Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78bd46657c-lpzrl Total loading time: 0.203 Render date: 2021-05-07T23:31:38.319Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Forking and independence in o-minimal theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Alfred Dolich
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 480 Lincoln Drive, Madison, WI 53706, USA, E-mail: dolich@math.wisc.edu
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Extract

In the following we try to answer a simple question, “what does forking look like in an o-minimal theory”, or more generally, “what kinds of notions of independence with what kinds of properties are admissible in an o-minimal theory?” The motivation of these question begin with the study of simple theories and generalizations of simple theories. In [3] Kim and Pillay prove that the class of simple theories may be described exactly as those theories bearing a notion of independence satisfying various axioms. Thus it is natural to ask, if we weaken the assumptions as to which axioms must hold, what kind of theories do we get? Another source of motivation, also stemming from the study of simple theories, comes from the work of Shelah in [8] and [7]. Here Shelah addresses a “classification” type problem for class of models of a theory, showing that a theory will have the appropriate “structure” type property if one can construct a partially ordered set, satisfying various properties, of models of the theory. Using this criterion Shelah shows that the class of simple theories has this “structure” property, yet also that several non-simple examples do as well (though it should be pointed out that o-minimal theories can not be among these since any theory with the strict order property will have the corresponding “non-structure” property [8]). Thus one is lead to ask, what are the non-simple theories meeting this criterion, and one is once again led to study the types of independence relation a theory might bear. Finally, Shelah in [6] provides some possible definitions of what axioms for a notion of independence one should possibly look for in order to hope that theories bearing such a notion of independence should be amenable closer analysis. In studying all of the above mentioned situations it readily becomes clear that dividing and forking play a central role in all of them, even though we are no longer dealing with the simple case where we know that dividing and forking are very well behaved. All of these considerations lead one to look for classes of non-simple theories of which something is known where one can construct interesting notions of independence and consequently also say something about the nature of forking and dividing in these contexts. Given this one is naturally lead to one of the most well behaved classes of non-simple theories, namely the o-minimal theories.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

[1]Dolich, A., Weak dividing chain conditions and simplicity, preprint.Google Scholar
[2]van den Dries, L., Tame topology and O-minimal structures, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Kim, B. and Pillay, A., Simple theories, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 88 (1997), pp. 149164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Marker, D., Omitting types in O-minimal theories, this Journal, vol. 51 (1986), pp. 6374.Google Scholar
[5]Pillay, A. and Steinhorn, C., Definable sets in ordered structures I, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 295 (1986), pp. 565592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[6]Shelah, S., unpublished notes.Google Scholar
[7]Shelah, S., The universality spectrum: Consistency for more classes, Combinatorics, Paul Erdös is eighty, Bolyai Society Mathematical Studies, vol. 1, 1993, pp. 403420.Google Scholar
[8]Shelah, S., Toward classifying unstable theories, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 80 (1996), pp. 229255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Forking and independence in o-minimal theories
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Forking and independence in o-minimal theories
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Forking and independence in o-minimal theories
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *