More on \(\mathrm{SOP}_1\) and \(\mathrm{SOP}_2\) (Q947266)

Shelah and his collaborators have been working on clarifying the nature of theories with tree property (i.e., non-simple) and without order properties (SOPs). In a previous paper [\textit{M. Džamonja} and \textit{S. Shelah}, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 125, No. 1--3, 119--158 (2004; Zbl 1040.03029)], the following implications were shown: \[ \text{SOP}_3\Rightarrow\triangleleft^*\text{-maximality}\Rightarrow \text{SOP}_2\Rightarrow\text{SOP}_1\Rightarrow\text{non-simple}. \] [A correction is made in this paper.] Also, it was shown that not all implications are reversible, but which ones was not known. In this paper, the last implication is shown to be non-reversible: the authors show that the model completion of \(T_{\text{feq}}\) (which is not simple) lacks \(\text{SOP}_1\). The converses of the first implications are very interesting, because they show the equivalence between \(\triangleleft^*\)-maximality (a semantical property) and SOPs (a syntactical property). A tantalizing result in this context is obtained; \(\text{sop}_2\Rightarrow\triangleleft^*\)-maximality, locally. Also, the model completion of the theory of trees is shown to be \(\triangleleft^*\)-maximal. The authors give background material and definitions of relevant notions (including SOPs and \(\triangleleft^*\)-maximality). Also, a lot of discussions, strategies, and new problems are here, giving the paper the character of being a report of work in progress.