On pseudolinearity and generic pairs Evgueni Vassiliev Memorial University of Newfoundland February 24, 2009

Abstract We continue the study of the connection between the “geometric” properties of SU-rank 1 structures and the properties of “generic” pairs of such structures, started in [8]. In particular, we show that the SU-rank of the (complete) theory of generic pairs of models of an SU-rank 1 theory T can only take values 1 (iff T is trivial), 2 (iff T is linear) or ω, generalizing the corresponding results for a strongly minimal T in [3]. We also use pairs to derive the implication from pseudolinearity to linearity for ω-categorical SU-rank 1 structures, established in [7], from the conjecture that an ω-categorical supersimple theory has finite SU-rank, and find a condition on generic pairs, equivalent to pseudolinearity in the general case.

An elementary pair of models of T (T -pair) is a structure (M, P ) in the language LP obtained by augmenting L with a new unary predicate P , where M |= T and P (M ) ¹ M . The notion of a “generic T -pair” for a supersimple SU-rank 1 theory T was introduced in [8]. If T is a supersimple first order L-theory of SU-rank 1, with quantifier elimination (for convenience), then a T -pair (M, P ) is called generic, if for any finite dimensional A ⊂ M and a non-algebraic type p ∈ SL1 (A), p is realized both in P (M ) and in M \aclL (AP (M )). One motivation was to find the “right” kind of a pair construction in the simple unstable 1

context, which would preserve simplicity, similarly to Poizat’s “beautiful pairs” preserving stability. Generic pairs turned out to provide such a construction in the SU-rank 1 case. Namely, in [8], we have shown that any two generic T -pairs are elementarily equivalent, any saturated model of the (complete) theory TP of the generic T -pairs is again a generic T -pair, and TP is supersimple. This construction was later generalized to arbitrary simple theories (with certain “weak” non-fcp property) in [2]. Another motivation was to use generic pairs to study geometric properties of SU-rank 1 structures, by analogy with [3], where pairs were used to show that pseudomodular strongly minimal structures are locally modular (a proof using the group configuration technique rather than pairs was later found by Hrushovski [5]). Since the algebraic closure induces a (in general, non-homogeneous) pregeometry on any SU-rank 1 structure, the usual notions of modularity and local modularity make sense. Recall that a pregeometry (X, cl) is k-pseudomodular (0 < k < ω), if for any a, b ∈ X and C ⊂ X, if a ∈ cl(bC), then there is a subset C 0 of cl(C) of size ≤ k such that a ∈ cl(bC 0 ). So, 1-pseudomodularity coincides with modularity. By a plane curve in an SU-rank 1 structure (or type) we mean an SU-rank 1 strong type of a 2-tuple. An SU-rank 1 theory T (or type) is kpseudolinear (0 < k < ω), if the canonical base of any plane curve has SU-rank ≤ k, and linear, if it is 1 − pseudolinear. In the strongly minimal case, pseudolinearity, pseudomodularity, linearity and local modularity are all equivalent. In the SU-rank 1 case, local modularity is strictly weaker than linearity, linearity is equivalent to 1-basedness, and does not imply pseudomodularity (see example in [8]). Pseudomodularity clearly implies pseudolinearity, and in [7] it is shown that under additional assumption of ω-categoricity, pseudolinearity implies linearity. For a strongly minimal T , generic T -pairs are simply the T -pairs (M, P ) where dim(P (M )) and dim(M/P (M )) are infinite, and are essentially the “beau-

