Superstability, noetherian rings and pure-semisimple rings

Marcos Mazari-Armida

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 12 references

Superstability, noetherian rings and pure-semisimple rings

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Superstability of module classes characterizes noetherian and pure-semisimple rings.

desk verdict Genuine new equivalences for noetherian and pure-semisimple rings via superstability of module classes; the main theorems are solid, but the referee needs to check the load-bearing facts imported from [KuMa]. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02189 v4 pith:GJZGWVAC submitted 2019-08-06 math.LO math.RA

Marcos Mazari-Armida This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.LOmath.RA MSC 03C4816B7003C4503C6013L0516P4016D10

keywords SuperstabilityNoetherianringPure-semisimpleLimitmodelsAbstractelementaryclassesPureembeddingsSigma-pure-injectivemodules

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proves that a model-theoretic dividing line, superstability, is not just a formal property of abstract elementary classes: it exactly detects two classical ring-theoretic properties. For any ring $R$, the class of left $R$-modules with embeddings is superstable precisely when $R$ is left noetherian (Theorem 3.12). The class of left $R$-modules with pure embeddings is superstable precisely when $R$ is left pure-semisimple (Theorem 4.28). The proof works by identifying the model-theoretic limit models in these classes with algebraic objects—injective modules in the first case and pure-injective modules in the second—and then showing that uniqueness of limit models at one large cardinal forces the strong $\Sigma$ versions that imply the ring-theoretic condition. A reader should care because the equivalences are exact and the cardinals at which stability begins are computed: $|R| + \aleph_0$ for noetherian, $(|R| + \aleph_0)^+$ for pure-semisimple.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the limit model: a module of size $\lambda$ obtained as the union of a chain of $\lambda$-sized modules in which each successor is universal over its predecessor. In the pure-embedding setting the paper attaches to the class $K_T$ the complete first-order theory $\tilde{T} = \mathrm{Th}(\tilde{M}_T)$, where $\tilde{M}_T$ is the $(2^{|T|}, \omega)$-limit model; this lets arguments pass between the abstract class and ordinary module theory. The load-bearing identity is Fact 4.15, quoted from [KuMa]: if $K_T$ is closed under direct sums, a $(\lambda, \omega)$-limit model is isomorphic to $N^{(\aleph_0)}$ for any $(\lambda, |T|^+)$-limit model $N$. Combined with purity facts, this identity converts uniqueness of limit models at a single cardinal into $\Sigma$-pure-injectivity of all limit models, from which the ring-theoretic equivalences follow. For the noetherian theorem the key algebraic input is the existence criterion for injective universal modules quoted from [Ekl71, Proposition 3].

What would settle it

Construct a ring $R$ and a class $K_T$ of left $R$-modules with pure embeddings, closed under direct sums, such that $K_T$ has uniqueness of limit models at some $\lambda \geq (|R| + \aleph_0)^+$ but some module in $K_T$ is not pure-injective; that would separate condition (3) from condition (1) of Theorem 4.28. Alternatively, exhibit any class of modules in which the $(\mu, \omega)$-limit model is not isomorphic to the countable direct sum of the $(\mu, |T|^+)$-limit model, giving a concrete counterexample to Fact 4.15.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a pair of algebraic characterizations of superstability. Theorem 3.12 says that for a ring $R$ the following are equivalent: $R$ is left noetherian; the class $(R\text{-Mod}, \subseteq_R)$ of left $R$-modules with embeddings is superstable; for every $\lambda \geq |R| + \aleph_0$ there is $\chi \geq \lambda$ with uniqueness of limit models of size $\chi$; the class is $\lambda$-stable for every $\lambda \geq |R| + \aleph_0$; and every limit model is $\Sigma$-injective. Theorem 4.28 gives the analogous chain for pure-semisimplicity: $R$ is left pure-semisimple iff the class $K_{\mathrm{Th}_R}$ of left $R$-modules with pure embeddings is superstable, iff there is a single $\lambda \geq (|R| + \aleph_0)^+$ with uniqueness of limit models, iff every limit model is $\Sigma$-pure-injective, and iff a $\Sigma$-pure-injective universal model exists at some $\lambda \geq (|R| + \aleph_0)^+$. The engine behind Theorem 4.28 is a general analysis of classes of modules with pure embeddings that are closed under direct sums: in such classes uniqueness of limit models at one cardinal propagates to all cardinals and forces every module to be pure-injective.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on a quoted technical fact, not proved in this paper: in any class of modules with pure embeddings that is closed under direct sums, a limit model built with countable steps is isomorphic to the countable direct sum of a limit model built with long steps; if that fact is wrong, the proof that one-cardinal uniqueness forces pure-semisimplicity collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If $R$ is left pure-semisimple, then its pure-embedding class is $\lambda$-stable for every $\lambda \geq |R| + \aleph_0$ and has uniqueness of limit models and superlimits at all those cardinals, so the nice model-theoretic behavior starts exactly at the optimal cardinal.
If the pure-embedding class has uniqueness of limit models at even one cardinal $\lambda \geq (|R| + \aleph_0)^+$, then every left $R$-module is pure-injective, so a single model-theoretic uniqueness statement carries the full algebraic content of pure-semisimplicity.
For a left noetherian ring, every limit model in the embedding class is $\Sigma$-injective, which connects chain conditions on ideals to the structure of large modules built from universal chains.
For first-order axiomatizable classes of modules with joint embedding and amalgamation, the spectrum of limit models is eventually constant above $\mathrm{LS}(K)^+$ (Corollary 4.35), giving a positive solution above $\mathrm{LS}(K)^+$ to Conjecture 2 of [BoVan].
A ring is left pure-semisimple iff increasing chains of $\lambda$-saturated models remain $\lambda$-saturated for every large $\lambda$, so a purely structural union property is equivalent to an algebraic finiteness condition.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial extension: the one-cardinal-to-everywhere propagation of Lemma 4.20 depends only on closure under direct sums and on long limit models being pure-injective; if those hold in other categories of modules, superstability of the class should again be equivalent to a $\Sigma$-pure-injectivity statement, giving a template for new algebraic characterizations.
Editorial extension: condition (8) of Theorem 4.28 makes pure-semisimplicity testable by the existence of a single universal module; for finite-dimensional algebras this suggests a possible route toward the long-standing pure-semisimple conjecture, though the paper does not address representation type.
Editorial extension: Theorem 4.34 suggests a general principle that the limit-model spectrum of an algebraic abstract elementary class is controlled entirely by the complete theory $\tilde{T}$; one could test this by computing $\kappa(\tilde{T})$ for concrete module classes and predicting exactly where non-uniqueness appears.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First thing to know: this is a real result, not a repackaging. Theorems 3.12 and 4.28 give new characterizations of left noetherian and left pure-semisimple rings in terms of superstability and limit models of module classes, with bounds at |R| + ℵ0 instead of the much larger bounds from [GrVas17]. The paper is transparent that Vasey independently had part of the noetherian equivalence and Shelah had related remarks; the full equivalence lists, the pure-semisimple characterization, and the general theory of superstable classes KT closed under direct sums are the genuinely new content.

What the paper does well: the noetherian proof is mostly self-contained and fairly elegant—identifying long limit models with injective modules and then using Σ-injectivity to force uniqueness is clean. The pure-semisimple section builds a useful general framework around the theory T̃, connecting stability of KT with stability of the complete theory T̃, and then Theorem 4.28 drops out as a corollary. The background material is well chosen for the intended mixed audience.

