0. Introduction and background
Given a complete theory T, the notion of the Lascar (Galois) group $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}(T)$ was introduced by D. Lascar (see [Reference Casanovas, Lascar, Pillay and Ziegler2]). The Lascar group only depends on the theory and it is a quasi-compact topological group with respect to a quotient topology of a certain Stone type space over a model ([Reference Casanovas, Lascar, Pillay and Ziegler2] or [Reference Ziegler and Tent13]). More recently, the notions of the relativized Lascar groups were introduced in [Reference Dobrowolski, Kim and Lee3] (and studied also in [Reference Krupiński, Newelski and Simon11] in the context of topological dynamics). Namely, given a type-definable set X in a large saturated model of the theory T, we consider the group of automorphisms restricted to the set X quotiented by the group of restricted automorphisms fixing the Lascar types of the sequences from X of length $\lambda $ . The relativized Lascar groups also only depend on T, on the type that defines X, and on the cardinal $\lambda $ . These groups are endowed with the quasi-compact quotient topologies induced by the canonical surjective maps from $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}(T)$ to the relativized Lascar groups.
This paper continues the study started in [Reference Dobrowolski, Kim and Lee3], where a connection between the relativized Lascar groups of a strong type and the first homology group of the strong type was established. If T is G-compact (for example when T is simple), then the relativized Lascar group of a strong type is compact and connected, and we use compact group theory to obtain results presented here.
A common theme for the results in this paper is the connection between group theoretic properties of the Lascar group of a strong type and the model theoretic properties of the type. In Section 1, we use the fact that any compact connected group is divisible to show that any strong type p in a simple theory has a property we call divisible amalgamation. The property would follow from the Independence Theorem if p was a Lascar type, but here p is only assumed to be a strong type. Moreover, we give amalgamation criteria for when the Lascar group of the strong type of a model is abelian, and for when the strong type of a model is a Lascar type.
In Section 2, we study morphisms between the relativized Lascar groups. The main goal is to understand the connection between the Lascar group of $\operatorname {stp}(a)$ , for some tuple a, and the Lascar group of $\operatorname {stp}(\operatorname {acl}(a))$ or $\operatorname {stp}(ac)$ , for a finite tuple $c\in \operatorname {acl}(a)$ . We prove that if T is G-compact, then for a finite tuple c algebraic over a, the restriction map from a Lascar group of $\operatorname {stp}(ac)$ to that of $\operatorname {stp}(a)$ is a covering map. In addition, if the Lascar group of $\operatorname {stp}(ac)$ is abelian then this group is isomorphic to that of $\operatorname {stp}(a)$ as topological groups. In order to achieve this, we separately prove a purely compact group theoretical result that any compact connected abelian group is isomorphic to its quotient by a finite subgroup. We also give an example showing that the abelianity of the relativized Lascar group is essential in the isomorphism result.
In Section 3, we mainly present three counterexamples: a non-G-compact theory where $\operatorname {stp}(a)$ is a Lascar type but $\operatorname {stp}(\operatorname {acl}(a))$ is not a Lascar type; an example showing that in the above-mentioned isomorphism result in Section 2, the tuple c being finite is essential; and an example answering a question raised in [Reference Kim and Lee10], namely a Lie group structure example where an RN-pattern minimal 2-chain is not equivalent to a Lascar pattern 2-chain having the same boundary.
Let us remark that the results of Section 2 and the supplementary examples from Sections 3.1 and 3.2 do not make any use of the homology groups $H_1(p)$ , so a reader interested only in these results is advised to skip from Fact 0.4 to Section 2.
In the remaining part of this section we recall the definitions and terminology of basic notions, which, unless said otherwise, we use throughout this note. We work in a large saturated model ${\mathcal M}(={\mathcal M}^{\operatorname {eq}})$ of a complete theory T, and we use the standard notation. So $A, B,\dots $ and $M,N,\dots $ are small subsets and elementary submodels of ${\mathcal M}$ , respectively. Lower-case letters $a,b,\dots $ will denote tuples of elements from ${\mathcal M}$ , possibly infinite. We will explicitly specify when a tuple is assumed to be finite.
To simplify the notation, we state the results for types over the empty set (rather than over $\operatorname {acl}(\emptyset )$ ). This does not reduce the generality because, after naming a parameter set, we assume for the rest that $\operatorname {dcl}(\emptyset )(=\operatorname {dcl}^{\operatorname {eq}}(\emptyset ))=\operatorname {acl}(\emptyset )(=\operatorname {acl}^{\operatorname {eq}}(\emptyset ))$ . We fix a complete strong type $p(x)\in S(\emptyset )$ with possibly infinite arity of x. For tuples $a,b$ , we write $a\equiv _Ab$ ( $a\equiv ^s_Ab$ , resp.) to mean that they have the same (strong, resp.) type over A. Note that $a\equiv ^s_Ab$ if and only if $a\equiv _{\operatorname {acl}(A)}b$ .
Let us recall the definitions of the Lascar groups and types. These are well-known notions in model theory. In particular, the Lascar group depends only on T and is a quasi-compact group under the topology introduced in [Reference Casanovas, Lascar, Pillay and Ziegler2] or [Reference Ziegler and Tent13]. Moreover, due to our assumption $\operatorname {dcl}(\emptyset )=\operatorname {acl}(\emptyset )$ , the group is connected as well. Recall that a topological space is compact if it is quasi-compact and Hausdorff.
-
• $\operatorname {Autf}({\mathcal M})$ is the normal subgroup of $\operatorname {Aut}({\mathcal M})$ generated by
$$ \begin{align*}\{f \in \operatorname{Aut}({\mathcal M}) \mid f \mbox{ fixes some model } M \prec {\mathcal M} \mbox{ pointwise}\}.\end{align*} $$ -
• For tuples $a,b \in {\mathcal M}$ , we say they have the same Lascar type, written $a\equiv ^Lb$ or $\operatorname {Ltp}(a)=\operatorname {Ltp}(b)$ , if there is $f\in \operatorname {Autf}({\mathcal M}) $ such that $f(a)=b$ . We say $a,b$ have the same KP(Kim–Pillay)-type (write $a\equiv ^{KP} b$ ) if they are in the same class of any bounded $\emptyset $ -type-definable equivalence relation.
-
• The group $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}(T):=\operatorname {Aut}({\mathcal M})/\operatorname {Autf}({\mathcal M})$ is called the Lascar ( Galois ) group of T.
-
• We say T is G-compact if $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}(T)$ is compact; equivalently $\{\mbox {id}\}$ is closed in $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}(T)$ ; also equivalently $a\equiv ^L b$ iff $a\equiv ^{KP} b$ for any (possibly infinite) tuples $a,b$ from ${\mathcal M}$ [Reference Kim8].
Note that the above is the definition of “G-compactness over $\emptyset $ ,” but for convenience throughout this paper we omit “over $\emptyset $ .”
Fact 0.2. For tuples $a,b$ , we have $a\equiv ^L b$ if and only if the Lascar distance between a and b is finite, i.e., there are finitely many indiscernible sequences $I_1,\ldots , I_n$ , and tuples $a=a_0, a_1,\ldots , a_n=b$ such that each of $a_{i-1}I_i$ and $a_iI_i$ is an indiscernible sequence for $i=1,\ldots ,n$ .
