Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:00:25.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Notes on Quasiminimality and Excellence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 January 2014

John T. Baldwin
John T. Baldwin*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science, University of Illinoisat Chicago, USAE-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper ties together much of the model theory of the last 50 years. Shelah's attempts to generalize the Morley theorem beyond first order logic led to the notion of excellence, which is a key to the structure theory of uncountable models. The notion of Abstract Elementary Class arose naturally in attempting to prove the categoricity theorem for Lω1,ω(Q). More recently, Zilber has attempted to identify canonical mathematical structures as those whose theory (in an appropriate logic) is categorical in all powers. Zilber's trichotomy conjecture for first order categorical structures was refuted by Hrushovski, by the introducion of a special kind of Abstract Elementary Class. Zilber uses a powerful and essentailly infinitary variant on these techniques to investigate complex exponentiation. This not only demonstrates the relevance of Shelah's model theoretic investigations to mainstream mathematics but produces new results and conjectures in algebraic geometry.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of Symbolic Logic , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , September 2004 , pp. 334 - 366
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. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1] Aref'ev, R., Baldwin, J. T., and Mazzucco, M., δ-invariant amalgamation classes, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 64 (1999), pp. 1743–1750.Google Scholar
[2] Bacsich, P. D. and Hughes, D. Rowlands, Syntactic characterisations of amalgamation, convexity, and related properties, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 39 (1974), pp. 433–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Baldwin, J. T., An almost strongly minimal non-Desarguesian projective plane, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 342 (1994), pp. 695–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4] Baldwin, J. T., Rank and homogeneous structures, Tits buildings and the theory of groups Wurzburg Sept. 14–17, 2000 (Tent, Katrin, editor), Cambridge University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
[5] Baldwin, J. T. and Holland, K., Constructing ω-stable structures: Rank 2 fields, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 65 (2000), pp. 371–391.Google Scholar
[6] Baldwin, J. T., Constructing ω-stable structures: model completeness, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 125 (2004), pp. 159–172.Google Scholar
[7] Baldwin, J. T., Constructing ω-stable structures: Rank k, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic , (to appear).Google Scholar
[8] Baldwin, J. T. and Lachlan, A. H., On strongly minimal sets, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 36 (1971), pp. 79–96.Google Scholar
[9] Baldwin, J. T. and Shelah, S., Randomness and semigenericity, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 349 (1997), pp. 1359–1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Baldwin, J. T. and Shi, Niandong, Stable generic structures, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 79 (1996), pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
[11] Buechler, S. and Lessmann, O., Simple homogeneous models, Journal of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 16 (2003), pp. 91–121.Google Scholar
[12] Chang, C. C., Some remarks on the model theory of infinitary languages, The syntax and semantics of infinitary languages (Barwise, J., editor), Lecture Notes in Mathematics 72, Springer-Verlag, 1968, pp. 36–64.Google Scholar
[13] Fraïssé, R., Sur quelques classifications des systèmes de relations, Publ. Sci. Univ. Algeria Ser. A, vol. 1 (1954), pp. 35–182.Google Scholar
[14] Goode, J. B., Hrushovski's Geometries, Proceedings of 7th Easter conference on model theory (Wolter, Helmut Dahn, Bernd, editor), 1989, pp. 106–118.Google Scholar
[15] Grossberg, R., Classification theory for non-elementary classes, Logic and algebra (Zhang, Yi, editor), Contemporary Mathematics 302, American Mathematical Society, 2002, pp. 165–204.Google Scholar
[16] Grossberg, R. and Hart, B., The classification theory of excellent classes, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 54 (1989), pp. 1359–1381.Google Scholar
[17] Grossberg, R. and Lessmann, O., Shelah's stability spectrum and homogeneity spectrum in finite diagrams, Archive for Mathematical Logic, vol. 41 (2002), pp. 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18] Hart, B. and Shelah, S., Categoricity over P for first order t or categoricity for ∅ ∈ lω1 ω can stop at אk while holding for א0, …, אk–1 , Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 70 (1990), pp. 219–235.Google Scholar
[19] Henson, W. and Iovino, J., Ultraproducts in analysis, Analysis and logic, London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes, vol. 262, Cambridge University Press, 2002, pp. 1–115.Google Scholar
[20] Herwlg, B., Weight ω in stable theories with few types, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 60 (1995), pp. 353–373.Google Scholar
[21] Hodges, W., Model theory, Cambridge University Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22] Holland, K., Model completeness of the new strongly minimal sets, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 64 (1999), pp. 946–962.Google Scholar
[23] Holland, K., Transcendence degree and group rank, preprint.Google Scholar
[24] Hrushovski, E., A new strongly minimal set, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 62 (1993), pp. 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[25] Hrushovski, E., Simplicity and the Lascar group, preprint.Google Scholar
