, = |M|, I
0
a set of indiscernibles in M. Then we
M can be represented in /
(I
0
) Ex
2
,
(k
eq
) by an extension of the identity
function on I
0
.
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

Proof. Let I
n
: n < ) as in claim 39. Let g : |M| a one-to-one function. T
is -stable and so S
m
() is countable for all m < . for convenience we use the
symbols F
p,n
: n < , p S
<
() as the function symbols of /
(I
0
), such
that for each m-type p, F
p,n
is an m-ary function symbol.
We dene an increasing sequence of one-to-one functions f
i
: I
i
/(I
0
) by
induction on n < :
Dene f
0
as the identity on I
0
.
Assume that f
n
was dened and now dene f
n+1
f
n
as follows. For each a I
n+1
recall B
a
from claim 39. Let c
a

(I
n
) enumerate B
a
. Now dene p S
+1
()
and f
n+1
(a) as follows:
p := tp(a
c
a
, , M)
f
n+1
(a) := F
p,n
(f
n
(c
a
), g(a))
Let f =
n<
f
n
. We will use (proof is omitted) an analogue of claim 33 to show
that f is a representation:
Claim 41. If f : M /(S) is a function such that
h(f(a)) = f(b) tp(a, , M) = tp(b, , M)
for every partial automorphism h of /(S) with domain and range closed under
subterms and a, b M. Then f is a representation.
First note that a I
n
and also f(a) = F
p,n
(f(c
a
), g(a)), so p = tp(a c
a
, , M)
and tp(a, I
n
a) is the unique non-forking extension of tp(a, c
a
).
We now show that f fullls the conditions of the claim. Let h a partial automor-
phism of /(I
0
) with domain and range closed under the functions. Fix n <
and sequences a, b I
n
such that h(f(a)) = f(b). Since f is one-to-one, w.l.o.g
a, b are without repetition. We prove that tp(a, , M) = tp(b, , M) by induction
on n:
For n = 0: the claim holds since I
0
is an indiscernible set.
For n = m + 1:: Proof by induction on = [a I
n
[ =
b I
n
(the latter
equality is easy to verify).
For = 0:: This is the claim of the induction hypothesis (on n).
For =
0
+ 1:: Let a
0
, b
0
I
n
, a
1
, b
1

I
n
, b
1
, b
2

<
I
<n
such that
h(f(a
0
a
1
a
2
)) = f(b
0
b
1
b
2
). By the denition there exist c
a0
, c
b0
such
that f(a
0
) = F
p,n
(f(c
a0
), g(a
0
)), f(b
0
) = F
p
,n
(f(c
b0
), g(b
0
)) for some
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

sequences and types. Since Dom(h) is closed under subterms we get:
F
p
,n
(f(c
b0
), g(b
0
)) = f(b
0
) = h(f(a
0
)) =
h(F
p,n
(f(c
a0
), g(a
0
))) = F
p,n
(h(f(c
a0
)), h(g(a
0
)))
and by the denition of the free algebra p
= p and h(f(c
a0
)) = f(c
b0
).
The induction hypothesis implies that the map G dened as
G(a
1
) = b
1
, G(a
2
) = b
2
, G(c
a0
) = c
b0
is elementary. Now, let q = tp (a
0
, a
1
a
2
c
a0
). Since tp(a
0
c
a0
) =
p = p
= tp(b
0
c
b0
) holds, it follows that G(q) c
b0
= tp(b
0
, c
b0
). The
denition of I
n
implies that tp(a
0
, I
n
a
0
) is non-forking over c
a0
,
and so is tp(a
0
, a
1
a
2
c
a0
). On the other hand, since G is elementary,
G(q) does not fork over c
b0
. Let S(I
n
b
0
) q
G(q) a non-
forking extension. Since tp(b
0
, I
n
b
0
) is the unique non-forking
extension of tp(b
0
, c
b0
), and by transitivity q
is also a non-forking
extension, it follows that q
= tp(b
0
, I
n
b
0
) and after reduction (b
is without repetitions, so b
0
/ b
1
andb
1
b
2
b
a0
I
n
b
0
):
G(q) = q
b
1
b
2
c
b0
= tp
_
b
0
, b
1
b
2
b
a0
_
Hence, G (a
0
, b
0
) is elementary and the proof is complete.
4. Superstable theories
The main theorem in this section is
Theorem 42. For a rst-order, complete theory T the following are equivalent
1.: T is superstable.
2.: T is representable in Ex
2
2
|T|
,0
(k
eq
).
1
2
|T|
,2
(k
eq
).
0,lf
2
|T|
,2
(k
eq
).
2
,0
(k
eq
) for some cardinal .
0,lf
,
(k
eq
) for some cardinals , .
Proof. 2 5, 4 6 are immediate. 2 3 is direct from 1.13. 3 4 direct from
1.7. 5 6 since Ex
2
,0
(k
eq
1
,2
(k
eq
) Ex
0,lf
,2
(k
eq
). The
rest follows from theorem 44 giving 1 2 and theorem 43 giving 6 1.
Theorem 43. If T is representable in Ex
0,lf
,
(k
eq
) for some cardinals , then T is
superstable.
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