Now let us recall, mainly from [Reference Dobrowolski, Kim and Lee3], the definitions of various relativized Lascar groups of p and related facts.
-
• $\operatorname {Aut}(p):=\{ f \restriction p({\mathcal M}) \mid f\in \operatorname {Aut}({\mathcal M})\}$ ;
-
• for a cardinal $\lambda> 0$ , $\operatorname {Autf}^{\lambda }(p)=\operatorname {Autf}_{\operatorname {fix}}^{\lambda }(p):=$
$$ \begin{align*}\{\sigma\in \operatorname{Aut}(p)\mid \mbox{ for any } \bar{a}=(a_i)_{i< \lambda} \mbox{ with } a_i\models p, \ \bar{a}\equiv^L \sigma(\bar{a}) \};\end{align*} $$ -
• $\operatorname {Autf}_{\operatorname {fix}}(p):=$
$$ \begin{align*}\{\sigma\in \operatorname{Aut}(p) \mid \bar{a}\equiv^L \sigma(\bar{a})\mbox{ where } \bar{a} \mbox{ is some enumeration of } p({\mathcal M}) \};\end{align*} $$and $\operatorname {Autf}_{\operatorname {res}}(p):=\{ f \restriction p({\mathcal M}) \mid f\in \operatorname {Autf}({\mathcal M})\}$ .
Notice that $\operatorname {Autf}^{\lambda }(p)$ , $\operatorname {Autf}_{\operatorname {fix}}(p)$ , and $\operatorname {Autf}_{\operatorname {res}}(p)$ are normal subgroups of $\operatorname {Aut}(p)$ .
-
• $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{\lambda }(p)=\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{\operatorname {fix}, \lambda }(p):=\operatorname {Aut}(p)/\operatorname {Autf}^{\lambda }(p)$ ;Footnote 1
-
• $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{\operatorname {fix}}(p):=\operatorname {Aut}(p)/\operatorname {Autf}_{\operatorname {fix}}(p)$ , and $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{\operatorname {res}}(p):=\operatorname {Aut}(p)/\operatorname {Autf}_{\operatorname {res}}(p)$ .
We will give an example (in Example 2.3) where $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(p)$ and $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^2(p)$ are distinct. In [Reference Dobrowolski, Kim and Lee3, Remark 3.4], a canonical topology on each of the above groups was defined. With these topologies, they become quotients of the topological group $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}(T)$ .
Fact 0.4 [Reference Dobrowolski, Kim and Lee3]
$\operatorname {Autf}^{\omega }(p)=\operatorname {Autf}_{\operatorname {fix}}(p)$ , and, for each $\lambda (\leq \omega )$ , $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{\lambda }(p)$ does not depend on the choice of a monster model, and is a quasi-compact connected topological group. Hence, if T is G-compact, $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{\lambda }(p)$ is a compact connected group.
If $p(x)$ is a type of a model, then $\operatorname {Autf}^1(p)=\operatorname {Autf}_{\operatorname {fix}}(p)=\operatorname {Autf}_{\operatorname {res}}(p)$ , $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(p)=\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{\operatorname {fix}}(p)=\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{\operatorname {res}}(p)\cong \operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}(T)$ . The abelianization of $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(p)$ (i.e., the group $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(p)/(\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(p))'$ ) is isomorphic to the first homology group $H_1(p)$ .
The last statement in the above fact explains the connection between the relativized Lascar group and the model theoretic homology group $H_1$ of the type. Let us recall now the key definitions in the homology theory in model theory. We fix a ternary automorphism-invariant relation between small sets of ${\mathcal M}$ satisfying
-
• finite character: for any sets $A,B,$ and C, we have iff for any finite tuples $a\in A$ and $b\in B$ ;
-
• normality: for any sets A, B, and C, if , then ;
-
• symmetry: for any sets $A,B,$ and C, we have iff ;
-
• transitivity: iff and , for any sets A and $B\subseteq C\subseteq D$ ;
-
• extension: for any sets A and $B\subseteq C$ , there is $A'\equiv _BA$ such that .
Throughout this paper we call the above axioms the basic 5 axioms. We say that A is $*$ -independent from B over C if . Notice that there is at least one such relation for any theory, namely, the trivial independence relation given by: For any sets $A,B,C$ , put . Of course there is a non-trivial such relation when T is simple or rosy, given by forking or thorn-forking, respectively.
Notation 0.5. Let s be an arbitrary finite set of natural numbers. Given any subset $X\subseteq {\mathcal P}(s)$ , we may view X as a category where for any $u, v \in X$ , $\operatorname {Mor}(u,v)$ consists of a single morphism $\iota _{u,v}$ if $u\subseteq v$ , and $\operatorname {Mor}(u,v)=\emptyset $ otherwise. If $f\colon X \rightarrow {\mathcal C}_0$ is any functor into some category ${\mathcal C}_0$ , then for any $u, v\in X$ with $u \subseteq v$ , we let $f^u_v$ denote the morphism $f(\iota _{u,v})\in \operatorname {Mor}_{{\mathcal C}_0}(f(u),f(v))$ . We shall call $X\subseteq {\mathcal P}(s)$ downward closed if for any $u, v\in {\mathcal P}(s)$ , if $u\subseteq v$ and $v\in X$ then $u\in X$ . Note that if X is non-empty and downward closed then it has $\emptyset \subseteq \omega $ as an object.
We use now ${\mathcal C}$ to denote the category whose objects are the small subsets of ${\mathcal M}$ , and whose morphisms are elementary maps. For a functor $f:X\to {\mathcal C}$ and objects $u\subseteq v$ of X, $f^u_v(u)$ denotes the set $f^u_v(f(u))(\subseteq f(v))$ .
Definition 0.6. By a $*$ -independent functor in p, we mean a functor f from some non-empty downward closed $X\subseteq {\mathcal P}(s)$ , viewed as a category as above, into ${\mathcal C}$ satisfying the following:
-
(1) If $\{ i \}\subseteq \omega $ is an object in X, then $f(\{ i \})$ is of the form $\operatorname {acl}(Cb)$ where $b\models p$ , $C=\operatorname {acl}(C)=f^{\emptyset }_{\{ i \}}(\emptyset )$ , and .
-
(2) Whenever $u(\neq \emptyset )\subseteq \omega $ is an object in X, we have
$$ \begin{align*} f( u) = \operatorname{acl} \left( \bigcup_{i\in u} f^{\{ i \}}_u(\{ i \}) \right) \end{align*} $$and $\{f^{\{i\}}_u(\{i\})|\ i\in u \}$ is $*$ -independent over $f^\emptyset _u(\emptyset )$ .
We let ${\mathcal A}^*_p$ denote the family of all $*$ -independent functors in p.
A $*$ -independent functor f is called a $*$ -independent n-simplex in p if $f(\emptyset )=\emptyset $ , our named algebraically closed set, and $\operatorname {dom}(f)={\mathcal P}(s)$ with $s\subseteq \omega $ and $|s|=n+1$ . We call s the support of f and denote it by $\operatorname {supp}(f)$ .
In the rest we may call a $*$ -independent n-simplex in p just an n-simplex of p, as far as no confusion arises.