Where the soft spots are: the stress-test note is right that the pure-semisimple direction leans heavily on two imported facts from [KuMa], namely Fact 4.3 (limit models in KT are elementarily equivalent) and Fact 4.15 (in classes closed under direct sums, a (λ,ω)-limit model is N^(ℵ0) for N a (λ,|T|+)-limit model). Lemma 4.16 and direction (8)→(2) of Theorem 4.26 really need those. The noetherian theorem has a similar dependency at Proposition 3.11, which is stated without proof as being analogous to [KuMa, 4.9]. Since [KuMa] is accepted, this is not fatal, but it is a real soft spot: a referee should verify that those statements hold in exactly the needed generality, especially Fact 4.3, which is not true for arbitrary AECs. Lemma 4.6 and Theorem 4.36 are also sketched; the latter is peripheral to the ring-theoretic main theorems, but still worth tightening.

I do not see a load-bearing flaw in the central argument. The characterizations are coherent, the proofs that are present are careful, and the citations to Shelah and Vasey are honest rather than buried. The main theorems are conditional on cited results, but that is normal mathematical practice when the cited results are accepted.

Bottom line: this deserves serious peer review. I would send it to a referee who knows both AEC limit-model theory and module theory, ask them to check the [KuMa] dependencies carefully, and accept after that check. I would bring it to a reading group and would cite the main theorems if I worked in this area.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves two algebraic-model-theoretic equivalences. Theorem 3.12 shows that a ring R is left noetherian if and only if the AEC (R-Mod, ⊆R) of left R-modules with ordinary embeddings is superstable, giving seven equivalent conditions involving uniqueness of limit models, superlimits, stability, and Σ-injectivity of limit models. Theorem 4.28 shows that R is left pure-semisimple if and only if the AEC K_{Th_R} = (R-Mod, ≤pp) with pure embeddings is superstable, giving nine equivalent conditions. The pure-embedding results are obtained through a general study of superstable classes K_T = (Mod(T), ≤pp) closed under direct sums (Theorems 4.23 and 4.26), and the paper also gives a partial solution to Conjecture 2 of [BoVan] for such classes (Theorem 4.34, Corollary 4.35) and a version without closure under direct sums (Theorem 4.36).

Significance. If the theorems stand, they establish a genuine bridge between stability-theoretic dividing lines and classical ring theory, with remarkably precise cardinal bounds: the good behavior starts exactly at |R|+ℵ0 or (|R|+ℵ0)+, improving the general eventual bounds of [GrVas17, 1.3]. The paper is carefully written for both model theorists and algebraists, and the main algebraic characterizations are derived from classical facts (Fact 2.23 and Fact 2.25) rather than by post-hoc selection. The most substantial weakness is that the deepest pure-embedding steps are quoted without proof from the companion paper [KuMa], and the noetherian argument likewise omits the proof of Proposition 3.11; the correctness of those imports is load-bearing for the main theorems.

major comments (2)

[§4.2, Facts 4.3 and 4.15; Lemma 4.16] The proof of Theorem 4.26(2)⇒(9), and hence the pure-semisimple characterization in Theorem 4.28, depends on two facts imported from [KuMa] without proof: Fact 4.3 (any two limit models in K_T are elementarily equivalent) and Fact 4.15 (in a class closed under direct sums, a (λ,ω)-limit model is isomorphic to N^(ℵ0) for N a (λ,|T|+)-limit model). These are not immediate consequences of the AEC axioms stated in Section 2, and they are applied here to K_{Th_R}, whose hypotheses the manuscript does not verify against the exact statements in [KuMa]. Since Lemma 4.16 uses these facts to conclude that every limit model is Σ-pure-injective, and Theorem 4.26 then uses that conclusion to derive pure-semisimplicity, the imported results are load-bearing. Please include full proofs of Facts 4.3 and 4.15 in the paper or an appendix, or at minimum state the exact theorems from [KuMa] with all hypotheses and verify those hypotheses for K_{Th_R}.
[§3, Proposition 3.11 and proof of Theorem 3.12] Proposition 3.11 is a load-bearing input in the proof of Theorem 3.12: it is used directly in the proofs of (3)⇒(1) and (1)⇒(7) to identify N^(ℵ0) as a (χ,ω)-limit model. The manuscript says the proof is 'basically the same as that of [KuMa, 4.9]' and omits it. This omission matters because the ambient class here is (R-Mod, ⊆R) with ordinary embeddings, whereas [KuMa, 4.9] is stated for K_T with pure embeddings, and the precise isomorphism statement is essential for the subsequent Σ-injectivity arguments. Please provide a proof of Proposition 3.11, or give a precise statement-and-proof in the cited reference together with a verification that its hypotheses apply to (R-Mod, ⊆R).