2

tiful pairs” as defined by Poizat in [6] (a T -pair is beautiful, if P (M ) is |T |+ saturated and any L-type over P (M ) and a finite tuple in M is realized in M ). Theory TP in this case is ω-stable. In [3] it was shown that TP has U-rank 1 iff T is trivial, U-rank 2 iff T is non-trivial locally modular, and U-rank ω otherwise. In [8], we showed that TP has SU-rank 1 iff T is trivial, SU-rank 2 iff T is linear (1-based). Note that linearity (1-basedness) is strictly weaker than local modularity in the SU-rank 1 context. In general, TP was shown to have SU-rank ≤ ω. In the present paper, we “fill the gap” and show that the only possible values of the SU-rank of TP are 1,2 and ω, just as in the strongly minimal case, with local modularity replaced by linearity. Then we show that pseudolinearity of T is equivalent to boundedness of a certain rank associated with the generic pair. In the case when T is ω-categorical, this easily gives us the equivalence of pseudolinearity of T and ω-categoricity of TP . In [7], it is shown, using the group configuration in simple theories, that a pseudolinear SU-rank 1 type in an ω-categorical simple theory is linear. This implies that the same is true for a pseudolinear ω-categorical SU-rank 1 theory. In this paper we show how to derive this last fact from the conjecture “there is no supersimple ω-categorical theory of infinite SU-rank”, using a pairs argument. We also give a characterization of pseudolinearity of T in terms of the properties of SU-rank in TP , namely, T is k-pseudolinear iff TP has the following property: whenever a forks with b over ∅ SU (a/b) ≤ k. As mentioned above, in a joint work with Ben-Yaacov and Pillay [2], we have generalized both the generic pairs of SU-rank 1 structures and Poizat’s beautiful pairs of stable structures to the class of simple theories. The resulting notion of “lovely pair” provided simple pair expansions of simple theories satisfying a weak version of the non-fcp property. In the SU-rank 1 case, lovely pairs are simply the sufficiently saturated generic pairs, and the theory theory of lovely pairs coincides with TP . However we will still use the term “generic” in this paper, to be consistent with [8].

3

As in [8], tpL and tpLP refer to types in T and TP respectively (same for | , dim, stp, acl, SU and Cb). A set A ⊂ (M, P ) is called P -independent, if ^ L | P (A) P (M ). In [8], we showed that an LP -type of a P -independent set in a A^ generic pair is determined by its quantifier free LP -type. For any pair of sets A ⊂ B in the universal domain of T we can “embed” them in a generic T -pair (M, P ) in a “P -independent” way, i.e. we can find B 0 ⊂ M such that tpL (B 0 , P (B 0 )) = tpL (B, A) and B 0 is P -independent. The following characterization of forking in TP is given in [8] (see also [2] for a more general characterizations): Let A ⊂ B, a some element. Then tpLP (a/B) forks over A iff one of the following two conditions hold: (i) a ∈ aclL (BP (M ))\aclL (AP (M )) (ii) a ∈ aclL (AP (M )) and there is no ¯b = b1 . . . bn ∈ P (M ) such that a ∈ aclLP (A¯b), and bi 6∈ aclLP (Bb1 . . . bi−1 ). We also have the following bound on SU-rank in TP : If a ∈ aclL (Ab1 . . . bn ), where ¯b ∈ P (M ), then SULP (a/A) ≤ n.

1

Rank of TP in the non-linear case

In this section we prove Theorem 1.1 If T is non-linear, then TP has SU-rank ω (moreover, there is a 1-type of SU-rank ω in TP ). The proof of the Theorem 1.1 will follow the ideas from [3] (where it was one of the key steps in proving that pseudomodularity implies local modularity), with some modifications due to the lack of stationarity. Assume that T is noneq ¯ linear, witnessed by a plane curve stpL (b0 b1 /¯ a) (i.e. CbL (¯b/¯ a) 6⊂ aclL (b)). Note

that by elimination of hyperimaginaries in supersimple theories [4], stp = Lstp, and thus we can work with the strong types. We may assume that a ¯ is an L

| ∅ P (M ), b0 ∈ P (M ), and b1 ∈ M \P (M ) L-independent tuple in M \P (M ), a ¯^