Definition 0.7. Let $n\geq 0$ . We define:
An element of $C_n({\mathcal A}^*_p)$ is called an n-chain of p. The support of a chain c, denoted by $\operatorname {supp}(c)$ , is the union of the supports of all the simplices that appear in c with a non-zero coefficient. Now for $n\geq 1$ and each $i=0, \ldots , n$ , we define a group homomorphism
by putting, for any n-simplex $f\colon {\mathcal P}(s) \rightarrow {\mathcal C}$ in $S_n({\mathcal A}^*_p)$ where $s = \{ s_0 <\cdots < s_n \}\subseteq \omega $ ,
and then extending linearly to all n-chains in $C_n({\mathcal A}^*_p)$ . Then we define the boundary map
by
We shall often refer to $\partial _n(c)$ as the boundary of c. Next, we define:
The elements of $Z_n({\mathcal A}^*_p)$ and $B_n({\mathcal A}^*_p)$ are called n-cycles and n-boundaries in p, respectively. It is straightforward to check that $ \partial _{n}\circ \partial _{n+1} =0.$ Hence we can now define the group
called the nth $*$ -homology group of p.
-
(1) For $c\in Z_n({\mathcal A}^*_p)$ , $[c]$ denotes the homology class of c in $H^*_n(p)$ .
-
(2) When n is clear from the context, we shall often omit it in $\partial ^i_n$ and in $\partial _n$ , writing simply $\partial ^i$ and $\partial $ .
Definition 0.9. A $1$ -chain $c\in C_1({\mathcal A}^*_p)$ is called a $1$ - $*$ -shell (or just a $1$ -shell) in p if it is of the form
where $f_i$ ’s are $1$ -simplices of p satisfying
Hence, for $\operatorname {supp}(c)=\{n_0< n_1< n_2\}$ and $ k\in \{0,1, 2\}$ , it follows that
Notice that the boundary of any $2$ -simplex is a $1$ -shell. Recall that a notion of an amenable collection of functors into a category is introduced in [Reference Goodrick, Kim, Kolesnikov, Jang, Kim, Lee and Yie5]. Due to the 5 axioms of , it easily follows that ${\mathcal A}^*_p$ forms such a collection of functors into ${\mathcal C}$ . Hence the following corresponding fact holds.
Fact 0.10 [Reference Goodrick, Kim, Kolesnikov, Jang, Kim, Lee and Yie5] or [Reference Dobrowolski, Kim and Lee3]
We now recall basic notions and results that appeared in [Reference Dobrowolski, Kim and Lee3]. For the rest of this section we assume that p is the strong type of an algebraically closed set.
-
(1) Let $f:{\mathcal P}(s)\to {\mathcal C}$ be an n-simplex of p. For $u\subseteq s$ with $u = \{ i_0 <\cdots < i_k \}$ , we shall write $f(u)=[a_0 \ldots a_k]_u$ , where each $a_j\models p$ is an algebraically closed tuple as assumed above, if $f(u)=\operatorname {acl}(a_0\ldots a_k)$ , and $\operatorname {acl}(a_j)=f^{ \{ i_j \} } _u (\{i_j\})$ . So, $\{a_0,\ldots ,a_k\}$ is $*$ -independent. Of course, if we write $f(u)\equiv [b_0 \ldots b_k]_u$ , then it means that there is an automorphism sending $a_0\ldots a_k$ to $b_0\ldots b_k$ .
-
(2) Let $s=fv_{12}-f_{02}+f_{01}$ be a 1- $*$ -shell in p such that $\operatorname {supp}(f_{ij})=\{n_i,n_j\}$ with $n_i< n_j$ for $0\le i< j \le 2$ . Clearly there is a quadruple $(a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3)$ of realizations of p such that $f_{01}(\{n_0,n_1\})\equiv [a_0 a_1]_{\{n_0,n_1\}}$ , $f_{12}(\{n_1,n_2\})\equiv [a_1 a_2]_{\{n_1,n_2\}}$ , and $f_{02}(\{n_0,n_2\})\equiv [a_3 a_2]_{\{n_0,n_2\}}$ . We call this quadruple a representation of s. For any such representation of s, call $a_0$ an initial point, $a_3$ a terminal point, and $(a_0,a_3)$ an endpoint pair of the representation.
We summarize some properties of endpoint pairs of $1$ -shells. We define an equivalence relation $\sim ^*$ on the set of pairs of realizations p as follows: For $a,a',b,b'\models p$ , $(a,b)\sim ^*(a',b')$ if two pairs $(a,b)$ and $(a',b')$ are endpoint pairs of $1$ -shells s and $s'$ respectively such that $[s]=[s']\in H^*_1(p)$ . We write ${\mathcal E}^*=p({\mathcal M})\times p({\mathcal M})/\sim ^*$ . We denote the class of $(a,b)\in p({\mathcal M})\times p({\mathcal M})$ by $[a,b]$ . Now, define a binary operation $+_{{\mathcal E}^*}$ on ${\mathcal E}^*$ as follows: For $[a,b],[b',c']\in {\mathcal E}^*$ , $[a,b]+_{{\mathcal E}^*} [b',c']=[a,c]$ , where $bc\equiv b'c'$ .
Fact 0.12. The operation $+_{{\mathcal E}^*}$ is well-defined, and the pair $({\mathcal E}^*,+_{{\mathcal E}^*})$ forms an abelian group which is isomorphic to $H^*_1(p)$ . More specifically, for $a,b,c\models p$ and $\sigma \in \operatorname {Aut}({\mathcal M})$ , we have:
-
• $[a,b]+[b,c]=[a,c];$
-
• $[a,a]$ is the identity element;
-
• $-[a,b]=[b,a];$
-
• $\sigma ([a,b]):=[\sigma (a),\sigma (b)]=[a,b];$ and
-
• $f:{\mathcal E}^*\to H^*_1(p)$ sending $[a,b]\mapsto [s]$ , where $(a,b)$ is an endpoint pair of s, is a group isomorphism.
We identify ${\mathcal E}^*$ and $H^*_1(p)$ .
Fact 0.13. $H_1^*(p)$ is isomorphic to $G/N$ where $G:=\operatorname {Aut}(p)$ and N is the normal subgroup of G consisting of all automorphisms fixing setwise all orbits of elements of $p({\mathcal M})$ under the action of $G'$ (so $G/N$ does not depend on the choice of a monster model). Hence $H_1^*(p)$ does not depend on the choice of and we write $H_1(p)$ for $H_1^*(p)$ .
Fact 0.14. Let p be the fixed strong type of an algebraically closed set.
-
(1) Let be an independence relation satisfying the 5 basic axioms. Let $a,b \models p$ . Then the following are equivalent.
-
(a) $[a,b]=0$ in $H_1(p);$
-
(b) There is a balanced-chain-walk from a to b, i.e., there are some $n\geq 0$ and a finite sequence $(d_i)_{0\le i\le 2n+2}$ of realizations of p satisfying the following conditions:
-
(i) $d_0=a$ , and $d_{2n+2}=b;$
-
(ii) $\{d_{j},d_{j+1}\}$ is $*$ -independent for each $j\le 2n+1;$ and
-
(iii) there is a bijection
$$ \begin{align*}\sigma:\{0,1,\ldots,n\}\to\{0,1,\ldots,n\}\end{align*} $$such that $d_{2i} d_{2i+1}\equiv d_{2\sigma (i)+2}d_{2\sigma (i)+1}$ for $ i \le n;$
-
-
(c) There are some $n\geq 0$ and finite sequences $(d_i:0\le i\le n)$ , $(d^j_i: i< n,\ 1\le j\le 3)$ of realizations of p such that $d_0=a$ , $d_n=b$ , and for each $i< n$ , $d_id^1_i\equiv d^3_id^2_i$ , $d^1_id^2_i\equiv d_{i+1}d^3_i$ .
-
(d) $h(a)=b$ for some h in the commutator subgroup of $\operatorname {Aut}(p)$ .
-
-
(2) The following are equivalent.
-
(a) $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(p)$ is abelian;
-
(b) For all $a,b \models p$ , $[a,b]=0$ in $H_1(p)$ if and only if $a \equiv ^L b$ .
-
-
(3) p is a Lascar type (i.e., $a\equiv ^Lb$ for any $a,b\models p)$ if and only if $H_1(p)$ is trivial and $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(p)$ is abelian.
Remark 0.15. (1) Assume that $p(x)$ is the type of a small model. Then for any $M, N\models p$ , the equivalence classes of (equality of) Lascar types of M and N are interdefinable: Let $M\equiv ^L M'$ and $MN\equiv M'N'$ . It suffices to show that $N\equiv ^L N'$ . Now there is $f\in \operatorname {Autf}({\mathcal M})$ such that $f(M')=M$ . Let $N'':=f(N')$ so that $N''\equiv ^LN'$ and $MN\equiv MN''$ . Hence $N\equiv _{M}N''$ and $N\equiv ^L N''\equiv ^L N'$ as wanted. When p is a type of any tuple we will see that the same holds if $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(p)$ is abelian (Remark 1.10).
(2) Notice that for tuples $a,b\models p$ , we have:
-
(**) there is a commutator f in $\operatorname {Aut}(p)$ such that $f(a)=b$ if and only if there are $d^1,d^2,d^3\models p$ such that $ad^1\equiv d^3d^2$ and $bd^3\equiv d^1d^2$ .
Now we recall the following fact of compact group theory by M. Gotô from [Reference Hofmann and Morris6, Theorem 9.2]: Assume $(F,\cdot )$ is a compact connected topological group. Then $F'$ , the commutator subgroup of F, is simply the set of commutators in F, i.e.,
It follows that $F'$ is a closed subgroup of F, and both $F'$ and $F/F'$ are compact connected groups as well.
Due to the theorem we newly observe here that if T is G-compact then in Fact 0.14(1)(c), we can choose $n=1$ : If the equivalent conditions in Fact 0.14(1) hold, then we have that $h(a)=b$ for some h in the commutator subgroup of $\operatorname {Aut}(p)$ . Now, as T is G-compact, we get by Gotô’s Theorem that h is a commutator in $\operatorname {Aut}(p)$ , so, by $(**)$ , there are $d^1,d^2,d^3\models p$ such that $bd^3\equiv d^1d^2$ .
1. Amalgamation properties of strong types in simple theories
Note that if T is simple then since T is G-compact, each $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{\lambda }(p)$ is a compact (i.e., quasi-compact and Hausdorff) connected group, so it is divisible (see [Reference Hofmann and Morris6, Theorem 9.35]). In this section we assume T is simple (except Remark 1.10 and Example 1.11), and the independence is nonforking independence. It is still an open question whether the strong type p is necessarily a Lascar type. If so, then the following theorem follows easily by the $3$ -amalgamation of Lascar types in simple theories. But regardless of the answer to the question, p has the following amalgamation property. We do not assume here that a realization of p is algebraically closed.
Theorem 1.1 (Divisible amalgamation)
Let p be a strong type in a simple theory. Let $a,b\models p$ and . Then for each $n\geq 1$ , there are independent $a=a_0,a_1,\ldots ,a_n=b$ such that $a_0a_1\equiv a_ia_{i+1}$ for every $i< n$ .
Proof Clearly we can assume $n>1$ . Note that there is $f \in \operatorname {Aut}(p)$ such that $b=f(a)$ . Then since $G:=\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(p)$ is divisible, there is $h \in \operatorname {Aut}(p)$ such that $[h]^n=[f]$ (in G). Put $c=h(a)$ . Now there is $c_1\equiv ^L c$ such that . Then there is $h' \in \operatorname {Autf}^1(p)$ such that $h'(c)=c_1$ . Let $g=h'\circ h$ . Then $[g]=[h]$ so $[g]^n=[f]$ too, and $g(a)=c_1$ .
Claim. We can find additional elements $c_2,\ldots ,c_n$ such that $\{a=c_0,c_1,\ldots ,c_n,b\}$ is independent, and for each $1\leq m\leq n$ , $c_0c_1\equiv c_{m-1}c_{m}$ and there is $h_m\in \operatorname {Aut}(p)$ such that $[h_m]=[g]^m$ in G, and $h_m(a)=c_m$ .
Proof of the Claim For an induction hypothesis, assume for $1\leq m< n$ we have found $a=c_0,c_1,\ldots , c_m$ such that $\{c_0,c_1,\ldots ,c_m,b\}$ is independent and $c_0c_1\equiv c_{i-1}c_{i}$ for all $1\leq i\leq m$ and there is $h_m\in \operatorname {Aut}(p)$ such that $[h_m]=[g]^m$ in G, and $h_m(c_0)=c_m$ .
Notice now that then $c^{\prime }_m:=g^m(a)\equiv ^L h_m(a)=c_m$ . Put $c^{\prime }_{m+1}:=g(c^{\prime }_m)=g^{m+1}(a)$ . Then there is $c_{m+1}$ such that $c_mc_{m+1}\equiv ^L c^{\prime }_mc^{\prime }_{m+1}$ , and $\{c_0,c_1,\ldots ,c_{m+1},b\}$ is independent. Since $c_{m+1}\equiv ^L c^{\prime }_{m+1}$ , there is $h'' \in \operatorname {Autf}^1(p)$ , such that $h''(c^{\prime }_{m+1})=c_{m+1}$ and so for $h_{m+1}:=h''\circ g^{m+1}$ , we have $h_{m+1}(a)=c_{m+1}$ and $[g]^{m+1}= [h_{m+1}]$ in G. Moreover the equality of types $c_mc_{m+1}\equiv c^{\prime }_mc^{\prime }_{m+1} \equiv c_0c_1$ is witnessed by $g^m$ . Hence the claim is proved.
Notice that $ c_n=h_n(a)$ with $[h_n]=[g]^n=[f]$ . Hence $c_n\equiv ^L b=f(a)$ . Then, by $3$ -amalgamation, we find $b' \models \operatorname {tp}(b/a) \cup \operatorname {tp}(c_n/c_1\dots c_{n-1})$ with . Then the automorphic images of $c_1\dots c_{n-1}$ (rename them as $a_1\ldots a_{n-1}$ ) under a map sending $b'$ to b over a satisfy the conditions of the theorem.⊣
Now we assume that p is the type of an algebraically closed tuple. For $a,a'\models p$ , we have a better description of $[a,a']=0$ in $H_1(p).$
Proposition 1.2. For $a,a'\models p$ , the following are equivalent.
-
(1) $[a,a']=0$ in $H_1(p)$ , equivalently there is h in the commutator subgroup of $\operatorname {Aut}(p)$ such that $h(a)=a'$ .
-
(2) There are $b,c,d\models p$ such that each of $\{a,b,c,d\}$ , $\{a', b,c,d\}$ is independent, and $ab\equiv cd$ , $bd\equiv a'c$ .
Proof (1) $\Rightarrow $ (2) Since T is G-compact, by Remark 0.15(2) there are $b',c',d'\models p$ such that $ab'\equiv c'd'$ and $b'd'\equiv a'c'$ . Now there is $b\equiv ^L b'$ such that . Hence, by $3$ -amalgamation, there is $d_0\equiv ^L d'$ such that $d_0\models \operatorname {tp}(d'/b) \cup \operatorname {tp}(d''/b')$ and , where $d''b'\equiv d'b$ and $d''\equiv ^L d'\equiv ^L d_0$ . By extension there is no harm in assuming that .
Now since $a'c'\equiv b'd'$ , there are $a''c$ such that $b'd'bd_0\equiv a'c'a''c$ . Hence, $c\equiv ^L c'$ , $a''\equiv ^L a'$ , and . Again by extension, we can further assume that . Moreover, since $ab'\equiv c'd'$ , there is $d_1\equiv ^L d'$ such that $ab'b\equiv c'd'd_1$ . Then since with $c\equiv ^Lc$ , and , again by $3$ -amalgamation we can assume that $c'd_1\equiv cd_1$ and .
Now the situation is that , , and . Moreover, $d_0\equiv ^L d'\equiv ^L d_1$ . Hence, by $3$ -amalgamation, we have $d\models \operatorname {tp}(d_0/aa'b)\cup \operatorname {tp}(d_1/c)$ and . Therefore, each of $\{a,b,c,d\}$ , $\{a', b,c,d\}$ is independent. Moreover, due to above combinations
and
as wanted.
(2) $\Rightarrow $ (1) Clear by Remark 0.15(2).⊣
From now until Theorem 1.8, we assume that $p(x)$ is the ( strong ) type of a small model, and all tuples $a,b,c,\dots $ realize p, so all are universes of models. Hence, by Fact 0.4, $\operatorname {Autf}^1(p)=\operatorname {Autf}_{\operatorname {fix}}(p)$ and $(\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}(T)\cong )\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{\operatorname {fix}}(p)=\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{1}(p)$ , which we simply write $\operatorname {Autf}(p)$ and $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}(p)$ , respectively. Moreover, $H_1(p)\cong \operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}(p)/(\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}(p))'$ and hence it is a compact connected (so divisible) abelian group.
Definition 1.3. Let $r(x,y), s(x,y)$ be types completing .
-
(1) We say p has abelian (or commutative) amalgamation of r and s, if there are independent $a,b,c,d\models p$ such that $ab,cd\models r$ and $ac, bd\models s$ .We say p has abelian amalgamation if it has abelian amalgamation for any such completions r and s.
-
(2) We say p has reversible amalgamation of r and s if there are independent $a,b,c,d\models p$ such that $ab,dc\models r$ and $ac, db\models s$ .We say p has reversible amalgamation if it has reversible amalgamation for any such completions r and s.
Lemma 1.4. The following are equivalent.
-
(1) The type p has abelian amalgamation.
-
(2) Let $r(x,y), s(x,y)$ be any types completing , and let $a,b,c\models p$ be independent such that $ac\models s$ and $ab\models r$ . Then there is $d\models p $ independent from $abc$ such that $cd\models r$ and $bd \models s$ .
Proof (1) $\Rightarrow $ (2) By (1), there are $b_0, d_0\models p$ such that $\{a,c,b_0,d_0\}$ is independent, $ab_0,cd_0\models r$ , and $ac, b_0d_0\models s$ . Hence, there is $d_1$ such that $abd_1\equiv ab_0d_0$ . Now by $3$ -amalgamation over the model a, there is
such that $\{a,b,c,d\}$ is independent. Moreover, $cd\equiv cd_0\models r$ and $bd\equiv bd_1\equiv b_0d_0 \models s$ , as desired.
(2) $\Rightarrow $ (1) Clear.⊣
By the same proof we obtain the following too.
Lemma 1.5. The following are equivalent.
-
(1) The type p has reversible amalgamation.
-
(2) Let $r(x,y), s(x,y)$ be any types completing , and let $a,b,c\models p$ be independent such that $ac\models s$ and $ab\models r$ . Then there is $d\models p $ independent from $abc$ such that $dc\models r$ and $db \models s$ .
Theorem 1.6. The following are equivalent.
-
(1) $ \operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}(p)(\cong \operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}(T))$ is abelian.
-
(2) p has abelian amalgamation.
Proof (1) $\Rightarrow $ (2) Assume (1). Thus for $G:=\operatorname {Aut}(p)$ , we have $G'\leq \operatorname {Autf}(p)$ . Now let $r(x,y)$ and $s(x,y)$ be some complete types containing . There are independent $a,a', b,d,c\models p$ such that $ab,cd\models r$ and $bd, a'c\models s$ . Hence there is a commutator $f\in G'\leq \operatorname {Autf}(p)$ such that $f(a)=a'$ , so $a\equiv ^L a'$ . Then by $3$ -amalgamation of $\operatorname {Lstp}(a)$ , there is
such that $\{a_0,b,c,d\}$ is independent, $a_0b\equiv ab\models r$ , and $a_0c\equiv a'c\models s$ . Therefore p has commutative amalgamation.
(2) $\Rightarrow $ (1) To show (1), due to Fact 0.14(2) it is enough to prove that if $a,a'\models p$ and $[a,a']=0\in H_1(p)$ ( $\dagger $ ), then $a\equiv ^L a'$ . Now assume (2) and ( $\dagger $ ). Thus, by Proposition 1.2, there are $b,c,d\models p$ such that each of the sets $\{a,b,c,d\}$ and $\{a', b,c,d\}$ is independent, $ab\equiv cd$ , and $bd\equiv a'c$ . Now by Lemma 1.4 and extension there is $c'\models p$ such that and $ac'\equiv bd\equiv a'c$ and $c'd\equiv ab\equiv cd$ . Then, since d is a model, we have $c \equiv ^L c'$ , and there is $a''$ such that $a'c\equiv _da''c'$ , so $a\equiv ^L a''$ and $a''\equiv _{c'}a$ . Since $c'$ is a model as well, we conclude that $a'\equiv ^L a''\equiv ^L a$ .⊣
A proof similar to that of the above Theorem 1.6 (2) $\Rightarrow $ (1) applying Fact 0.14(1)(b) gives the following as well.
Proposition 1.7. If p has reversible amalgamation, then $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}(p)$ is abelian (equivalently, p has abelian amalgamation).