minor comments (5)

[§4.2, proof of Theorem 4.23, (3)⇒(4)] In the proof of (3)⇒(4), the text says 'By condition (5) K_T is λ-stable', but condition (5) has not yet been derived; it should say 'By (3) and Lemma 4.18'.
[References] The reference list contains two works labeled [Zim79] with different spellings (Zimmermann and Zimmermann-Huisgen); the in-text citations to [Zim79] are ambiguous and should be disambiguated, for example as [Zim79a] and [Zim79b].
[Abstract and Theorem 4.28] The abstract's Theorem 0.2 lists only four equivalences, while the full Theorem 4.28 states nine; consider harmonizing the abstract with the full theorem or adding a note that the full statement appears in Section 4.
[Lemma 3.2] The proof sketch of the backward direction of Lemma 3.2 would be easier to check if it explained why the map f is well-defined on finite sums with coefficients in R and why the repeated use of amalgamation preserves the quantifier-free type; the phrase 'applying amalgamation a couple of times' is vague.
[Remark 3.13] There is a typo: 'the above theorem improves the bounds where the nice propertis show up' should read 'properties'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the characterizations are proved from external algebraic facts and the cited [KuMa] results are independent support, not assumed targets.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular by construction. The main theorems (Theorem 3.12, Theorem 4.23, Theorem 4.26, Theorem 4.28) are proved by combining external algebraic facts (Fact 2.23, Fact 2.25, Fact 2.26, Eklof's Proposition 3 as Fact 3.5) with the AEC machinery of limit models. The class-specific facts used in Section 4 — Fact 4.3 (limit models in KT are elementarily equivalent), Fact 4.14 (long limit models are pure-injective), and Fact 4.15 (in classes closed under direct sums, a (λ,ω)-limit model is isomorphic to N^(ℵ0) for N a (λ,|T|+)-limit model) — are quoted from the author's joint paper [KuMa]. These are self-citations, and they are load-bearing: Lemma 4.16 and hence (2)⇒(9) and (8)⇒(2) of Theorem 4.26 depend on them. However, the paper does not use them to assume the target equivalences; their stated hypotheses (T a theory of modules, KT closed under direct sums, λ ≥ |T|+) do not include 'R is pure-semisimple' or 'KT is superstable'. The cited results are parameter-free structural facts about modules with pure embeddings, developed in a separate paper, so under the review rule they count as independent evidence rather than circularity. Similarly, Proposition 3.11 is stated with proof omitted as 'basically the same as [KuMa, 4.9]', but the noetherian theorem's key input, Fact 3.5, is Eklof's external characterization. No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions, no definition is self-referential (superstability is defined as uniqueness of limit models in a tail, and the theorem's condition (3) is the same notion expressed pointwise, which is a direct equivalence rather than a circular reduction), and no known result is merely renamed. The main theorems therefore stand as genuinely new characterizations modulo the cited [KuMa] facts; any concern about the correctness or applicability of those facts is a correctness risk, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new algebraic entities or fitted parameters. Its central claims rest on several cited results from ring theory, AEC theory, and module theory, including two facts from the author's own joint paper [KuMa]. These are treated as upstream axioms because the paper does not reprove them. The absence of free parameters or invented entities means the contribution is purely structural: new logical equivalences for known algebraic classes.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Fact 2.23 (Cartan-Eilenberg-Bass-Papp): R is left noetherian iff every injective left R-module is Σ-injective.
Used to connect the noetherian property to injectivity and Σ-injectivity in Theorem 3.12; cited from [Pre09, 4.4.17].
domain assumption Fact 2.25 (Prest): R is left pure-semisimple iff every left R-module is Σ-pure-injective.
Used to derive Theorem 4.28 from the general superstability characterization in Theorem 4.26; cited from [Pre88, 11.3].
standard math Fact 2.11 (Shelah, Grossberg-VanDieren): In an AEC with joint embedding, amalgamation and no maximal models, λ-stability yields existence of (λ,α)-limit models for every limit α < λ+; conversely, existence of a limit model implies λ-stability.
This is the backbone connecting stability to limit models throughout both main proofs.
domain assumption Fact 4.15 ([KuMa, 4.9]): For KT closed under direct sums, if M is a (λ,ω)-limit model and N is a (λ,|T|+)-limit model, then M ≅ N^(ℵ0).
Load-bearing in Lemma 4.16, which derives Σ-pure-injectivity of all limit models from uniqueness at one cardinal; taken from the author's joint paper.
domain assumption Fact 3.5 (Eklof, [Ekl71, Proposition 3]): λ<γR = λ iff there is an injective universal model in (R-Mod, ⊆R)λ.
Used in Section 3 to characterize stability and limit models for the embedding class, and hence to prove Theorem 3.12.
domain assumption Lemma 4.7 / [Pre88, 2.25]: If M is a model of \tilde T and M ≤pp N, then M ≼ N (elementary submodule).
Used to transfer limit models and saturation between KT and the first-order theory (Mod(\tilde T), ≼), essential for Lemmas 4.10-4.11 and Theorem 4.23.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Superstability, noetherian rings and pure-semisimple rings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GJZGWVAC

