Tame abstract elementary class

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In model theory, a discipline within the field of mathematical logic, a tame abstract elementary class is an abstract elementary class (AEC) which satisfies a locality property for types called tameness. Even though it appears implicitly in earlier work of Shelah, tameness as a property of AEC was first isolated by Grossberg and VanDieren,[1] who observed that tame AECs were much easier to handle than general AECs.

Definition

[edit | edit source]

Let K be an AEC with joint embedding, amalgamation, and no maximal models. Just like in first-order model theory, this implies K has a universal model-homogeneous monster model . Working inside , we can define a semantic notion of types by specifying that two elements a and b have the same type over some base model M if there is an automorphism of the monster model sending a to b fixing M pointwise (note that types can be defined in a similar manner without using a monster model[2]). Such types are called Galois types.

One can ask for such types to be determined by their restriction on a small domain. This gives rise to the notion of tameness:

  • An AEC K is tame if there exists a cardinal κ such that any two distinct Galois types are already distinct on a submodel of their domain of size κ. When we want to emphasize κ, we say K is κ-tame.

Tame AECs are usually also assumed to satisfy amalgamation.

Discussion and motivation

[edit | edit source]

While (without the existence of large cardinals) there are examples of non-tame AECs,[3] most of the known natural examples are tame.[4] In addition, the following sufficient conditions for a class to be tame are known:

  • Tameness is a large cardinal axiom:[5] There are class-many almost strongly compact cardinals if and only if any abstract elementary class is tame.
  • Some tameness follows from categoricity:[6] If an AEC with amalgamation is categorical in a cardinal λ of high-enough cofinality, then tameness holds for types over saturated models of size less than λ.
  • Conjecture 1.5 in [7]: If K is categorical in some λ ≥ Hanf(K) then there exists χ < Hanf(K) such that K is χ-tame.

Many results in the model theory of (general) AECs assume weak forms of the Generalized continuum hypothesis and rely on sophisticated combinatorial set-theoretic arguments.[8] On the other hand, the model theory of tame AECs is much easier to develop, as evidenced by the results presented below.

Results

[edit | edit source]

The following are some important results about tame AECs.

  • Upward categoricity transfer:[9] A κ-tame AEC with amalgamation that is categorical in some successor λLS(K)+++κ+ (i.e. has exactly one model of size λ up to isomorphism) is categorical in all μλ.
  • Upward stability transfer:[10] A κ-tame AEC with amalgamation that is stable in a cardinal λκ is stable in λ+ and in every infinite μ such that μλ=μ.
  • Tameness can be seen as a topological separation principle:[11] An AEC with amalgamation is tame if and only if an appropriate topology on the set of Galois types is Hausdorff.
  • Tameness and categoricity imply there is a forking notion:[12] A κ-tame AEC with amalgamation that is categorical in a cardinal λ of cofinality greater than or equal to κ has a good frame: a forking-like notion for types of singletons (in particular, it is stable in all cardinals). This gives rise to a well-behaved notion of dimension.

Notes

[edit | edit source]
  1. ^ Grossberg & VanDieren 2006a.
  2. ^ Shelah 2009, Definition II.1.9.
  3. ^ Baldwin & Shelah 2008.
  4. ^ See the discussion in the introduction of Grossberg & VanDieren 2006a.
  5. ^ Boney 2014, Theorem 1.3.
  6. ^ Shelah 1999, Main claim 2.3 (9.2 in the online version).
  7. ^ Grossberg & VanDieren 2006b.
  8. ^ See for example many of the hard theorems of Shelah's book (Shelah 2009).
  9. ^ Grossberg & VanDieren 2006b.
  10. ^ See Baldwin, Kueker & VanDieren 2006, Theorem 4.5 for the first result and Grossberg & VanDieren 2006a for the second.
  11. ^ Lieberman 2011, Proposition 4.1.
  12. ^ See Vasey 2014 for the first result, and Boney & Vasey 2014, Corollary 6.10.5 for the result on dimension.

References

[edit | edit source]
  • Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  • Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  • Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  • Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  • Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  • Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  • Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  • Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  • Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  • Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  • Boney, Will; Unger Spencer (2015), "Large Cardinal Axioms from Tameness in AECs" arXiv:1509.01191v2.
  • Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).
  • Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration at line 2172: attempt to index field '?' (a nil value).