Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:47:12.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A note on equational theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Markus Junker*
Affiliation:
Institut für Mathematische Logik, Universität Freiburg, Eckerstrasse 1. 79104 Freiburg, Germany, E-mail:junker@mathematik.uni-freiburg.de

Extract

Several attempts have been done to distinguish “positive” information in an arbitrary first order theory, i.e., to find a well behaved class of closed sets among the definable sets. In many cases, a definable set is said to be closed if its conjugates are sufficiently distinct from each other. Each such definition yields a class of theories, namely those where all definable sets are constructible, i.e., boolean combinations of closed sets. Here are some examples, ordered by strength:

Weak normality describes a rather small class of theories which are well understood by now (see, for example, [P]). On the other hand, normalization is so weak that all theories, in a suitable context, are normalizable (see [HH]). Thus equational theories form an interesting intermediate class of theories. Little work has been done so far. The original work of Srour [S1, S2, S3] adopts a point of view that is closer to universal algebra than to stability theory. The fundamental definitions and model theoretic properties can be found in [PS], though some easy observations are missing there. Hrushovski's example of a stable non-equational theory, the first and only one so far, is described in the unfortunately unpublished manuscript [HS]. In fact, it is an expansion of the free pseudospace constructed independently by Baudisch and Pillay in [BP] as an example of a strictly 2-ample theory. Strong equationality, defined in [Hr], is also investigated in [HS].

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2000

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

[BP]Baudisch, A. and Pillay, A., A free pseudospace, this Journal, (to appear).Google Scholar
[HH]Harnik, V. and Harrington, L., Fundamentals of forking, Annals of pure and applied logic, vol. 26 (1984), pp. 245286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Hr]Hrushovski, E.. A new strongly minimal set, Annals of pure and applied logic, vol. 62 (1993), pp. 147166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[HS]Hrushovski, E. and Srour, G., On stable non-equational theories, Preprint.Google Scholar
[P]Pillay, A., Geometric stability theory, Oxford University Press, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[PS]Pillay, A. and Srour, G., Closed sets and chain conditions in stable theories, this Journal, vol. 49 (1984), no. 4, pp. 13501362.Google Scholar
[SI]Srour, G., The notion of independence in categories of algebraic structures, part I, Annals of pure and applied logic, vol. 38 (1988), pp. 185213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[S2]Srour, G., The notion of independence in categories of algebraic structures, part II, Annals of pure and applied logic, vol. 39 (1988), pp. 5573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[S3]Srour, G., The notion of independence in categories of algebraic structures, part III, Annals of pure and applied logic, vol. 47 (1990), pp. 269294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar