Definability in low simple theories
It is an open question whether the Independence Theorem, true in every stable theory, holds in simple theories, too. In Ann. Pure Appl. Log. 88, No. 2-3, 149-164 (1997; Zbl 0897.03036), \textit{B. Kim} and \textit{A. Pillay} showed in this enlarged setting a weaker version, using Lascar strong types instead of strong types. Later Buechler introduced a class of simple theories, called low, including stable theories as well as certain supersimple theories, where a Lascar strong type is the same as a strong type, and so the Independence Theorem holds in all generality. The paper under review proposes a new approach both to Buechler's and Kim-Pillay's theorems. Definability in low theories is also discussed, as well as equality between Lascar strong types in the simple framework. Finally, the paper compares Lascar strong types and types within simple theories, and provides a (necessary and sufficient) condition ensuring their equivalence.
- Lovely pairs of models
- Internality and interpretable automorphism groups in simple theories
- On omega-categorical simple theories
- Independence over arbitrary sets in \(\mathrm{NSOP}_1\) theories
- On analyzability in the forking topology for simple theories
- Strongly determined types and G-compactness
- A note on Lascar strong types in simple theories
- Lascar strong types in some simple theories
- SIMPLICITY IN COMPACT ABSTRACT THEORIES
- Supersimple theories
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3204589 (Why is no real title available?)
- Mutual definability does not imply definitional equivalence, a simple example
- A supersimple nonlow theory
- Exact saturation in pseudo-elementary classes for simple and stable theories
- TRANSITIVITY, LOWNESS, AND RANKS IN NSOP THEORIES
- n-simple theories
- Definability with bounded number of bound variables
This page was built for publication: Definability in low simple theories
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2710591)