Proof Assume that p has reversible amalgamation, and $[a,b]=0\in H_1(p)$ for $a,b\models p$ ( $\dagger $ ). As before it is enough to prove that $a\equiv ^L b$ . It follows from the extension axiom for Lascar types together with Fact 0.14(1)(b), there are $b'\equiv ^L b$ and a finite independent sequence $(d_i)_{0\le i\le 2n+2}$ of realizations of p satisfying the following conditions:
-
(i) $d_0=a$ , $d_{2n+2}=b'$ ; and
-
(ii) there is a bijection
$$ \begin{align*}\sigma:\{0,1,\ldots,n\}\to\{0,1,\ldots,n\}\end{align*} $$such that $d_{2i} d_{2i+1}\equiv d_{2\sigma (i)+2}d_{2\sigma (i)+1}$ for $ i \le n$ .
In other words, there is an independent balanced chain-walk from a to $b'$ , and it suffices to prove $a\equiv ^L b'$ . Notice that, by reversible amalgamation, condition (2) of Lemma 1.5 implies that in the above chain-walk two adjacent edges can be swapped with sign reversed (i.e., for say $d_jd_{j+1}$ and $d_{j+1}d_{j+2}$ there is such that $d_jd^{\prime }_{j+1}\equiv d_{j+2}d_{j+1}$ and $d^{\prime }_{j+1}d_{j+2}\equiv d_{j+1}d_{j}$ ). By iterating this process one can transfer the chain-walk to another balanced chain-walk $(d^{\prime }_i)_{0\le i\le 2n+2}$ from a to $b'$ such that the walk has a Lascar pattern, i.e., the bijection $\sigma $ for the new walk is the identity map. Hence it follows $d^{\prime }_{2i}\equiv _{d^{\prime }_{2i+1}} d^{\prime }_{2i+2}$ for $i\leq n$ , and since each $d^{\prime }_{2i+1}$ is a model, we have $a=d^{\prime }_0\equiv ^Lb'$ , as wanted.⊣
A stronger consequence is obtained.
Theorem 1.8. The strong type p is a Lascar type if and only if p has reversible amalgamation.
Proof ( $\Rightarrow $ ) It follows from $3$ -amalgamation of Lascar strong types.
( $\Leftarrow $ ) Assume p has reversible amalgamation. Due to Fact 0.14(3) and Proposition 1.7, it suffices to show $H_1(p)$ is trivial. Let an arbitrary $[s]\in H_1(p)$ be given, and let $[a,b']=[s]$ for $a,b'\models p$ . Then, for any $b\equiv ^L b'$ with , we have $[a,b]=[a,b']+[b',b]=[s]+0=[s]$ . Similarly, for $c\equiv ^L b$ with , we have $[b,c]=0$ in $H_1(p)$ . Now reversible amalgamation (or Lemma 1.5) says that $[s]=[a,b]+[b,c]=[c,b]+[b,a]=-[s]$ . Hence $[s]+[s]=0$ . Since $H_1(p)$ is compact and connected so divisible, any element in $H_1(p)$ is divisible by $2$ . Therefore, $H_1(p)=0$ by what we have just proved.⊣
Question 1.9. Can the same results hold if p is the type of an algebraically closed tuple (not necessarily a model) in a simple theory? The answer to this question is yes if any two Lascar equivalence classes in p are interdefinable, since essentially this property (Remark 0.15(1)) implied the results in this section when p is the type of a model. At least we can show the following remark.
Remark 1.10. Let T be any theory, and let a realization of p be any tuple. If $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(p)$ is abelian then any two Lascar equivalence classes in p are interdefinable: Let $a,b\models p$ , and $f\in \operatorname {Aut}(p)$ . Assume $f(a)\equiv ^L a$ . We want to show the same holds for b. Now there is $g\in \operatorname {Aut}(p)$ such that $g(a)=b$ . Since $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(p)$ is abelian, we have $f(b)=f(g(a))\equiv ^L g(f(a))\equiv ^L g(a)=b$ .
Notice that $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(p)$ is the group of automorphic permutations of the Lascar classes in p. Hence, if $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(p)$ is abelian, then $f/\operatorname {Autf}^1(p)\in \operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(p)$ is determined by the pair of Lascar classes of c and $f(c)$ for some (any) $c\models p$ .
Example 1.11. Let $({\mathcal M},<)$ be a monster model of $\operatorname {Th}({\mathbb Q},<)$ . Then thorn-independence in ${\mathcal M}$ coincides with $\operatorname {acl}$ -independence. We can also consider a notion of reversible amalgamation using thorn independence instead of nonforking independence. Note that the Lascar group of $\operatorname {Th}({\mathcal M})$ is trivial because of o-minimality, but the reversible amalgamation for fails.
Let p be the unique $1$ -type over $\emptyset (=\operatorname {acl}(\emptyset ))$ . Consider two types $r(x,y)=\{x< y\}$ and $s(x,y)=\{y< x\}$ completing . Then p has no reversible amalgamation of r and s. Suppose $a,b,c,d\models p$ such that $ab,dc\models r$ and $ac,db\models s$ . Then $a< b< d< c < a$ , and there are no such elements. Thus, a type of a model does not have reversible amalgamation either.
2. Relativized Lascar Galois groups and algebraicity
As mentioned in the introduction, this section does not make any use of the homology groups and thus can be read independently from Section 1. Recall that throughout we assume that $\operatorname {acl}(\emptyset )=\operatorname {dcl}(\emptyset )$ . In Remark 1.8 from [Reference Dobrowolski, Kim and Lee3] it was noticed that if $\operatorname {tp}(a)$ is a Lascar type, and a finite tuple c is algebraic over a then $\operatorname {tp}(ac)$ is also a Lascar type, and hence if additionally T is G-compact then $\operatorname {tp}(\operatorname {acl}(a))$ is also a Lascar type. In other words, if $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(\operatorname {tp}(a))$ is trivial, then $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(\operatorname {tp}(\operatorname {acl}(a))$ is trivial when T is G-compact. It seems natural to ask whether, more generally, $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(\operatorname {tp}(a))$ and $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(\operatorname {tp}(\operatorname {acl}(a))$ must be always isomorphic in a G-compact T. In general, the answer turns out to be negative (see Section 3), but we obtain some positive results if, instead of looking at $\operatorname {acl}(a)$ , we add only a finite part of it to a.
Remark 2.1. The only properties of Lascar equivalence $\equiv ^L$ in G-compact theories used in this section are that it is a bounded $\emptyset $ -type definable equivalence relation and that for any compatible tuples a and b with $a\equiv ^L b$ we also have $a_0\equiv b_0$ for all corresponding subtuples $a_0\subseteq a$ and $b_0\subseteq b$ . As KP-equivalence $\equiv ^{KP}$ has these properties in any theory, all the main results of this section: Theorem 2.6, Corollary 2.9, Propositions 2.12 and 2.14, and Corollaries 2.16 and 2.20 hold without the G-compactness assumption if we replace the Lascar equivalence by KP-equivalence, and relativized Lascar groups $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{\lambda }(p)$ by relativized Kim–Pillay groups $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {KP}}^{\lambda }(p):=\operatorname {Aut}(p)/\operatorname {Autf}^{\lambda }_{\operatorname {KP}}(p)$ , where $\operatorname {Autf}^{\lambda }_{\operatorname {KP}}(p)$ is defined as the group of automorphisms in $\operatorname {Aut}(p)$ fixing the KP-type of any $\lambda $ -many realizations of p.
For the whole Section 2, we fix the following notation.