Proof. Let T be non superstable and we will choose M [= T which cannot be
represented in Ex
0,lf
,
(k
eq
). Let > . Let T
1
a skolemization of T. We choose
M
1
[= T
1
and sequence a =
_
such that
(1) a
M
1
, lg(a
) = n
lg()
(2)
(x, y) L
T
(3)
: <
_
is an indiscernible sequence over
_
a
,
_
for
all
<
.
(4) If
, = n then
M
1
[= (a
, a
) (n) =
Let M
2
be the closure of
_
in M
1
, this is a Skolem closure and so
M
2
[= T
1
.
Now assume towards contradiction that I Ex
0,lf
,
(k
eq
) is such that f : M
2

T
I is a representation. For a suciently thin club E we can choose
n
E,
n+1
>
n
,
n
: n < = and =
n
: n < ) and it is easy to get
a contradiction to 4 in both cases.
Theorem 44. Every superstable T is representable in Ex
2
2
|T|
,0
(k
eq
).
Proof. Let T superstable. Let M [= T. We choose B
n
, a
s
, u
s
: s S
n
) by induction
on n < such that:
(1) S
n
S
k
= (k < n)
(2) a
s
: s S
n
) M
(3) B
n
= acl(a
s
: s S
k
: k < n) M
(4) a
s
: s S
n
) is without repetitions and independent over B
n
.
(5) for all s S, u
s
S
<n
is nite such that t u
s
u
t
u
s
and tp(a
s
, B
n
)
does not fork over a
t
: t u
s
.
(6) a
s
: s S
n
) is maximal under conditions 1-5.
1
: It is possible to carry the induction.
2
: [M[ = a
s
: s S
<
Let
I = u : u u
s
s , s S
<
, t (t u u
t
u)
Let v
: < ()) enumerate I such that

: (1) v
(2) < v
S
<n
v
S
<n
We choose a model M
v
by induction on such that
(1) M
v
C has power
0
+[T[
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

(2) v
M
v
M
v
(3) tp (M
v
, M M
: < ) does not fork over

_
M
v
: v
, <
_
a
s
: s v
The induction is //clearly// possible.

Now M
v
: v I) is a stable system of models (except for I being closed to nite
subsets). (see [She90, XII, p.598]). For all v I let b
v
enumerate M
v
such that if
v
s
= u
s
s then b
0
v
= a
s
(we use superscript indexes in b
v
). Therefore,
b
v
: v I
_
is without repetitions.
For all < we dene I
as follows:
I
0
= ,
I
k
= v I : v S
<1
, [v[ = k (k < ),
I
n+k
= v I : v , S
<n
, v S
<n+1
, [v[ = k + 1 (k < , 0 < n < ).
Now clearly, w v I
w I
<
for all w, v.
For all < let B
= M
v
: v I
<
.
So,
B
is increasing and continuous.

