Some applications of the real strict order property hierarchy

Scott Mutchnik

Some applications of the real strict order property hierarchy

T0 review · 0 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Cycle-removal from the real-valued NSOP_r hierarchy forces a sharp SOP2–SOP3 dichotomy on hereditary classes with finitely many forbidden weak embeddings.

desk verdict Solid technical progress on NSOP2 vs NSOP3 and the NTP2 collapse via real-valued SOP_r tools; the sharp hereditary-class dichotomy is the real payload. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.28740 v2 pith:H6OKM3E4 submitted 2026-06-27 math.LO

Scott Mutchnik This is my paper

classification math.LO MSC 03C4503C52

keywords NSOP_rNSOP_nhierarchySOP2versusSOP3hereditaryclassesforbiddenweakembeddingscycle-removalhelixmapsNTP2

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

The paper takes the real-valued strict-order hierarchy NSOP_r (r > 2) introduced earlier and turns it into a tool for the classical integer hierarchy. First it proves that the same definition still works down to r > 2, so NSOP2 sits inside every NSOP_r and therefore any newness of the real properties would separate NSOP2 from NSOP3. Second it isolates a purely combinatorial “general non-distinctness” hypothesis: every infinite chain in an NSOP_n graph must embed every (n–1)-cycle-free directed graph. Under that hypothesis the hierarchy collapses inside NTP2, answering a central open question. The longest part then applies the same cycle-removal technique that proved integrality of o(H) for finitely forbidden weak embeddings. The result is a sharp dichotomy: if every theory whose models have age H has SOP2, then every such theory has SOP3; the same statement fails when SOP2 is replaced by the tree property. The argument reduces, via preservation under model companions, to a concrete verification on Cherlin–Shelah–Shi generics, then translates that verification into combinatorial language and removes split and alternating cycles by iterated helix maps.

What carries the argument

Cycle-removal via iterated helix maps (and their abstract cycle-removal properties) on the specially constructed hereditary class H_std of sound L_std-structures that encode a non-overlapping instance of the tree property; the maps successively eliminate split cycles and then potentially pinched alternating cycles until a forbidden configuration that still embeds into the standard TP-structure is produced.

What would settle it

Exhibit a single hereditary class H defined by finitely many forbidden weakly embedded substructures such that every theory with age H has SOP2 yet some theory with age H is NSOP3 (or, equivalently, show that one of the Cherlin–Shelah–Shi theories T_H is strictly NSOP3).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For any hereditary class H defined by a finite family of forbidden weakly embedded substructures, the universal presence of SOP2 among theories with age H already forces the universal presence of SOP3. The same implication fails if SOP2 is replaced by the tree property, so the dichotomy is sharp.

Load-bearing premise

The reduction of the dichotomy to Cherlin–Shelah–Shi generic structures rests on preservation of NSOP_n under model companions together with the existence of those companions for finitely forbidden weak embeddings; if the precise non-overlapping SOP2 configurations fail to be preserved, the combinatorial argument no longer yields the model-theoretic claim.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If every well-defined NSOP_r for non-integer r is new, then NSOP2 is strictly weaker than NSOP3.
If the real- and integer-valued hierarchies are non-distinct on the stated general combinatorial grounds, then NSOP_n ∩ NTP2 = NSOP_{n+1} ∩ NTP2 for every n ≥ 3.
Any directed graph definable in an NTP2 theory that omits some finite digraph must omit arbitrarily large cycle-free digraphs.
Approximate implications NSOP3 ⇝ NSOP2 and NSOP3 ⇝ NTP2 hold in the sense that formulas satisfying NSOP3 look arbitrarily close to forbidding the corresponding configurations.

Reading between the lines

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

The same cycle-removal technique may extend to other combinatorial dichotomies once non-overlapping algebraic-closure conditions can be arranged for the relevant configurations.
A positive answer to the open question whether every SOP2 theory admits a non-overlapping SOP2 instance (rather than merely a non-overlapping TP instance) would replace the long combinatorial argument by a shorter one that works directly with the standard SOP2-structure.
The general non-distinctness hypothesis is a purely graph-theoretic statement that can be attacked independently of model theory; a counter-example graph would simultaneously show that the real hierarchy is new and leave the NTP2 collapse open.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

This paper takes the author's real-valued NSOP_r hierarchy and turns it into concrete leverage on two central open questions: whether NSOP2 equals NSOP3, and whether the NSOP_n hierarchy collapses inside NTP2. The three main theorems are new and usable.