Notation 2.2. Assume that $p=\operatorname {tp}(a)$ and $\bar {p}=\operatorname {tp}(ac)$ , where $c\subseteq \operatorname {acl}(a)$ is finite. Consider the natural projection $\pi _{\lambda }:\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{\lambda }(\bar {p})\to \operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{\lambda }(p)$ , and put $ \pi :=\pi _1$ . We denote the kernel of $\pi $ by K. Denote by E the relation of being Lascar-equivalent (formally, E depends on the length of tuples on which we consider it). Let $ac_1,\dots ,ac_{N}$ be a tuple of representatives of all E-classes in $\bar {p}$ in which the first coordinate is equal to a (so $N\leq $ the number of realizations of $\operatorname {tp} (c/a)$ ), and for any $a'\models p$ , let $a'c^{a'}_1,\dots ,a'c^{a'}_{N}$ be its conjugate by an automorphism sending a to $a'$ .
Example 2.3. We give an example of a structure and a type p such that $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(p)$ and $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^2(p)$ are distinct. Let $\mathbb {C}=\mathbb {R}\times \mathbb {R}$ be a Euclidean plane. Let $\Lambda =\{r\pi \mid r\in \mathbb {Q}\cap (0,\frac {1}{2}]\}$ . For $q\in \Lambda $ , define $R_q(xy, zw)$ on $\mathbb {C}^4$ such that $R_q(ab, cd)$ iff $a\ne b$ , $c\ne d$ , and either the lines $L(ab)$ containing $a,b$ and $L(cd)$ are parallel, or the smaller angle between $L(ab)$ and $L(cd)$ is $\leq q$ . Also define a family of ternary relations $S_r(x,y,z)$ , for $r\in \mathbb {Q}^+$ , so that $S_r(a,b,c)$ if and only if $|ab|< r|ac|$ .
Consider a model $M=(\mathbb {C}; R_q(xy,zw); S_r(x,y,z))_{q\in \Lambda ,r\in \mathbb Q^+}$ . Then $F(xy,zw):=\bigwedge _{q\in \Lambda }R_q(xy,zw)$ is an $\emptyset $ -type-definable bounded equivalence relation in $T=\mbox {Th}(M)$ , and each class corresponds to a class of lines whose slopes are infinitesimally close.
Let $\mathcal R$ be a sufficiently saturated model of the reals, $\mathcal {C}=\mathcal R^2$ , $N\models T$ , a a finite tuple in N, and $c\in N$ an element. Then for any $b\in \mathcal {C}$ that has the same quantifier-free type as a there is $d\in \mathcal {C}$ such that $ac$ and $bd$ have the same quantifier-free type.
Let p be the unique complete $1$ -type over $\emptyset $ . Indeed p is a Lascar type, so $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(p)$ is trivial. On the other hand, a rotation of $\mathcal {C}$ around a point in $\mathbb {C}$ belongs to $\operatorname {Autf}^1(p)$ but does not belong to $\operatorname {Autf}^2(p)$ . One can show that $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^2(p)$ is a circle group, and T is G-compact (see Definition 0.1 and Fact 0.2).
In fact for any $n>0$ , and any finite $a_{< n}=a_0\dots a_{n-1}$ and $b_{< n}=b_0\dots b_{n-1}$ ( $a_j, b_j\in \mathcal {C}^1$ ), the following are equivalent:
-
(1) $a_{< n}\equiv ^L b_{<n}$ .
-
(2) $F(a_ia_j,b_ib_j)$ for $i< j< n$ .
-
(3) There is $I=( c^i_{< n}\mid i< \omega )$ such that both $a_{< n}I$ and $b_{< n}I$ are indiscernibles.
It is enough to show $(2)\Rightarrow (3)$ . We write $a_{ij}=a_ia_j$ for $i,j< n$ . We say that $a_0$ , $a_1$ , and $a_2$ are collinear if $F(a_{ij},a_{ik})$ for $\{i,j,k\}=\{0,1,2\}$ . Suppose $F(a_{ij}, b_{ij})$ for all $i<j<n$ . Then there is $d\in \mathcal {C}$ such that $d,a_i,b_i$ are collinear for each $i< n$ . (Even when $F(a_ib_i, a_jb_j)$ holds for each $i< j< n$ , there still is such $d\in {\mathcal M}$ , by compactness.) In other words, there is a perspective point d for the sets $a_{< n}$ and $b_{< n}$ in $\mathcal {C}$ .
Let $N\prec \mathcal R$ be a small elementary substructure containing all coordinates of the points $a_{< n}\cup b_{< n}$ . Consider a complete type $p_{\infty }(x)=\{x>a:a\in N\}$ over N in the ordered ring language. Let $\{\alpha _i\mid i<\omega \}$ be a Morley sequence of realizations $p_{\infty }$ such that $\operatorname {tp}(\alpha _i/N\alpha _{< i})$ is an heir extension of $p_{\infty }$ so that $\alpha _i$ is infinite with respect to $\operatorname {dcl}(N\alpha _{< i})$ . Now, we can take I to be the sequence of scaled by $\alpha _i$ copies of $a_{< n}$ relative to the point d: $c^i_{j} = \alpha _i(a_j-d)+d$ .
Let us recall basic definitions and facts on covering maps between topological groups (see for example [Reference Hofmann and Morris6]).
-
• Let $X, Y$ be topological spaces, and let $f:X\to Y$ be a continuous surjective map. We call f a ( k- ) covering map if for each $y\in Y$ there is an open set V containing y such that $f^{-1}(V)$ is a union of (k-many) disjoint open sets in X, and f induces a homeomorphism between each such open set and V. We call f a local homeomorphism if for any $x\in X$ , there is an open set U containing x such that $f\restriction U:U\to f(U)$ is a homeomorphism. Obviously a covering map is a local homeomorphism. Conversely, if both X and Y are compact, then a local homeomorphism is a covering map. We call X a covering space of Y if there is a covering map from X to Y.
-
• Let G be topological group, and let H be a normal subgroup of G such that $G/H$ with its quotient topology is also a topological group, and the projection map $\mbox {pr}: G\to G/H$ is an open continuous homomorphism. Recall that $\mbox {pr}$ is a covering map if and only if H is a discrete subgroup. If G is compact, then H is discrete if and only if H is finite, and hence iff $\mbox {pr}$ is a covering map.Assume F is another topological group and $f:G\to F$ is a continuous surjective homomorphism. If G is compact and F is Hausdorff, then f induces an isomorphism between the compact topological groups $G/\operatorname {Ker}(f)$ and F.
-
• Assume T is G-compact. By the above, $\pi _{\lambda }$ is a covering homomorphism iff the kernel of $\pi _{\lambda }$ is finite. In particular, we shall show that $\pi =\pi _1$ is a covering homomorphism (Corollary 2.9).
If T is G-compact then the Lascar equivalence E is $\emptyset $ -type-definable (see [Reference Kim7, Proposition 20]), and we can assume any formula $\varphi $ in E is symmetric (i.e., $\varphi (\bar z,\bar w)\models \varphi (\bar w,\bar z)$ ).
