Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T21:15:44.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stability theory and set existence axioms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Victor Harnik
Victor Harnik*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel Department of Mathematics, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A series of investigations started by H. Friedman ([5], [6]) and pursued by him, by S. Simpson, and by others (see [7], [16] and the references there) had the objective of determining what are precisely the set existence axioms needed for proving theorems of “ordinary” mathematics. The study centered around -CA0 (for “-Comprehension Axiom”), a fragment of second order arithmetic in which the main body of “ordinary” mathematics can be comfortably developed (of course, after a suitable encoding of the various concepts into numbers and sets of numbers). The main question is always this: given a theorem τ provable in -CA0, do we need all of -CA0, or, maybe, is τ provable in a weaker subsystem? A surprisingly simple pattern emerged: there seem to be just five important systems, denoted (in order of increasing strength) RCA0, WKL0, ACA0, ATR0 and -CA0, such that in most cases, whenever an ordinary mathematical theorem τ is provable in -CA0, it is either provable in RCA0 or it is equivalent to one, call it S, of the other four systems, the proof of the equivalence being done in one of the systems which is weaker than S (most typically, RCA0 or ACA0). This very interesting phenomenon—or “theme” as it was called by Friedman—has been verified for many instances in the realm of analysis and algebra (cf. the references above and the forthcoming book [17]). It is the purpose of this paper to do the same for a particular branch of model theory, namely stability theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , March 1985 , pp. 123 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1985

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] Baldwin, J. T., Countable theories categorical in uncountable power, Ph.D. Thesis, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, 1971.Google Scholar
[2] Baldwin, J. T., Stability theory (book in preparation).Google Scholar
[3] Baldwin, J. T., Strong saturation and the foundations of stability theory, preprint.Google Scholar
[4] Culmer, C. W., Definability problems in model theory, Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1979.Google Scholar
[5] Friedman, H., Some systems of second order arithmetic and their use, Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians (Vancouver, 1974), Vol. 1, Canadian Mathematical Congress, Montreal, 1975, pp. 235–242.Google Scholar
[6] Friedman, H., Systems of second order arithmetic with restricted induction. I, II (abstracts), this Journal, vol. 41 (1976), pp. 557–558, 558–559.Google Scholar
[7] Friedman, H., Simpson, S. G. and Smith, R., Countable algebra and set existence axioms, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 25 (1983), pp. 141–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8] Harnik, V. and Harrington, L., Fundamentals of forking, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 26 (1984), pp. 245–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9] Hodges, W., Encoding orders and trees in binary relations, Mathematika, vol. 28 (1981), pp. 67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10] Hodges, W., Free composites and forking (unpublished notes).Google Scholar
[11] Lachlan, A. H., A property of stable theories, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 77 (1972), pp. 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Lascar, D.. Ranks and definability in superstable theories, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 23 (1976), pp. 53–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13] Lascar, D. and Poizat, B., An introduction to forking, this Journal, vol. 44 (1979), pp. 330–350.Google Scholar
[14] Shelah, S., Stability, the f.c.p., and superstability, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 3 (1971), pp. 271–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15] Shelah, S., Classification theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978.Google Scholar
[16] Simpson, S. G., Which set existence axioms are needed to prove the Cauchy/Peano theorem for ordinary differential equations? this Journal, vol. 49 (1984), pp. 783–802.Google Scholar
[17] Simpson, S. G., Subsystems of second order arithmetic (book in preparation).Google Scholar