@misc{pith2026190802189,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Superstability, noetherian rings and pure-semisimple rings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GJZGWVAC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02189}
}

abstract

We uncover a connection between the model-theoretic notion of superstability and that of noetherian rings and pure-semisimple rings. We characterize noetherian rings via superstability of the class of left modules with embeddings. $\mathbf{Theorem.}$ For a ring $R$ the following are equivalent. - $R$ is left noetherian. - The class of left $R$-modules with embeddings is superstable. - For every $\lambda \geq |R| + \aleph_0$, there is $\chi \geq \lambda$ such that the class of left $R$-modules with embeddings has uniqueness of limit models of cardinality $\chi$. - Every limit model in the class of left $R$-modules with embeddings is $\Sigma$-injective. We characterize left pure-semisimple rings via superstability of the class of left modules with pure embeddings. $\mathbf{Theorem.}$ For a ring $R$ the following are equivalent. - $R$ is left pure-semisimple. - The class of left $R$-modules with pure embeddings is superstable. - There exists $\lambda \geq (|R| + \aleph_0)^+$ such that the class of left $R$-modules with pure embeddings has uniqueness of limit models of cardinality $\lambda$. - Every limit model in the class of left $R$-modules with pure embeddings is $\Sigma$-pure-injective. We think that both equivalences provide evidence that that the notion of superstability could shed light in the understanding of algebraic concepts. As this paper is aimed at model theorists and algebraists an effort was made to provide the background for both.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

12 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

Algebra 1 (1974), 269 –

[Aus74] Maurice Auslander, Representation theory of artin algebras II Comm. Algebra 1 (1974), 269 –

work page 1974
[4]

2, 364 –390

[GrSh86] Rami Grossberg and Saharon Shelah, A nonstructure theorem for an inﬁnitary theory which has the unsuperstability property, Illinois Journal of Mathematics 30 (1986),no. 2, 364 –390. [GrVan06] Rami Grossberg and Monica VanDieren, Galois-stability for tame abstract elementary classes , Journal of Mathematical Logic 6 (2006), no. 1, 25–49. [GVV16] R...