Lemma 2.5. Assume T is G-compact. There is a formula $\alpha (xy,x'y')\in E(xy,x'y')$ such that if $\bar p(xy)\wedge \bar p(x'y') \wedge \alpha (xy,x'y')\wedge E(x,x')$ holds then $\models E(xy,x'y').$
Proof Notice that the type
is inconsistent, and choose $\alpha (xy,x'y')\in E(xy,x'y')$ so that the type
is inconsistent. Now, if $\bar p(xy)\wedge \bar p(x'y') \wedge \alpha (xy,x'y')\wedge E(x,x')$ holds, then we can find $c'a'c''$ such that $ac'a'c'' \equiv xyx'y'$ , and then $a'\equiv ^L a$ so $a'c'' \equiv ^L ac_i$ for some i, and also $ac' \equiv ^L ac_j$ for some j, but, by the choice of $\alpha $ , $i=j$ so $ac'\equiv ^L a'c''$ , so $xy \equiv ^L x'y'$ .⊣
The following theorem and its proof will use the setting described in Notation 2.2.
Theorem 2.6. If T is G-compact, then K is finite.
Proof Assume T is G-compact. Since E is transitive, there is $\phi (xy,x'y')\in E(xy,x'y')$ such that
where $\alpha \in E$ is the formula given by Lemma 2.5.
Let $(a_{\ell })_{\ell \in I}$ be a small set of representatives of E-classes of realizations of p. For any $a'c'\models \bar {p}$ , there are $\ell \in I$ and $1\leq j\leq N$ such that $\models E(a'c',a_{\ell }c_j^{a_{\ell }})$ , so $\models \phi (a'c',a_{\ell }c_j^{a_{\ell }})$ . Hence, by compactness, there are $a_0,\dots ,a_k\models p$ such that
Claim 2.7. Let $f/\operatorname {Autf}^1(\bar {p})\in K$ . For each $a_ic_j^{a_i}$ chosen above, there is a unique $a_ic^{a_i}_{j'}$ with $ 1\leq j'\leq N$ such that $\phi (f(a_ic^{a_i}_j), a_ic^{a_i}_{j'})$ holds. Such a $j'$ does not depend on the choice of a representative of $f/\operatorname {Autf}^1(\bar {p})$ .
Proof Notice that $f/\operatorname {Autf}^1(\bar {p})\in K$ implies $E(f(a_i),a_i)$ , so $E(f(a_ic^{a_i}_j), a_ic^{a_i}_{j'})$ holds for some $j'$ . Now if $\phi (f(a_ic^{a_i}_j), a_ic^{a_i}_{j''})$ holds as well, then due to $(*)$ (with the symmetry of the formulas) and Lemma 2.5, we must have $j'=j''$ . The second statement of the claim follows similarly.⊣
Claim 2.8. Let $f/\operatorname {Autf}^1(\bar {p})$ , $g/\operatorname {Autf}^1(\bar {p})\in K$ . Assume that the permutations of tuples $a_ic_j^{a_i}$ by f and g described in the claim above are the same. Then $f/\operatorname {Autf}^1(\bar {p})=g/\operatorname {Autf}^1(\bar {p})$ .
Proof Let $a'c'\models \bar p$ . By $(**)$ , there is some $a_ic_j^{a_i}$ such that $\phi (a'c', a_ic_j^{a_i})$ holds. Hence, $\phi (f(a'c'), f(a_ic_j^{a_i}))$ and $\phi (g(a'c'), g(a_ic_j^{a_i}))$ hold. Moreover, by the previous claim with our assumption, there is $ j'\leq N$ such that $\phi (f(a_ic^{a_i}_j), a_ic^{a_i}_{j'})$ and $\phi (g(a_ic^{a_i}_j), a_ic^{a_i}_{j'})$ hold.
Then, again due to $(*)$ and Lemma 2.5, $f(a_ic^{a_i}_j)\equiv ^L g(a_ic^{a_i}_j)$ since $f(a_i)\equiv ^Lg(a_i)\equiv ^L a_i$ . Hence, there is $h\in \operatorname {Autf}^1(\bar p)$ such that $f(a_ic^{a_i}_j)=hg(a_ic^{a_i}_j)$ . Now by $(*)$ again, $\alpha (f(a'c'), hg(a'c'))$ holds, and, since $f(a')\equiv ^Lhg(a')\equiv ^L a'$ , we have $f(a'c')\equiv ^L hg(a'c')\equiv ^L g(a'c')$ . We conclude that $f/\operatorname {Autf}^1(\bar {p})=g/\operatorname {Autf}^1(\bar {p})$ .⊣
As there are only finitely many permutations of $a_ic_j^{a_i}$ ( $i\leq k$ , $ 1\leq j\leq N$ ), K is finite.⊣
By Remark 2.4, we have the following.
Corollary 2.9. If T is G-compact then $\pi :\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{1}(\bar {p})\to \operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{1}(p)$ is a covering homomorphism.
Example 2.10. Consider the following model:
a 2-sorted structure. Here $M_1, M_2$ are disjoint unit circles. For $i=1,2$ , $S_i$ is a ternary relation on $M_i$ such that $S_i(a,b,c)$ holds iff $a,b,c$ are distinct and b comes before c going clockwise around $M_i$ from a; and $g^i_n$ is the clockwise rotation of $M_i$ by $\frac {2\pi }{n}$ -radians. The map $\delta :M_1\to M_2$ is a double covering, i.e., if we identify each $M_i$ as the unit circle in $xy$ -plane centered at $0$ , then $\delta $ is given by $(\cos t, \sin t)\mapsto (\cos 2t,\sin 2t).$ By arguments similar to those described in [Reference Dobrowolski, Kim and Lee3] for $M_i$ , it follows that $T=\operatorname {Th}(M)$ is G-compact, and, in T, $\emptyset =\operatorname {acl}^{\operatorname {eq}}(\emptyset )$ . Let ${\mathcal M}_1,{\mathcal M}_2$ be saturated models of $M_1,M_2$ respectively. For any $a_i,a^{\prime }_i\in {\mathcal M}_i$ , we have $a_i\equiv a^{\prime }_i$ ; and $a_i\equiv ^La^{\prime }_i$ iff they are infinitesimally close. Now, given $a\in M_2$ , there are two antipodal $c_1,c_2\in M_1$ such that $\delta (c_i)=a$ . Then $c_i\in \operatorname {acl}(a)$ and $ac_1\equiv ac_2$ , but $ac_1\not \equiv ^L ac_2$ . For $p=\operatorname {tp}(a)$ and $\bar p=\operatorname {tp}(ac_1)$ , $\pi :\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{1}(\bar p)\to \operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{1}(p)$ is a 2-covering homomorphism of circle groups. Notice that for any $n>2$ ,
serves as the formula $\alpha (xy,x'y')$ in Lemma 2.5.
Question 2.11. If T is G-compact, then is the kernel of the projection $\pi _{\lambda }:\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{\lambda }(\bar {p})\to \operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^{\lambda }(p)$ finite as well for $\lambda>1$ ? Is T being G-compact essential in Theorem 2.6?
We have a partial answer to the second question above. Namely, we also get that K is finite when we replace the assumption of G-compactness by abelianity of $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(\bar {p})$ .
Proposition 2.12. If $\operatorname {Gal}_{\operatorname {L}}^1(\bar {p})$ is abelian, then $|K|=N$ .
Proof If $f/\oper