First, NSOP_r is shown well-defined down to r>2 by proving NSOP2subseteq NSOP_r via Kim-independence and o-maximality (Theorem 3.5). That immediately links newness of the real hierarchy to a negative answer on NSOP2=NSOP3. Second, under a clean combinatorial hypothesis of "non-distinctness on sufficiently general grounds" (Hypothesis 4.1), one gets NSOP_n cap NTP2 = NSOP_{n+1} cap NTP2 (Theorem 4.4). The hypothesis is motivated by the author's earlier integrality results and is stated purely graph-theoretically, so it is a genuine alternative rather than a restatement. Third, and most substantial, for hereditary classes defined by finitely many forbidden weak embeddings, SOP2 for every theory of that age forces SOP3 (Theorem 5.5 / 1.8). The dichotomy is sharp: the same fails for TP (Observation 5.6, witnessed by known non-simple NSOP1 examples).

What works well is the architecture. The reduction to Cherlin-Shelah-Shi generics via Bodirsky-Bodor-Marimon preservation is transparent and correctly cited. The non-overlapping algebraic-closure configuration (Lemmas 5.18, 5.23) is engineered precisely so the later cycle-removal (helix maps, split cycles, potentially pinched alternating cycles) applies inside a model-complete NSOP3 age. The combinatorial core is a careful adaptation of the author's earlier helix-map techniques; it is long but coherent. Sidebars on NTP2 graphs and approximate implications are bonuses that do not dilute the main line.

Soft spots are real but proportionate. Section 5 is intricate; full line-by-line checking of the algebraic-closure bookkeeping and the three-step cycle removal will take specialist time, so minor gaps remain possible. The whole dichotomy rests on published preservation under model companions; if that preservation failed for the exact configurations constructed here the implication would break, but the paper uses the result as a black box and does not hide the dependence. No circularity, no invented free parameters, citations are appropriate.

This is for people already working on the unstable hierarchy or hereditary classes. It deserves a serious referee. I would accept it for peer review and would bring it to reading group.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper applies the real-valued NSOP_r hierarchy (r>2) to classical questions about the integer-valued NSOP_n hierarchy. Theorem 3.5 shows NSOP_2 ⊆ NSOP_r for 2<r<3 (using NSOP_1=NSOP_2 and Kim-independence), so the intermediate properties are well-defined and newness of all non-integer NSOP_r would separate NSOP_2 from NSOP_3. Theorem 4.4 gives an approximate alternative: if the real and integer hierarchies fail to be distinct on sufficiently general combinatorial grounds (Hypothesis 4.1: every quantifier-free NSOP_n graph with an infinite chain embeds every ≤(n-1)-cycle-free digraph), then NSOP_n ∩ NTP_2 = NSOP_{n+1} ∩ NTP_2 for n≥3. The longest section proves a sharp dichotomy (Theorem 5.5): for a hereditary class H defined by finitely many forbidden weakly embedded substructures, if every theory of age H has SOP_2 then every such theory has SOP_3; Observation 5.6 shows the same fails when SOP_2 is replaced by TP. The proof reduces via Bodirsky–Bodor–Marimon preservation and Cherlin–Shelah–Shi generics to a combinatorial cycle-removal argument (helix maps, split cycles, potentially pinched alternating cycles) inside a carefully constructed age H_std of sound L_std-structures.

Significance. The work supplies three concrete advances on longstanding open problems (NSOP_2 vs NSOP_3; strictness of NSOP_n inside NTP_2) by importing techniques developed for the real-valued hierarchy. The dichotomy of Theorem 5.5 is the first unconditional combinatorial restriction of this strength on ages defined by finitely many forbidden weak embeddings; its sharpness is witnessed by known non-simple NSOP_1 examples. The approximate alternative of Theorem 4.4 links two previously unrelated questions and isolates a purely combinatorial hypothesis whose verification would settle the NTP_2 case. The intermediate fine structure between NSOP_2 and NSOP_3 (Theorem 3.5) is a clean, self-contained contribution that makes the real-valued hierarchy available for further applications. The arguments are fully detailed and rest on cited black-box results rather than circular reasoning.

minor comments (4)

The multi-step cycle-removal argument in Section 5 (especially the bookkeeping of algebraic closures in Lemmas 5.18 and 5.23 and the three-step removal of split/potentially-pinched alternating cycles) is extremely long; a short roadmap paragraph at the beginning of the combinatorial phase would help the reader track the reductions.
Several sidebars (NTP_2 graph theory, approximate implications) are interesting but interrupt the main narrative; consider moving them to an appendix or flagging them more clearly as optional.
Notation for o-maximality / n-o-maximality is introduced late (Definition 4.7) after the concept has already been used informally; a forward pointer would improve readability.
In the proof of Theorem 3.5 the appeal to symmetry of Kim-independence is noted as optional (footnote); making the coheir-Morley-sequence construction fully self-contained would remove any residual dependence on that fact.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Minor load-bearing self-citation of prior NSOP1=NSOP2 and cycle-removal techniques; new dichotomies do not reduce by construction to those inputs.

self citation load bearing [Theorem 3.5 / proof of Theorem 1.5 (Section 3)]
"Our proof of Theorem 1.5 appears to require the theorem, proven in [25], that NSOP2 = NSOP1. After applying this theorem, we must use analogues of the original stability-theoretic tools... Namely, we apply the theory of Kim-independence in NSOP1 theories..."

The inclusion NSOP2 ⊆ NSOPr for 2<r<3 is load-bearing for the claim that newness of all non-integer NSOPr would separate NSOP2 from NSOP3. The proof invokes the author's prior equality NSOP1=NSOP2 as an indispensable black box before applying Kim-independence. This is ordinary sequential self-citation of a published theorem, not a reduction of the present claim to an unverified internal uniqueness statement; it does not make the later combinatorial dichotomies circular.

full rationale

This is a pure classification-theory paper with no fitted parameters, no empirical predictions, and no self-definitional loops of the form 'X is defined via Y then used to derive Y'. The three main results (NSOP2 ⊆ NSOPr for r>2; the approximate alternative under general non-distinctness; the SOP2–SOP3 dichotomy for ages defined by finitely many forbidden weak embeddings) are proved by new combinatorial constructions (o-maximality via Kim-independence; embedding of the TP2 configuration under Hypothesis 4.1; non-overlapping algebraic closures + adapted helix-map cycle removal for split/potentially-pinched alternating cycles). Prior work by the same author ([25] NSOP1=NSOP2; [26] integrality of o(H) and abstract cycle-removal for helix maps) and external results (Kaplan–Ramsey, Bodirsky–Bodor–Marimon preservation, Cherlin–Shelah–Shi model companions) are cited as black boxes. The only mild self-citation load is that Theorem 3.5 explicitly requires Fact 3.6 from [25]; that fact is an independent published theorem, not an unverified uniqueness claim internal to the present derivation. The cycle-removal arguments of Section 5 are substantially more intricate adaptations, not renamings. No step equates a claimed output to an input by definition. Score 1 reflects the single load-bearing self-citation that is not circular in the sense of the rubric.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

Pure model-theoretic paper. No empirical free parameters. Background consists of standard first-order logic, Shelah's classification hierarchy, Kaplan-Ramsey Kim-independence, and the author's prior real-valued NSOP_r framework. Invented entities are definitional extensions (o-maximality, presidia, split/pinched alternating cycles) introduced to organize the proofs.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption NSOP1 = NSOP2 (author's prior theorem)
Invoked in the proof of Theorem 3.5 to obtain Kim-independence symmetry and the independence theorem for the o-maximality argument.
domain assumption Kaplan-Ramsey theory of Kim-independence in NSOP1 theories (symmetry and independence theorem)
Used throughout Section 3 to embed arbitrary finite directed graphs into an infinite chain relation.
domain assumption Bodirsky-Bodor-Marimon preservation of simplicity and NSOP_n under model companions
Fact 5.10; essential for reducing the hereditary-class dichotomy to Cherlin-Shelah-Shi generics (Proposition 5.8).
domain assumption Existence of model companions for theories of structures omitting finitely many weak embeddings (Cherlin-Shelah-Shi)
Fact 5.7; supplies the concrete family of theories to which the dichotomy reduces.
standard math Standard first-order logic, compactness, indiscernibles, coheir Morley sequences
Background used throughout all sections.

invented entities (3)

o-maximality / n-o-maximality / asymptotic o-maximality
purpose: Isolates the combinatorial content of the general non-distinctness hypothesis and of the NSOP2 case of Theorem 3.5.
Definitional; no independent physical or external evidence claimed.
presidium, split cycle, alternating cycle, potentially pinched alternating cycle
purpose: Provide the cycle-freeness criteria that guarantee embedding into the standard TP-structure and organize the three-step cycle-removal argument of Section 5.
Technical combinatorial notions introduced for the proof of the dichotomy.
Hypothesis 4.1 (non-distinctness on sufficiently general grounds)
purpose: Gives a rigorous sense in which the real and integer hierarchies can fail to be distinct for general combinatorial reasons, enabling the implication to the NTP2 collapse.
Open combinatorial hypothesis; the paper shows its consequences rather than proving it.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Some applications of the real strict order property hierarchy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H6OKM3E4

@misc{pith2026260628740,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Some applications of the real strict order property hierarchy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H6OKM3E4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.28740}
}

abstract

We give applications of the properties $\mathrm{NSOP}_{r}$ for non-integer values of $r$ to problems on the original hierarchy $\mathrm{NSOP}_{n}$ for integer values of $n$. We first show that the properties $\mathrm{NSOP}_{r}$, previously defined for real values $r \geq 3$, are even well-defined for real values $r \geq 2$, showing that $\mathrm{NSOP}_{2} \subseteq \mathrm{NSOP}_{r}$ for our original definition of $\mathrm{NSOP}_{r}$ even when $2 < r < 3$. As a consequence, newness of all of the well-defined properties $\mathrm{NSOP}_{r}$ for non-integer $r$ would negatively resolve the problem of whether $\mathrm{NSOP}_{2}$ is equal to $\mathrm{NSOP}_{3}$. We then prove an approximate alternative between two possibilities: (1) that in extending Shelah's original $\mathrm{NSOP}_{n}$ hierarchy for integers $n \geq 3$ to the $\mathrm{NSOP}_{r}$ hierarchy for reals $r > 2$, we really did introduce new classification-theoretic properties, and (2) that $\mathrm{NSOP}_{n+1} \cap \mathrm{NTP}_{2} = \mathrm{NSOP}_{n} \cap \mathrm{NTP}_{2}$ for integers $n \geq 3$, which would resolve a central open problem in classification theory. More precisely, we give a rigorous sense in which (1) can fail on particularly general grounds, and then show that if (1) fails for these general reasons, (2) must be true. Finally, we apply cycle-removal techniques from the theory of the properties $\mathrm{NSOP}_{r}$ for real-values of $r$ to make progress on the question of whether $\mathrm{NSOP}_{2}$ is equal to $\mathrm{NSOP}_{3}$. We (a) show that if $\mathcal{H}$ is a hereditary class of structures defined by finitely many forbidden weakly embedded substructures, if every theory whose models have age $\mathcal{H}$ has $\mathrm{SOP}_{2}$, then every theory whose models have age $\mathcal{H}$ has $\mathrm{SOP}_{3}$, and (b) observe that we cannot replace $\mathrm{SOP}_{2}$ with $\mathrm{TP}$ here.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

[1]

Preservation ofNATP.Journal of Mathematical Logic, 25(01):2450012, 2025

Jinhoo Ahn, Joonhee Kim, Hyoyoon Lee, and Junguk Lee. Preservation ofNATP.Journal of Mathematical Logic, 25(01):2450012, 2025

2025
[2]

A walk on the wild side: Notions of maximality in first-order theories, preprint

Michele Bailetti. A walk on the wild side: Notions of maximality in first-order theories, preprint. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.19236. 2025

arXiv 2025
[3]

Taking model-complete cores, Preprint

Manuel Bodirsky, Bertalan Bodor, and Paolo Marimon. Taking model-complete cores, Preprint. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.21278. 2025

arXiv 2025
[4]

More on tree properties.Fundamenta Mathematicae, 2019

Enrique Casanovas and Byunghan Kim. More on tree properties.Fundamenta Mathematicae, 2019

2019
[5]

Enrique Casanovas and Frank O. Wagner. The free roots of the complete graph.Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 132(5):1543–1548, 2004

2004
[6]

Universal graphs with forbidden subgraphs and algebraic closure.Advances in Applied Mathematics, 22(4):454–491, 1999

Gregory Cherlin, Saharon Shelah, and Niandong Shi. Universal graphs with forbidden subgraphs and algebraic closure.Advances in Applied Mathematics, 22(4):454–491, 1999

1999
[7]

Theories without the tree property of the second kind.Ann

Artem Chernikov. Theories without the tree property of the second kind.Ann. Pure Appl. Log., 165:695–723, 2014

2014
[8]

Forking and dividing inNTP 2 theories.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 77(1):1–20, 2012

Artem Chernikov and Itay Kaplan. Forking and dividing inNTP 2 theories.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 77(1):1–20, 2012

2012

Show all 36 references

[9]

On model-theoretic tree properties.Journal of Mathematical Logic, 16(2):1650009, 2016

Artem Chernikov and Nicholas Ramsey. On model-theoretic tree properties.Journal of Mathematical Logic, 16(2):1650009, 2016

2016
[10]

Independence in generic incidence structures.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 84(2):750–780, 2019

Gabriel Conant and Alex Kruckman. Independence in generic incidence structures.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 84(2):750–780, 2019

2019
[11]

On the notion of a patterning property in model theory, preprint

Gabriel Day and Scott Mutchnik. On the notion of a patterning property in model theory, preprint. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.18533. 2026

2026 arXiv
[12]

On◁ ∗-maximality.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 125(1-3):119–158, 2004

Mirna D ˇzamonja and Saharon Shelah. On◁ ∗-maximality.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 125(1-3):119–158, 2004

2004
[13]

James Hanson.Definability and categoricity in continuous logic. Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2020

2020
[14]

Hanson-SOP r,

Bradd Hart, Ehud Hrushovski, and Michael C. Laskowski. The uncountable spectra of countable theories.Annals of Mathematics, 152(1):207–257, 2000. 25The properties will be a true extension if, in the definition of Hanson-SOPr in Definition A.1 above, the inequalityρ(ai, aj)≤ 1 ...

2000
[15]

On Kim-independence.Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 22, 02 2017

Itay Kaplan and Nicholas Ramsey. On Kim-independence.Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 22, 02 2017

2017
[16]

Transitivity of Kim-independence.Advances in Mathematics, 379:107573, 2021

Itay Kaplan and Nicholas Ramsey. Transitivity of Kim-independence.Advances in Mathematics, 379:107573, 2021

2021
[17]

Generic stability independence and treeless theories, Preprint

Itay Kaplan, Nicholas Ramsey, and Pierre Simon. Generic stability independence and treeless theories, Preprint. Available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.01296.pdf. 2023,

2023 arXiv
[18]

SomeNIP-like phenomena inNTP 2.arXiv: Logic, 2017

Itay Kaplan and Pierre Simon. SomeNIP-like phenomena inNTP 2.arXiv: Logic, 2017

2017
[19]

Forking in Simple Unstable Theories.Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 57(2):257–267, 04 1998

Byunghan Kim. Forking in Simple Unstable Theories.Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 57(2):257–267, 04 1998

1998
[20]

The structure and the number ofP7-free bipartite graphs.European Journal of Combinatorics, 65:143–153, 2017

Vadim Lozin and Viktor Zamaraev. The structure and the number ofP7-free bipartite graphs.European Journal of Combinatorics, 65:143–153, 2017

2017
[21]

M. E. Malliaris. The characteristic sequence of a first-order formula.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 75(4):1415–1440, 2010

2010
[22]

Malliaris

M.E. Malliaris. Edge distribution and density in the characteristic sequence.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 162(1):1–19, 2010

2010
[23]

Categoricity in power.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 114(2):514–538, 1965

Michael Morley. Categoricity in power.Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 114(2):514–538, 1965

1965
[24]

Conant-independence and generalized free amalgamation.Journal of Mathematical Logic, 2024

Scott Mutchnik. Conant-independence and generalized free amalgamation.Journal of Mathematical Logic, 2024

2024
[25]

On NSOP 2 theories.Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 27(11):3475–3544, 2025

Scott Mutchnik. On NSOP 2 theories.Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 27(11):3475–3544, 2025

2025
[26]

Approximations of the strict order property, preprint

Scott Mutchnik. Approximations of the strict order property, preprint. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.14517. 2025

2025
[27]

Properties of independence inNSOP 3 theories, preprint

Scott Mutchnik. Properties of independence inNSOP 3 theories, preprint. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.09908. 2023

2023 arXiv
[28]

Saracino

D. Saracino. Model companions for 0-categorical theories.Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 39(3):591–598, 1973

1973
[29]

Elsevier, 1990

Saharon Shelah.Classification theory: and the number of non-isomorphic models. Elsevier, 1990

1990
[30]

The universality spectrum: Consistency for more classes in combinatorics, paul erd ¨os is eighty, vol

Saharon Shelah. The universality spectrum: Consistency for more classes in combinatorics, paul erd ¨os is eighty, vol. 1, 403-420, bolyai society mathematical studies, 1993. InProceedings of the Meeting in honor of P . Erd ¨os, Keszthely, Hungary, volume 7, 1993

1993
[31]

Toward classifying unstable theories.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 80(3):229–255, 1996

Saharon Shelah. Toward classifying unstable theories.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 80(3):229–255, 1996

1996
[32]

On what I do not understand (and have something to say), model theory, Preprint

Saharon Shelah. On what I do not understand (and have something to say), model theory, Preprint. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9910158. 1999

1999 arXiv
[33]

More onSOP 1 andSOP 2.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 155(1):16–31, 2008

Saharon Shelah and Alexander Usvyatsov. More onSOP 1 andSOP 2.Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 155(1):16–31, 2008

2008
[34]

Lecture Notes in Logic

Pierre Simon.A Guide toNIPTheories. Lecture Notes in Logic. Cambridge University Press, 2015

2015
[35]

On amalgamation in NTP 2 theories and generically simple generics.Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 61(2):233 – 243, 2020

Pierre Simon. On amalgamation in NTP 2 theories and generically simple generics.Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 61(2):233 – 243, 2020

2020
[36]

An independence theorem forNTP 2 theories.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 79(1):135–153, 2014

Ita ¨ı Ben Yaacov and Artem Chernikov. An independence theorem forNTP 2 theories.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 79(1):135–153, 2014. 74

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed July 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Preservation ofNATP.Journal of Mathematical Logic, 25(01):2450012, 2025

Jinhoo Ahn, Joonhee Kim, Hyoyoon Lee, and Junguk Lee. Preservation ofNATP.Journal of Mathematical Logic, 25(01):2450012, 2025

2025

[2] [2]

A walk on the wild side: Notions of maximality in first-order theories, preprint

Michele Bailetti. A walk on the wild side: Notions of maximality in first-order theories, preprint. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.19236. 2025

arXiv 2025

[3] [3]

Taking model-complete cores, Preprint

Manuel Bodirsky, Bertalan Bodor, and Paolo Marimon. Taking model-complete cores, Preprint. Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.21278. 2025

arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

More on tree properties.Fundamenta Mathematicae, 2019

Enrique Casanovas and Byunghan Kim. More on tree properties.Fundamenta Mathematicae, 2019

2019

[5] [5]

Enrique Casanovas and Frank O. Wagner. The free roots of the complete graph.Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 132(5):1543–1548, 2004

2004

[6] [6]

Universal graphs with forbidden subgraphs and algebraic closure.Advances in Applied Mathematics, 22(4):454–491, 1999

Gregory Cherlin, Saharon Shelah, and Niandong Shi. Universal graphs with forbidden subgraphs and algebraic closure.Advances in Applied Mathematics, 22(4):454–491, 1999

1999

[7] [7]

Theories without the tree property of the second kind.Ann

Artem Chernikov. Theories without the tree property of the second kind.Ann. Pure Appl. Log., 165:695–723, 2014

2014

[8] [8]

Forking and dividing inNTP 2 theories.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 77(1):1–20, 2012

Artem Chernikov and Itay Kaplan. Forking and dividing inNTP 2 theories.The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 77(1):1–20, 2012

2012