Tame abstract elementary class

In model theory, a discipline within the field of mathematical logic, a tame abstract elementary class is an abstract elementary class (AEC) which satisfies a locality property for types called tameness. Even though it appears implicitly in earlier work of Shelah, tameness as a property of AEC was first isolated by Grossberg and VanDieren,[1] who observed that tame AECs were much easier to handle than general AECs.

Definition

Let K be an AEC with joint embedding, amalgamation, and no maximal models. Just like in first-order model theory, this implies K has a universal model-homogeneous monster model \mathfrak{C}. Working inside \mathfrak{C}, we can define a semantic notion of types by specifying that two elements a and b have the same type over some base model M if there is an automorphism of the monster model sending a to b fixing M pointwise (note that types can be defined in a similar manner without using a monster model[2]). Such types are called Galois types.

One can ask for such types to be determined by their restriction on a small domain. This gives rise to the notion of tameness:

Tame AECs are usually also assumed to satisfy amalgamation.

Discussion and motivation

While (without the existence of large cardinals) there are examples of non-tame AECs,[3] most of the known natural examples are tame.[4] In addition, the following sufficient conditions for a class to be tame are known:

Many results in the model theory of (general) AECs assume weak forms of the Generalized continuum hypothesis and rely on sophisticated combinatorial set-theoretic arguments.[7] On the other hand, the model theory of tame AECs is much easier to develop, as evidenced by the results presented below.

Results

The following are some important results about tame AECs.

Notes

  1. Grossberg & VanDieren 2006a.
  2. Shelah 2009, Definition II.1.9.
  3. Baldwin & Shelah 2008.
  4. See the discussion in the introduction of Grossberg & VanDieren 2006a.
  5. Boney 2014, Theorem 1.3.
  6. Shelah 1999, Main claim 2.3 (9.2 in the online version).
  7. See for example many of the hard theorems of Shelah's book (Shelah 2009).
  8. Grossberg & VanDieren 2006b.
  9. See Baldwin, Kueker & VanDieren 2006, Theorem 4.5 for the first result and Grossberg & VanDieren 2006a for the second.
  10. Lieberman 2011, Proposition 4.1.
  11. See Vasey 2014 for the first result, and Boney & Vasey 2014, Corollary 6.10.5 for the result on dimension.

References

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Sunday, February 28, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.