Set theory is an autonomous and sophisticated field of mathematics, enormously successful not only at its continuing development of its historical heritage but also at analyzing mathematical propositions cast in set-theoretic terms and gauging their consistency strength. But set theory is also distinguished by having begun intertwined with pronounced metaphysical attitudes, and these have even been regarded as crucial by some of its great developers. This has encouraged the exaggeration of crises in foundations and of metaphysical doctrines in general. However, set theory has proceeded in the opposite direction, from a web of intensions to a theory of extension par excellence, and like other fields of mathematics its vitality and progress have depended on a steadily growing core of mathematical structures and methods, problems and results. There is also the stronger contention that from the beginning set theory actually developed through a progression of mathematical moves, whatever and sometimes in spite of what has been claimed on its behalf.

What follows is an account of the development of set theory from its beginnings through the creation of forcing based on these contentions, with an avowedly Whiggish emphasis on the heritage that has been retained and developed by current set theory. The whole transfinite landscape can be viewed as the result of Cantor's attempt to articulate and solve the Continuum Problem.

§1. Introduction. By and large, definitions of a differentiable structure on a set involve two ingredients, topology and algebra. However, in some cases, partial information on one or both of these is sufficient. A very simple example is that of the field ℝ (or any real closed field) where algebra alone determines the ordering and hence the topology of the field:

In the case of the field ℂ, the algebraic structure is insufficient to determine the Euclidean topology; another topology, Zariski, is associated with the ield but this will be too coarse to give a diferentiable structure.

A celebrated example of how partial algebraic and topological data (G a locally euclidean group) determines a differentiable structure (G is a Lie group) is Hilbert's 5th problem and its solution by Montgomery-Zippin and Gleason.

The main result which we discuss here (see [13] for the full version) is of a similar flavor: we recover an algebraic and later differentiable structure from a topological data. We begin with a linearly ordered set ⟨M, <⟩, equipped with the order topology, and its cartesian products with the product topologies. We then consider the collection of definable subsets of Mn, n = 1, 2, …, in some first order expansion ℳ of ⟨M, <⟩.

The aim of this paper is to describe (without proofs) an analogue of the theory of nontrivial torsion-free divisible abelian groups for metabelian groups. We obtain illustrations for “old-fashioned” model theoretic algebra and “new” examples in the theory of stable groups. We begin this paper with general considerations about model theory. In the second section we present our results and we give the structure of the rest of the paper. Most parts of this paper use only basic concepts from model theory and group theory (see [14] and especially Chapters IV, V, VI and VIII for model theory, and see for example [23] and especially Chapters II and V for group theory). However, in Section 5, we need some somewhat elaborate notions from stability theory. One can find the beginnings of this theory in [14], and we refer the reader to [16] or [21] for stability theory and to [22] for stable groups.

§1. Some model theoretic considerations. Denote by the theory of torsion-free abelian groups in the language of groups ℒgp. A finitely generated group G satisfies iff G is isomorphic to a finite direct power of ℤ. It follows that axiomatizes the universal theory of free abelian groups and that the theory of nontrivial torsion-free abelian groups is complete for the universal sentences. Denote by the theory of nontrivial divisible torsion-free abelian groups.

§0. Preface. There has been an expectation that the endgame of the more tenacious problems raised by the Los Angeles ‘cabal’ school of descriptive set theory in the 1970's should ultimately be played out with the use of inner model theory. Questions phrased in the language of descriptive set theory, where both the conclusions and the assumptions are couched in terms that only mention simply definable sets of reals, and which have proved resistant to purely descriptive set theoretic arguments, may at last find their solution through the connection between determinacy and large cardinals.

Perhaps the most striking example was given by [24], where the core model theory was used to analyze the structure of HOD and then show that all regular cardinals below ΘL(ℝ) are measurable. John Steel's analysis also settled a number of structural questions regarding HODL(ℝ), such as GCH.

Another illustration is provided by [21]. There an application of large cardinals and inner model theory is used to generalize the Harrington-Martin theorem that determinacy implies )determinacy.

However, it is harder to find examples of theorems regarding the structure of the projective sets whose only known proof from determinacy assumptions uses the link between determinacy and large cardinals. We may equivalently ask whether there are second order statements of number theory that cannot be proved under PD–the axiom of projective determinacy–without appealing to the large cardinal consequences of the PD, such as the existence of certain kinds of inner models that contain given types of large cardinals.