work page 1986
[65]

SUPERSTABILITY, NOETHERIAN RINGS AND PURE-SEMISIMPLE RIN GS 23 [Zie84] Martin Ziegler, Model Theory of Modules , Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 26 (1984), 149 –

work page 1984
[66]

[Pre88] Mike Prest, Model Theory and Modules , London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes Series Vol

[Pre84] Mike Prest, Rings of ﬁnite representation type and modules of ﬁnite Morl ey rank , Journal of Algebra 88 Issue 2 (1984), 502–533. [Pre88] Mike Prest, Model Theory and Modules , London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes Series Vol. 130 , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988). [Pre09] Mike Prest, Purity, Spectra and Localisation , Encyclopedi...

work page 1984
[213]

[Zim79] Birge Zimmermann-Huisgen, Rings whose right modules are direct sums of indecomposable modules, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 77 (2) (1979), 191–197 [Zim79] W olfgang Zimmermann, Rein injektive direkte summen von moduln , Communications in Algebra 5 (10) (1977), 1083 –

work page 1979
[256]

[Sim00] Daniel Simson, An Artin problem for division ring extensions and the pure se misimplicity conjecture

[Sim81] Daniel Simson, Partial Coxeter functors and right pure semisimple heredit ary rings , Journal of Algebra 71 (1981), Issue 1, 195–218. [Sim00] Daniel Simson, An Artin problem for division ring extensions and the pure se misimplicity conjecture. II, Journal of Algebra 227 (2000), no. 2, 670–705. [Sh75] Saharon Shelah, The lazy model-theoretician ’s ...

work page 1981
[294]

[Sh:h] Saharon Shelah, Classiﬁcation Theory for Abstract Elementary Classes , vol

[Sh78] Saharon Shelah, Classiﬁcation Theory and the Number of Non-Isomorphic Mode ls, North-Holland Pub- lishing Company (1978). [Sh:h] Saharon Shelah, Classiﬁcation Theory for Abstract Elementary Classes , vol. 1 & 2, Mathematical Logic and Foundations, no. 18 & 20, College Publications (2009). [ShVi99] Saharon Shelah and Andres Villaveces, Toward catego...

work page 1978
[310]

Limit Models in Strictly Stable Abstract Elementary Classes

[Aus76] Maurice Auslander, Large modules over Artinian algebras in Algebra topology and category theory, Academic Press (1976), 1–16. [BaMc82] John T. Baldwin and Ralph N. McKenzie, Counting models in universal Horn classes , Algebra Uni- versalis 15 (1982), 359–384. [Bal09] John Baldwin, Categoricity, American Mathematical Society (2009). [BCG+] John Bal...

work page Pith review arXiv 1976

Show all 12 references

[1408]

Guil Asensio, Berke Kalebogaz and Ashish K

22 MARCOS MAZARI-ARMIDA [GKS18] Pedro A. Guil Asensio, Berke Kalebogaz and Ashish K. Srivastava, The Schr¨ oder-Bernstein problem for modules, Journal of Algebra 498 (2018), 153–164. [Har75] Victor Harnik, On the existence of saturated models of stable theories , Proceedings o...

2018
[1642]

2, 1850009

[Vas18] Sebastien Vasey, Toward a stability theory of tame abstract elementary class es, Journal of Mathematical Logic 18 (2018), no. 2, 1850009. [Vas19] Sebastien Vasey, The categoricity spectrum of large abstract elementary cla sses, Selecta Mathematica 25 (2019), no. 5,

2018
[2000]

Part 1 , Fundamenta Mathematicae 151 (1996), 209–240

[KolSh96] Oren Kolman and Saharon Shelah, Categoricity of Theories in Lω,κ when κ is a measurable cardinal. Part 1 , Fundamenta Mathematicae 151 (1996), 209–240. [KuMa] Thomas G. Kucera and Marcos Mazari-Armida, On universal modules with pure embeddings , Accepted by Mathemati...