B
+1
=
_
b
v
: v I
_
B
.
v I
w v w v and most important,

: for all < and v I
the type
p
v
:= tp
_
b
v
,
_
b
u
: u I
<+1
u ,= v
__
does not fork over
_
b
w
: w v
_
, and p
v
is the unique non-forking exten-
sion of p
v

_
b
w
: w v
_
in S
lg(bv)
_
_
b
u
: u I
<+1
u ,= v
__
.
The proof is carried by basic properties of stable systems.
Now dene an equivalence relation E
on I
such that v
1
E
v
2
i v
1
, v
2
I
and
there exists an isomorphism f
v1,v2
: M
v1
M
v2
such that f
v1,v2
maps b
v1
to b
v2
( element-by-element, and this implies f
v1,v2
is unique ). And for some bijection
g
v1,v2
: v
1
v
2
which preserves being in I
for all < , such that f

v1,v2
maps
b
w1
to b
gv
1
,v
2
(w1)
for all w
1
v
1
. Let
I
,i
: i < i() 2
|T|
_
enumerate the equiva-
lence classes of E
.
We get that if
(): The sets v
0
. . . v
n1
, u
0
. . . u
n1
I are closed under subsets.
():
_
,i
[v
l
I
,i
u
l
I
,i
].
(): u
l(1)
u
l(2)
v
l(1)
u
l(2)
for all l(1), l(2) < n
(): For all v
l(1)
v
l(2)
it holds that g
v
l(2)
,u
l(2)
maps v
l(1)
onto u
l(1)
.
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

Then the sequences b
v0
. . . b
vn1
and b
u0
. . . b
un1
realize the same complete type
over . (This follows from the denitions of the equivalence relations E
and
above)
W.l.o.g I S = . We dene a structure / with universe [/[ = I S as follows:
P
A
:= I
, P
A
,i
:= I
,i
, S
A
n
:= S
n
.
Dene partial functions F
A
for all < [T[ , n < as F

A
(s) = b
us{s}
. Dene
partial functions G
n
such that G
n
(u) : n = v : v u. Now, the function f well
dened as f(a) = s a = a
s
is a representation of M in /. ( proof should be
clear from the denitions )
5. Characterization of (T)
Theorem 45. For a complete theory T, and regular the following are equivalent:
(1) (T) .
2
2
|T|
,
(k
eq
).
2
,
(k
eq
), for some .
1
2
|T|
,
(k
eq
).
1
2
|T|
,
(k
eq
), for some .
6. Miscellaneous
This nal section completes the proofs of several claims that were used in the main
theorems above.
Theorem 46. (Fodor) Let a regular cardinal, f : such that f() < for
all 0 < < , Then < : f() = is a stationary set of for some < .
(see [Jec78])
Corollary 47. If f : , > regular, then f
1
() is a stationary set of
for some < .
Theorem 48. Let a regular cardinal, [W[ = ,[S
t
[ < (t W) such that
<
<
< . Then:
(1) (The -system lemma) There exist W
W, [W
[ = and S such that

s ,= t S
t
S
s
= S holds for all s, t W
.
(2) If z
t
: < (t)) enumerates S
t
:
(a) t W
(t) =
0
holds for some
0
.
(b) For some U
0
it holds that s, t W
S
t
U = S
s
U,
U = <
0
: z
t
= z
s
.
9
1
9

