Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T02:09:48.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imaginary modules

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

T. G. Kucera  and
M. Prest
T. G. Kucera
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics And Astronomy, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, Canada, E-mail: tkucera@ccm.umanitoba.ca
M. Prest
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, England, E-mail: mbbgsmp@cms.manchester-computing-centre.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It was a fundamental insight of Shelah that the equivalence classes of a definable equivalence relation on a structure M often behave like (and indeed must be treated like) the elements of the structure itself, and that these so-called imaginary elements are both necessary and sufficient for developing many aspects of stability theory. The expanded structure Meq was introduced to make this insight explicit and manageable. In Meq we have “names” for all things (subsets, relations, functions, etc.) “definable” inside M. Recent results of Bruno Poizat allow a particularly simple and more or less algebraic modification of Meq in the case that M is a module. It is the purpose of this paper to describe this nearly algebraic structure in such a way as to make the usual algebraic tools of the model theory of modules readily available in this more general context. It should be pointed out that some of our discussion has been part of the “folklore” of the subject for some time; it is certainly time to make this “folklore” precise, correct, and readily available.

Modules have proved to be good examples of stable structures. Not, we mean, in the sense that they are well-behaved (which, in the main, they are), but in the sense that they are straightforward enough to provide comprehensible illustrations of concepts while, at the same time, they have turned out to be far less atypical than one might have supposed. Indeed, a major feature of recent stability theory has been the ubiquitous appearance of modules or more general “abelian structures” in abstract stable structures.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 57 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 698 - 723
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1992

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

[Ba]Baldwin, J., Fundamentals of stability theory, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[DR]Dlab, V. and Ringel, C. M., Indecomposable representations of graphs and algebras, Memoir no. 173, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[EPP]Evans, D., Pillay, A., and Poizat, B., Le groupe dans le groupe, Algebra i Logika (to appear); English translation. Algebra and Logic, vol. 29 (1990), pp. 244–252.Google Scholar
[Fi]Fisher, E., Abelian structures, manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, 1975; partially published as Abelian structures. I, Abelan group theory, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 616, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1977, pp. 270–323.Google Scholar
[Ga]Garavaglia, S., Dimension and rank in the model theory of modules, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1979; revised 1980 (unpublished).Google Scholar
[KP]Kucera, T. and Prest, M., Four concepts from “geometrical” stability theory in modules, this Journal, vol. 57 (1992), pp. 724–740.Google Scholar
[Ma1]Makkai, M., A survey of basic stability theory with particular emphasis on orthogonality and regular types, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 49 (1984), pp. 181–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Ma2]Makkai, M., Stone duality for first order logic, Advances in Mathematics, vol. 65 (1987), pp. 97–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Pi1]Pillay, A., An introduction to stability theory, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983.Google Scholar
[Pi2]Pillay, A., Some remarks on modular regular types, this Journal, vol. 56 (1991), pp. 1003–1011, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana, 1990.Google Scholar
[P1]Poizat, B., Une théorie de Galois imaginaire, this Journal, vol. 48 (1983), pp. 1151–1170.Google Scholar
[P2]Poizat, B. and Goode, J. B., A group in a group, preprint (superseded by [EPP]).Google Scholar
[P3]Poizat, B., Cours de théorie des modèles, Nur al-Mantiq wal-Ma'rifah, Villeurbanne, 1985.Google Scholar
[Pr]Prest, M., Model theory and modules, London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 130, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Sh]Shelah, S., Classification theory and the number of non-isomorphic models, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978.Google Scholar
[Zg]Ziegler, M., Model theory of modules, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 26 (1984), pp. 149–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar