Tameness, uniqueness triples and amalgamation

DOI10.1016/J.APAL.2015.09.001MaRDI QIDQ892171zbMATH OpenOpenAlexFDO

Authors Adi Jarden

Publication date 18 November 2015

Published in Annals of Pure and Applied Logic (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1408.3383

zbMATH Keywords

framesamalgamationabstract elementary classescategoricitytamenessuniqueness triples

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Classification theory, stability, and related concepts in model theory (03C45) Categoricity and completeness of theories (03C35) Abstract elementary classes and related topics (03C48) Properties of classes of models (03C52)

Abstract: We combine two approaches to the study of classification theory of AECs: 1. that of Shelah: studying non-forking frames without assuming the amalgamation property but assuming the existence of uniqueness triples and 2. that of Grossberg and VanDieren: (studying non-splitting) assuming the amalgamation property and tameness. In [JrSh875], we derive a good non-forking $lambd{a}^{+}$-frame from a semi-good non-forking $lambda$-frame. But the classes $K_{lambd{a}^{+}}$ and $preceqestriction{K}_{lambd{a}^{+}}$ are replaced: $K_{lambd{a}^{+}}$ is restricted to the saturated models and the partial order $preceqestriction{K}_{lambd{a}^{+}}$ is restricted to the partial order $prece{q}_{lambd{a}^{+}}^{NF}$. Here, we avoid the restriction of the partial order $preceqestriction{K}_{lambd{a}^{+}}$, assuming that every saturated model (in $lambd{a}^{+}$ over $lambda$) is an amalgamation base and $(lambda,lambd{a}^{+})$-tameness for non-forking types over saturated models, (in addition to the hypotheses of [JrSh875]): We prove that $Mpreceq{M}^{+}$ if and only if $Mprece{q}_{lambd{a}^{+}}^{NF}{M}^{+}$, provided that $M$ and $M^{+}$ are saturated models. We present sufficient conditions for three good non-forking $lambd{a}^{+}$-frames: one relates to all the models of cardinality $lambd{a}^{+}$ and the two others relate to the saturated models only. By an `unproven claim' of Shelah, if we can repeat this procedure $omega$ times, namely, `derive' good non-forking $lambd{a}^{+n}$ frame for each $n<omega$ then the categoricity conjecture holds. Vasey applies one of our main theorems in a proof of the categoricity conjecture under the above `unproven claim' of Shelah and more assumptions. In [Jrprime], we apply the main theorem in a proof of the existence of primeness triples.

Recommendations

• Tameness and extending frames
• Forking and superstability in tame AECs
• Non-forking frames in abstract elementary classes
• Tameness from two successive good frames
• Non-forking w-good frames

Cites work

• Building independence relations in abstract elementary classes
• Categoricity
• Classification theory for abstract elementary classes
• GALOIS-STABILITY FOR TAME ABSTRACT ELEMENTARY CLASSES
• Large cardinal axioms from tameness in AECs
• Non-forking frames in abstract elementary classes
• Tameness and extending frames
• Tameness and frames revisited
• Tameness from large cardinal axioms

Cited in

(11)

• Downward categoricity from a successor inside a good frame
• Categoricity and multidimensional diagrams
• Building independence relations in abstract elementary classes
• Building prime models in fully good abstract elementary classes
• Tameness and extending frames
• Tameness from two successive good frames
• Good frames in the Hart-Shelah example
• Non-forking w-good frames
• Forking and superstability in tame AECs
• Tameness and frames revisited
• Shelah's eventual categoricity conjecture in universal classes. I.

This page was built for publication: Tameness, uniqueness triples and amalgamation

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q892171)