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
1
0
-
0
1
-
1
8

(c) For some equivalence relation E on
0
it holds that t W
t
=
z
t
(, ) E.
Proof.
(1) See [Jec78, She90].
(2) The map t (t) fullls the assumptions of Fodors theorem ((t) <
< ), therefore (a) holds for some W
0
W. By part 1 there exist
S z
t
: <
0
, t W
0
, W
1
W
0
such that S = z
t
z
s
for all t ,= s.
Dene a map W
1
t U
t
where: U
t
= <
0
: z
t
S, Since the
range has cardinality 2
|0|
2
<
< this map also fullls the assumptions
of Fodors theorem, and we get that for some W
2
W
1
, U it holds that
t W
2
U
t
= U. The range of the map t S
t
U is
U
S whose power is
[
0
[
|0|
< , and by another use of Fodors theorem we get W
3
W
2
such
that (b) holds. The map t E
t
where E
t
=
_
(, ) : z
t
= z
t
, , <
0
_
has power at most [
0
[
|0|
and again by Fodors theorem the result holds
for some E and W
W
3
.
References
[Jec78] Thomas Jech. Set theory. Academic Press, New York, 1978.
[KS] Itay Kaplan and Saharon Shelah. Dependent examples. preprint.
[Pil83] Anand Pillay. An introduction to stability theory. Clarendon Press, 1983.
[Shea] Saharon Shelah. General non-structure theory and constructing from linear orders. Un-
published.
[Sheb] Saharon Shelah. Introduction to: classication theory for abstract elementary class.
math.LO/0903.3428.
[She87] Saharon Shelah. Universal classes. In Classication theory (Chicago, IL, 1985), volume
1292 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 264418. Springer, Berlin, 1987. Proceedings
of the USAIsrael Conference on Classication Theory, Chicago, December 1985; ed.
Baldwin, J.T.
[She90] Saharon Shelah. Classication theory and the number of nonisomorphic models, vol-
ume 92 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics. North-Holland Pub-
lishing Co., Amsterdam, xxxiv+705 pp, 1990.
Institute of Mathematics The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel.
E-mail address: moranski@math.huji.ac.il
Institute of Mathematics The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel
and Department of Mathematics Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ 08854, USA
E-mail address: shelah@math.huji.ac.il

Moran Cohen and Saharon Shelah - Stable Theories and Representation Over Sets

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moran Cohen and Saharon Shelah - Stable Theories and Representation Over Sets

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9

is regular, for all < and sequence of terms

, (i < ) there exists <

for all i < . Therefore

S such that a = (b).

holds for every < , < .

to mean that each claim holds for one of

: < )) be the dictionary of I

2 (every model such that

= 1 can be represented in such

: < )) whose universe is [I

and also dene for all < , x P

) : < ) be a minimal system of terms of /

(S) (see denition

: < )) and has universe

) : i < ) enumerate the pairs , i) : < , i < lg (x

the set of sequences in [I

) for all < .

is closed under subterms in /

is closed under the partial functions F

under the functions we need to add at most

= =[[ for all < : since =

is regular, there exist

such that the function

such that the function

) an atomic formula. By symmetry, it suces to show that (a

)) it follows from properties of the free al-

)), the validity of (a

) I ). Now, for a nite sequence of

) takes the form F

Theorem 15. If T is representable in Ex

: < ) is a strongly independent

: < ) is a strongly independent decomposition of M, then every

: < ) such that for all < < ,

(x, c) over A such that p

: < ) such that I

[ [B[ + [T[ < cf() represent all formulas almost over

for all < .

(y, z) such that: For all b C there

) as above, and dene the partial unary

such that [= [a, b] [=

Rang(h). It is easily veried that for < ,

of length n without repetitions.

, = (x, c) a formula over D

we get M [= [h(a), h(c)], as needed.

a. By the induction hypothesis (on n), it

is strongly independent over

b) does not fork over D

a)) does not fork over h(D

h(b)) which does not fork over R

is closed under the partial functions, it follows from lemma 32 that R

a) is the unique non-forking extension in S(AI

a) a non-forking extension of tp(a, A

a). By transitivity, q does not fork

is strongly independent over I

That the required properties of B :=

< such that B

: < ()) enumerate I such that

: < ) does not fork over

The induction is //clearly// possible.

is increasing and continuous.

w v w v and most important,