pith. sign in

arxiv: 1702.01892 · v2 · pith:3OTT4SACnew · submitted 2017-02-07 · 🧮 math.LO

Orbits of subsets of the monster model and geometric theories

classification 🧮 math.LO
keywords mathbbcaseprimedefinablegeometricinvariantmodelmonster
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Let $\mathbb{M}$ be the monster model of a complete first-order theory $T$. If $\mathbb{D}$ is a subset of $\mathbb{M}$, following D. Zambella we consider $e(\mathbb{D})=\{\mathbb{D}^\prime\mid (\mathbb{M},\mathbb{D})\equiv (\mathbb{M},\mathbb{D}^\prime)\}$ and $o(\mathbb{D})=\{\mathbb{D}^\prime\mid (\mathbb{M},\mathbb{D})\cong (\mathbb{M},\mathbb{D}^\prime)\}$. The general question we ask is when $e(\mathbb{D})=o(\mathbb{D})$ ? The case where $\mathbb{D}$ is $A$-invariant for some small set $A$ is rather straightforward: it just mean that $\mathbb{D}$ is definable. We investigate the case where $\mathbb{D}$ is not invariant over any small subset. If T is geometric and $(\mathbb{M},\mathbb{D})$ is an $H$-structure (in the sense of A. Berenstein and E. Vassiliev) or a lovely pair, we get some answers. In the case of $SU$-rank one, $e(\mathbb{D})$ is always different from $o(\mathbb{D})$. In the o-minimal case, everything can happen, depending on the complexity of the definable closure.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.