Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:35:36.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Stability theory and Algebra1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

John T. Baldwin
John T. Baldwin*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, Chicago, Illinois 60680
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There are two origins for first-order theories. One type of theory arises by generalizing the common features of a number of different structures, e.g. the theory of groups, and formulating a set of axioms to encode these common features. Here the set of axioms is well understood, frequently it is finite or at least recursive, but there usually is no clear understanding of all the logical consequences of these axioms. The second type of theory arises by considering the set, T = Th(A), of all sentences true in a fixed structure A,3 e.g. the theory of arithmetic (N, +, 0) or the theory of the field of complex numbers (alias: the theory of algebraically closed fields of characteristic zero). The second case gives little more insight as to the truth in A (i.e. membership in T) of a given sentence ∅. But it does guarantee that for a given sentence ∅, either ∅ or ¬∅ is in T, that is, that T is a complete theory. When does a theory T of the first type, i.e. with well-understood axioms, posses this completeness property? An obvious sufficient condition is that T be secretly of the second type, that it have only one model, or, in jargon, T is categorical. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your point of view) for any theory with an infinite model, the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem shows this to be impossible: The theory has a model in every infinite power. In the mid-50's Łoś and Vaught discovered that if a theory T with no finite models is categorical in some infinite power α (all models with cardinality α are isomorphic) then T is complete. We will be dealing below with countable complete theories and will assume, unless stated to the contrary, that each theory has no finite models.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , December 1979 , pp. 599 - 608
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1979

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.)

Footnotes

1

Text of invited address presented to the joint meeting of the ASL and APA, December 29, 1977, in Washington, D.C.

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1]Baldwin, J.T. and Lachlan, A.H., On strongly minimal sets, this Journal, vol. 36 (1971), pp. 79–96.Google Scholar
[2]Baldwin, J.T. and Rose, B., ℵ0-categoricity and stability of rings, Journal of Algebra, vol. 45 (1977), pp. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Baldwin, J.T. and Saxl, J., Logical stability in group theory, Journal of the Australian Mathematical Society, vol. 21 (1976), Series A, pp. 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Belegradek, O.V., letter to Baldwin, J.T., 12, 1977.Google Scholar
[5]Baur, W., Cherlin, G. and Macintyre, A., Totally categorical groups and rings (to appear).Google Scholar
[6]Cherlin, G., Croups of small Morley rank (to appear).Google Scholar
[7]Cherlin, G., ω-stable division rings are commutative (to appear).Google Scholar
[8]Cherlin, G.L. and Reineke, J., Categoricity and stability of commutative rings, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 9 (1976), pp. 367–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Cherlin, G. and Rosenstein, J., On ℵ0-categorical Abelian by finite groups (to appear).Google Scholar
[10]Corcoran, J., Categoricity (to appear)Google Scholar
[11]Felgner, U., ℵ14-kategorishe Theorie nicht-Kommutativer Ringe, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 82, pp. 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Felgner, U., Stability and ℵ0-categoricity of nonabelian groups, Logic Colloquium '76, Oxford, North-Holland, Amsterdam (to appear).Google Scholar
[13]Felgner, U., ℵ0-categorical stable groups (to appear).Google Scholar
[14]Fuchs, L., Infinite Abelian groups. I, 1970, vol. II, 1973, Academic Press, N.Y.Google Scholar
[15]Garavaglia, S., Direct product decompositions of modules (preprint).Google Scholar
[16]Grzegorczyk, A., On the concept of categoricity, Studia Logica, vol. 13 (1972), pp. 39–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Herstein, I.N., Nocnommutative rings, Cants Mathematical Monographs, No. 15, Mathematical Association of America, Wiley, New York, 1968.Google Scholar
[18]Jonsson, B., Homogenous universal relational systems, Mathematica Scandinavica, vol. 8 (1960), pp. 137–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Lachlan, A.H., Two conjectures regarding ω-stable theories, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 81 (1974), pp. 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Lachlan, A.H. and Woodrow, R., Countable ultrahomogenous graphs (to appear).Google Scholar
[21]Macintyre, A., On ω1-categorical theories of fields, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 71 (1971), pp. 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22]Macintyre, A., On ω1-categorical theories of Abelian groups, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 70 (1970), pp. 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]Macintyre, A. and Rosenstein, J., ℵ0-categoricity for rings without nilpotent elements and for boolean structures, Journal of Algebra, vol. 43 (1976), pp. 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[24]Malcev, A. I., A correspondence between rings and groups, The metamathematics of algebraic systems (translated and edited by Wells, B. F.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1971, pp. 124–137.Google Scholar
[25]Morley, M., Categoricity in power, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 114 (1965), pp. 514–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[26]Rose, B., Rings which admit elimination of quantifiers, this Journal, vol. 43 (1978), pp. 92–112.Google Scholar
[27]Rose, B., Model theory of alternative rings, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic (to appear).Google Scholar
[28]Rosenstein, J. G., ℵ0-categoricity of groups, Journal of Algebra, vol. 25 (1973), pp. 435–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[29]Sabbagh, G., Categoricité en ℵ0 et stabilité: Constructions les préservant et conditions de châine, Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences, Séries A, vol. 280(1975), p. 531.Google Scholar
[30]Sabbagh, G., Categoricité et stabilité: Quelques exemples parmi les groupes et anneaux, Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l'Académie des Sciences, Séries A, vol. 280(1975), p. 603.Google Scholar
[31]Sacks, G. E., Saturated model theory, Benjamin, Reading, Massachusetts, 1972.Google Scholar
[32]Shelah, S., Classification theory and the number of nonisomorphic models, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1978.Google Scholar
[33]Shelah, S., Differentially closed fields, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 16 (1973), pp. 314–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[34]Shelah, S., Infinite Abelian groups, Whitehead problem and some constructions, Israel Journal of Mathematics, vol. 18 (1974), pp. 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[35]Shelah, S., The lazy model-theoreticians guide to stability, Logique et Analyse, vols. 71–72 (1975), pp. 241–308.Google Scholar
[36]Shelah, S., Stability the f.c.p., and superstability, model theoretic properties of formulas in first order theory, Annals of Mathematical Logic, vol. 3 (1971), pp. 271–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[37]Shelah, S., Why there are many nonisomorphic models for unsuperstable theories, Proceedings of the 1974 International Congress of Mathematicians, vol. 1, Canadian Mathematical Congress, pp. 259–265.Google Scholar
[38]Wierzejewski, J., On stability and products, Fundamenta Mathematicae, vol. 93 (1976), pp. 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[39]Wood, C., Notes on the stability of separably closed fields, this Journal (to appear).Google Scholar
[40]Zilber, B. T., Rings with ℵ1-categorical theories, Algebra i Logika, vol. 13(1974), pp. 168–187; translated in Algebra and logic, vol. 13 (1974), pp. 95–104.Google Scholar