4

(as in Lemma 3.2, [3]). Our goal is to prove that TP has infinite SU-rank, by showing that tpLP (b1 /∅) has infinite SU-rank. In [3] Buechler showed that for a non-locally modular strongly minimal set, the LP - type p of an element of M \P (M ) over ∅ is bad. A type q(¯ x, A) is called bad, if there is a pairwise A-independent indiscernible sequence in q which is not A-independent. A type is called good otherwise. Then it is shown that a regular type of finite U-rank in a superstable theory is good. Since p is regular and bad, it has an infinite U-rank, and hence so does TP . Here, in order to show that tpLP (b1 /∅) has infinite SU-rank, we need to show that the corresponding type in TP is not only bad itself, but so is any of its non-forking extensions (this came for free in s.m. case, since goodness is preserved under parallelism in the stable case, and TP was ω-stable). Lemma 1.2 Any non-forking extension of tpLP (b1 /∅) is bad. L

| ∅ P A. We need to show that tpLP (b1 /A) is bad. Proof: Assume A ⊂ M , b1 ^ L L | b P A. Then, by transitivity, a | ∅ P A. Let (¯b, c¯, . . .) We may assume that a ¯ b0 ^ ¯¯b^ 1

L | A¯Pa ¯b and c¯ |= stpLP (¯b/A¯ be a Morley sequence in stpLP (¯b/A¯ a). Then c¯^ a). LP LP LP L | ∅ A implies A^ | a¯ ¯b, and together with c¯^ | A¯a ¯b this implies c¯^ | a¯ P ¯b. Now, a ¯¯b^ L | a¯ P ¯b Note that SULP (¯ c/¯ a) = 1, since c1 ∈ aclL (c0 a ¯), with c0 ∈ P (M ). Thus c¯^ L | ¯b. Also, clearly c¯ |= stpL (¯b/¯ implies c¯^ a). Then, since CbL (¯b/¯ a) 6⊂ acleq (¯b), a ¯

L

L

L | ¯b. Otherwise, we would have SUL (¯ | ¯b a ¯, and thus CbL (¯b/¯ a) = c¯^ c/¯b) = 1, so c¯^ CbL (¯ c/¯ a) ⊂ acleq (¯b), a contradiction. Now, exactly as in the claim in the proof of L L | ∅ P b1 . Namely, assume c1 6 ^ | ∅ P b1 . Then there is d¯ ⊂ P (M ), Lemma 3.2 [3], c1^ L ¯ Let d¯ = d¯0 d¯00 , d¯0^ | ∅ c¯¯b¯ such that c1 ∈ aclL (b1 d). a, and d¯00 ∈ aclL (¯ c¯b¯ ad¯0 ). Since,

b1 ∈ aclL (b0 a ¯), c1 ∈ aclL (c0 a ¯), we have d¯00 ∈ aclL (c0 b0 a ¯d¯0 ). But by the choice L ¯ c0 , b0 ∈ P (M ), we have d¯00 ∈ aclL (c0 b0 d¯0 ). So, | ∅ P (M ). Since, d, of a ¯, a ¯^ L | ∅ c¯¯b, we have c1 ∈ aclL (c0¯b). Contradiction with c1 ∈ aclL (c0¯bd¯0 ). Since d¯0 ^ L | ¯b. c¯^ ∅

L | A¯b. Now, we claim that c¯^ L L | A¯b. By c¯^ | A¯Pa ¯b, we have c¯ 6∈ aclL (A¯ Assume c¯6 ^ a¯b), and thus SUL (¯ c/A¯b) =

5

1 = SUL (¯ c/A¯ a¯b). So, stpL (¯ c/¯ a) and stpL (¯ c/A¯b) have a common non-forking eq extension stpL (¯ c/A¯ a¯b), and therefore CbL (¯b/¯ a) ⊂ aclL (A¯b). But CbL (¯b/¯ a) ⊂ L eq eq ¯ | ∅ P A. Thus CbL (¯b/¯ aclL (¯ a), and thus we have CbL (¯b/¯ a)¯b^ (b). Since a) ⊂ aclL P eq c¯ |= stpL (¯b/¯ a), c1 ∈ aclL (c0 CbL (¯b/¯ a)). So, c1 ∈ aclLP (c0¯b) ⊂ aclL (P (M )b1 ). L

| ∅ P b1 . Contradiction with c1^ L

L

L

| P (M ) | P (M ) A, which together with a | ∅ P A implies a ¯^ ¯^ Note also that a ¯^ L | A P (M ). implies a ¯^ L

L

| A¯b and a | A P (M ), and as in the claim in the proof of Now, we have c¯^ ¯^ L | ∅ to ^ | A , and acl(−) to acl(− ∪ A), we get c1^ | AP b1 . Lemma 3.2 [3], changing ^ Note that I = (b1 , c1 , . . .) is an A-indiscernible sequence in tpLP (b1 /A), and I ⊂ aclL (¯ aP (M )). Therefore dimL (I/P (M )) is finite. If I was an LP independent sequence over A, dimL (I/P (M )) would be infinite, a contradiction. Thus I witnesses the badness of tpLP (b1 /A). 2 Now we are ready to prove the theorem.

Proof of the Theorem 1.1: It suffices to show that p = tpLP (b1 /∅) has infinite SU-rank.

Assume that SULP (p) is finite.

Note that p is regular,

since any forking extension of p over some set A is realized by an element of aclL (AP (M )), while any non-forking extension of p over A is realized by L

| AP a, by characterization of forking in some b 6∈ aclL (AP (M )), and hence b ^ TP . Now, since p is regular and of finite rank, there is an SU-rank 1 (hence regular) type q in TP eq , non-orthogonal to p. Over some A ⊂ M , there are non-forking (hence regular) extensions p0 and q 0 of p and q respectively, and L

| AP b. By Lemma 1.2, p0 is bad. realizations a |= p0 and b |= q 0 such that a6 ^ Take (a0 , a1 , . . .) an A-indiscernible sequence in p0 witnessing its badness, and L

| AP bi . By the Erd¨os-Rado Theorem, we for each i, choose bi |= q 0 such that ai 6 ^ may assume that (a0 b0 , a1 b1 , . . .) is A-indiscernible (in TP ). As in Proposition 2.2 [3], we conclude that q 0 is bad. Indeed, by regularity, LP -forking on p0 ∪ q 0 is

6

L

| AP bi implies that any LP - dependence over A that holds for transitive, and ai 6 ^ ai ’s, holds for bi ’s as well. So, the A-indiscernible (in TP ) sequence (bi |i ∈ ω) witnesses the badness of q 0 . But q 0 has SU-rank 1, and hence is good (since any pairwise independent indiscernible sequence is infinite, and any infinite sequence in an SU-rank 1 type is independent). Contradiction. 2

2

Pseudolinearity and ω-categoricity

Definition. For a ∈ M , A ⊂ M , define RP (a/A) = minimal n such that L

| P (M ) b). a ∈ aclL (Ac1 . . . cn ) for some c¯ ∈ P (M ) (∞ if no such c¯ exist, i.e. a^ By properties of SU-rank in TP , we have the following Lemma 2.1 For any a and A SULP (a/A) ≤ R(a/A). 2 L

| P (M ) b (i.e. RP (a/b) < ∞). Lemma 2.2 Assume that a, b ∈ M \P (M ) and a6 ^ L | A b. Then Take any small (finite) A ⊂ P (M ) such that a6 ^ SUL (CbL (ab/A)) ≤ RP (a/b) ≤ 2 SUL (CbL (ab/A)). Proof: Let C = CbL (ab/A). The first inequality is trivial. To show the second, take a Morley sequence I = (ai bi |i ∈ ω) in stpL (ab/A). We may assume that ai ∈ P (M ). Since A ⊂ P (M ), we also have bi ∈ P (M ). We know: C ⊂ eq eq aclL (I). Take the minimal n such that C ⊂ aclL (a0 b0 . . . an−1 bn−1 ). Clearly,

SUL (a0 b0 . . . an−1 bn−1 /C) = n. We claim that SUL (a0 b0 . . . an−1 bn−1 ) = 2n. Assume it is < 2n. Note that SUL (a0 . . . an−1 ) = n. Take a minimal i such that bi+1 ∈ aclL (¯ ab0 . . . bi ). Then SUL (ai+1 bi+1 /a0 b0 . . . ai bi ai+2 bi+2 . . . an−1 bn−1 ) = 1 = SUL (ai+1 bi+1 /a0 b0 . . . ai bi ai+2 bi+2 . . . an−1 bn−1 A).

7

eq eq Thus C = CbL (ab/A) ⊂ aclL (a0 b0 . . . ai bi ai+2 bi+2 . . . an−1 bn−1 ). By aclL (A)-

indiscernibility of I, this contradicts the minimality of n. So, SUL (C) = SUL (a0 b0 . . . an−1 bn−1 ) − SUL (a0 b0 . . . an−1 bn−1 /C) = 2n − n = n. eq But C ⊂ aclL (a0 b0 . . . an−1 bn−1 ), and a0 , b0 , . . . an−1 , bn−1 ∈ P (M ). So, L

| a b ...a bn−1 b, a6 ^ 0 0 n−1 and thus RP (a/b) ≤ 2n. 2 Proposition 2.3 The following are equivalent: (i) T is pseudolinear (ii) there is m such that RP (a/b), if finite, is ≤ m (iii) for any n there is mn , RP (a/b1 . . . bn ), if finite, is ≤ mn Proof: Since for any (non-trivial) plane curve stpL (ab/A) in T we may assume that A ⊂ P (M ) and a, b ∈ M \P (M ), (i → ii) and (ii → i) easily follow from Lemma 2.2. (iii → ii) is trivial, and (ii → iii) follows by induction from the fact that (M, aclL (¯ eP (M ))) is again a (saturated) generic T -pair (see [8], Lemma 5.6). We can actually take mn = mn . 2 Corollary 2.4 For an ω-categorical T , TP is ω-categorical iff T is pseudolinear. Proof: We need to show that TP is ω-categorical iff (iii) above holds. Left to right is trivial. To show right to left we first recall from [8] that in a generic T -pair (M, P ), | P (A) P (M ) (i.e. if A = aclL (A) and A ^

A is closed P -independent) then

qf tpLP (A) |= tpLP (A). Now, let A = {a1 , a2 , . . . , an } be a subset of M , and assume that ak+1 , . . . , an ∈ aclL (P (M ) ∪ {a1 , . . . , ak }) with a1 , . . . , ak aclL independent over P (M ). Then by (iii), we can find a set B ⊂ P (M ) of size at most (n − k)mk such that A ∪ B is P -independent. Also note that since TP is ω-categorical, aclL is uniformly locally finite. It follows that there is a 8

function f : ω → ω such that any n-tuple in M can be embedded in a closed P independent set of size ≤ f (n). Again by ω-categoricity of T , there are finitely many n-LP -types for every n, and thus TP is ω-categorical. 2 Using Theorem 1.1 and Corollary 2.4, we see that if T is ω-categorical pseudolinear and non-linear, then TP is ω-categorical and supersimple of SU-rank ω. Thus we get Corollary 2.5 The conjecture “any supersimple ω-categorical theory has finite SU-rank” implies that any ω-categorical pseudolinear SU-rank 1 theory is linear.2 While the conjecture above is still open, the statement “pseudolinearity implies linearity” was recently proved for SU-rank 1 Lascar strong types in an ω-categorical simple theory by Tomasic and Wagner [7], using the group configuration for simple theories [1]. Note that if an SU-rank 1 theory T is pseudolinear, then for any n ∈ ω there is a uniform (finite) bound on the SU-rank of canonical bases of n-types (easy to see by induction), and even types of the form tp(e/A) where e is an imaginary which is in acl of a real n-tuple. It easily follows that any SU-rank 1 type in T eq is pseudolinear. Now, if an SU-rank 1 theory T is pseudolinear and ω-categorical, then by the above argument and Tomasic-Wagner’s result, all SU-rank 1 types in T eq are linear (1-based), so by “coordinatization”, T is itself 1-based and hence linear. So one gets the following characterization (see also [2], Proposition 7.8). Proposition 2.6 For an ω-categorical SU-rank 1 theory T the following are equivalent: (i) T is linear; (ii) T is pseudolinear; (iii) TP is ω-categorical. 2