[26] Hyttinen, T., Canonical finite diagrams and quantifier elimination, Mathematical Logic Quarterly, vol. 48 (2002), pp. 533–554.Google Scholar
[27] Hyttinen, T. and Shelah, S., Strong splitting in stable homogeneous models, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 103 (2000), pp. 201–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[28] Jonsson, B., Universal relational systems, Mathematica Scandinavica, vol. 4 (1956), pp. 193–208.Google Scholar
[29] Jonsson, B., Homogeneous universal relational systems, Mathematica Scandinavica, vol. 8 (1960), pp. 137–142.Google Scholar
[30] Keisler, H. J., Logic with quantifier “there exists uncountably many”, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 1 (1970), pp. 1–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[31] Keisler, H. J., Model theory for infinitary logic, North-Holland, 1971.Google Scholar
[32] Koiran, P., The theory of Liouville functions, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 68 (2003), no. 2, pp. 353–365.Google Scholar
[33] Kueker, D. W. and Laskowski, C., On generic structures, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, vol. 33 (1992), pp. 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[34] Lessmann, O., Homogeneous model theory: Existence and categoricity, Contemporary Mathematics 302, 2002.Google Scholar
[35] Lessmann, O., Notes on excellent classes, preprint.Google Scholar
[36] Łos, J., On the categoricity in power of elementary deductive systems and related problems, Colloquium Mathematicum, vol. 3 (1954), pp. 58–62.Google Scholar
[37] Marcus, L., A minimal prime model with an infinite set of indiscernibles, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 11 (1972), pp. 180–183.Google Scholar
[38] Marker, D., Note on Zilber's pseudo-exponentiation, manuscript.Google Scholar
[39] Morley, M., Categoricity in power, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 114 (1965), pp. 514–538.Google Scholar
[40] Morley, M. and Vaught, R. L., Homogeneous universal models, Mathematica Scandinavica, vol. 11 (1962), pp. 37–57.Google Scholar
[41] Peatfield, N. and Zilber, B., Analytic Zariski structures and the Hrushovski construction, preprint, 2003.Google Scholar
[42] Poizat, B., Le carré de l'egalité, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 64 (1999), pp. 1339–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[43] Poizat, B., L'egalité au cube, The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 66 (2001), pp. 1647–1676.Google Scholar
[44] Shelah, S., Finite diagrams stable in power, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 2 (1970), pp. 69–118.Google Scholar
[45] Shelah, S., Categoricity in א1 of sentences in Lω1,ω(Q), Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 20 (1975), pp. 127–148, Paper 48.Google Scholar
[46] Shelah, S., The lazy model-theoretician's guide to stability, Logique et Analyse, vol. 18 (1975), pp. 241–308.Google Scholar
[47] Shelah, S., Classification theory and the number of nonisomorphic models, North-Holland, 1978.Google Scholar
[48] Shelah, S., Classification theory for nonelementary classes. I. The number of uncountable models of ψ ∈ Lω1, ω part A, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 46 (1983), no. 3, pp. 212–240, Paper 87a.Google Scholar
[49] Shelah, S., Classification theory for nonelementary classes. I. The number of uncountable models of ψ ∈ Lω1, ω part B, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 46 (1983), no. 3, pp. 241–271, Paper 87b.Google Scholar
[50] Shelah, S., Universal classes, part I, Classification theory (Chicago, IL, 1985) (Baldwin, J. T., editor), Springer, Berlin, 1987, pp. 264–419, Paper 300: Proceedings of the USA-Israel Conference on Classification Theory, Chicago, December 1985; Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1292.Google Scholar
[51] Shelah, S., Classification of nonelementary classes II, abstract elementary classes, Classification theory (Chicago, IL, 1985) (Baldwin, J. T., editor), Springer, Berlin, 1987, pp. 419–497, Paper 88: Proceedings of the USA-Israel Conference on Classification Theory, Chicago, December 1985; Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[52] Shelah, S., Categoricity of abstract elementary class in two successive cardinals, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 126 (2001), pp. 29–128, Paper 576.Google Scholar
[53] Shelah, S., Categoricity of abstract elementary classes: going up inductive step, preprint 600.Google Scholar
[54] Shelah, S., Toward classification theory of good λ frames and abstract elementary classes, preprint 705.Google Scholar
[55] Shelah, S. and Villaveces, A., Toward categoricity for classes with no maximal models, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 97 (1999), pp. 1–25, revised version: www.math.rutgers.edu/~shelah. Google Scholar
[56] VanDieren, M., Categoricity and stability in abstract elementary classes, Ph.D. thesis , Carnegie Mellon University, 2002.Google Scholar
[57] Vaught, R. L., Denumerable models of countable theories, Infinitistic methods, Proc. Symp. Foundations of Math., Warsaw, 1959, Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warsaw, 1961, pp. 303–321.Google Scholar
[58] Wilkie, A., Liouville functions, preprint, 2002.Google Scholar
[59] Zilber, B. I., Analytic andpsuedo-analytic structures, Proceedings of Logic Colloquium 2000, Paris, to appear.Google Scholar
[60] Zilber, B. I., Covers of the multiplicative group of an algebraically closedfield of characteristic 0, preprint, 2000.Google Scholar
[61] Zilber, B. I., Fields with pseudoexponentiation, preprint, 2000.Google Scholar
[62] Zilber, B. I., Intersecting varieties with tori, preprint, 2000.Google Scholar
[63] Zilber, B. I., A categoricity theorem for quasiminimal excellent classes, preprint, 2002.Google Scholar
[64] Zilber, B. I., Raising to powers in algebraically closed fields, preprint, 2002.Google Scholar