1996 arXiv
[2013]

[Fai66] Carl Faith, Rings with ascending condition on annihilators , Nagoya Math

URL: http://homepages.math.uic.edu/ ∼drueck/thesis.pdf [Ekl71] Paul Eklof, Homogeneous universal modules , Mathematica Scandinavica 29(1971), 187–196. [Fai66] Carl Faith, Rings with ascending condition on annihilators , Nagoya Math. J. 27(1966), no. 1, 179–191. [Gro1X] Rami Gr...

1971

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Algebra 1 (1974), 269 –

[Aus74] Maurice Auslander, Representation theory of artin algebras II Comm. Algebra 1 (1974), 269 –

work page 1974

[2] [4]

2, 364 –390

[GrSh86] Rami Grossberg and Saharon Shelah, A nonstructure theorem for an inﬁnitary theory which has the unsuperstability property, Illinois Journal of Mathematics 30 (1986),no. 2, 364 –390. [GrVan06] Rami Grossberg and Monica VanDieren, Galois-stability for tame abstract elementary classes , Journal of Mathematical Logic 6 (2006), no. 1, 25–49. [GVV16] R...

work page 1986

[3] [65]

SUPERSTABILITY, NOETHERIAN RINGS AND PURE-SEMISIMPLE RIN GS 23 [Zie84] Martin Ziegler, Model Theory of Modules , Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 26 (1984), 149 –

work page 1984

[4] [66]

[Pre88] Mike Prest, Model Theory and Modules , London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes Series Vol

[Pre84] Mike Prest, Rings of ﬁnite representation type and modules of ﬁnite Morl ey rank , Journal of Algebra 88 Issue 2 (1984), 502–533. [Pre88] Mike Prest, Model Theory and Modules , London Mathematical Society Lecture Notes Series Vol. 130 , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988). [Pre09] Mike Prest, Purity, Spectra and Localisation , Encyclopedi...

work page 1984

[5] [213]

[Zim79] Birge Zimmermann-Huisgen, Rings whose right modules are direct sums of indecomposable modules, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 77 (2) (1979), 191–197 [Zim79] W olfgang Zimmermann, Rein injektive direkte summen von moduln , Communications in Algebra 5 (10) (1977), 1083 –

work page 1979

[6] [256]

[Sim00] Daniel Simson, An Artin problem for division ring extensions and the pure se misimplicity conjecture

[Sim81] Daniel Simson, Partial Coxeter functors and right pure semisimple heredit ary rings , Journal of Algebra 71 (1981), Issue 1, 195–218. [Sim00] Daniel Simson, An Artin problem for division ring extensions and the pure se misimplicity conjecture. II, Journal of Algebra 227 (2000), no. 2, 670–705. [Sh75] Saharon Shelah, The lazy model-theoretician ’s ...

work page 1981

[7] [294]

[Sh:h] Saharon Shelah, Classiﬁcation Theory for Abstract Elementary Classes , vol

[Sh78] Saharon Shelah, Classiﬁcation Theory and the Number of Non-Isomorphic Mode ls, North-Holland Pub- lishing Company (1978). [Sh:h] Saharon Shelah, Classiﬁcation Theory for Abstract Elementary Classes , vol. 1 & 2, Mathematical Logic and Foundations, no. 18 & 20, College Publications (2009). [ShVi99] Saharon Shelah and Andres Villaveces, Toward catego...

work page 1978

[8] [310]

Limit Models in Strictly Stable Abstract Elementary Classes

[Aus76] Maurice Auslander, Large modules over Artinian algebras in Algebra topology and category theory, Academic Press (1976), 1–16. [BaMc82] John T. Baldwin and Ralph N. McKenzie, Counting models in universal Horn classes , Algebra Uni- versalis 15 (1982), 359–384. [Bal09] John Baldwin, Categoricity, American Mathematical Society (2009). [BCG+] John Bal...

work page Pith review arXiv 1976