9

Now, if T is as above, by ω-categoricity of TP , the relation x ∈ aclL ({y1 . . . yn } ∪ P ) is definable in TP . Thus for any (M, P ) |= TP and a1 , . . . , an ∈ M , the structure (M, aclL (¯ aP )) is definable in (M, P ) (with parameters a ¯). Hence its LP -theory is also ω-categorical and supersimple. Note also that by [8], Lemma 5.6, aclL (¯ aP ) is an elementary substructure of M , so itself a model of T . For any b ∈ aclL (¯ aP ), the SU-rank of b over a ¯ in TP is ≤ 1 (since TP has SU-rank ≤ 2, and either b ∈ P , or b forks with a ¯ over ∅ in TP ). This implies that (aclL (¯ aP ), P, a ¯) is an SU-rank 1 structure, and hence so is its reduct (aclL (¯ aP ), P ). Note that taking a ¯ of dimension n over P , we get different ω-categorical SU-rank 1 pair expansions of T . Thus we get the following corollary. Corollary 2.7 If T is an ω-categorical linear SU-rank 1 theory, then for any n ∈ ω, there is an ω-categorical supersimple SU-rank 1 completion Tn of the theory of all T -pairs, such that for any (M, P ) |= Tn we have dim(M/P (M )) = n, and all Tn are distinct. 2 Whether pseudolinearity implies linearity is true in the non-ω-categorical SU-rank 1 case is still unknown (it is proved for strongly minimal structures in [3]). What we can easily show, for example, is that “strong pseudomodularity” implies linearity, namely Remark 2.8 Any SU-rank 1 structure with the property “there is m ∈ ω such that a ∈ acl(AB) implies a ∈ acl(Ab1 . . . bm ) where ¯b ∈ acl(B)” is linear. Proof: In this case TP has SU-rank ≤ m + 1, hence T is linear (and TP has SU-rank ≤ 2). 2

3

Pseudolinearity and SU-rank in TP

In this section we give a characterization of pseudolinearity of T in terms of SU-rank in TP . 10

eq Lemma 3.1 SULP (e) = SUL (e) for any e ∈ aclL (P (M )). eq ¯ Proof: Consider ¯b ∈ P (M ) such that e ∈ aclL (b). Take c¯ ∈ M realizing L | e ¯b. Write c¯ = c¯1 c¯2 with c¯1 aclL -independent over e stpL (¯b/e) such that c¯ ^ L | e ¯b, c¯1 is also aclL -independent over ¯b. By lemmas c¯2 ∈ aclL (e¯ c1 ). Since c¯^ 5.10,5.12 [8], we can find a ¯1 ∈ P (M ) realizing stpL (¯ c1 /¯b) Take a ¯2 such that

a ¯1 a ¯2 |= stpL (¯ c/¯b). Since a ¯1¯b ∈ P (M ), we also have a ¯2 ∈ P (M ). Note that a ¯2 ∈ aclL (e¯ a1 ). Since aclL = aclLP inside P (M ) and a ¯1 is aclL -independent over ¯b, it is also aclLP -independent over ¯b, and hence over e (meaning that no component of a ¯1 is in LP -algebraic closure of the other components and e). L

L

| ePa | ea Now, take a ¯0 |= stpLP (¯ a/e) such that a ¯^ ¯0 . We claim that a ¯^ ¯0 . Otherwise, since a2 ∈ aclL (e¯ a1 ), a1 is not aclL -independent over e¯ a0 . Since a ¯1 L

| ePa is aclLP -independent over e, this contradicts a ¯^ ¯0 . L L 0 eq eq 0 | ePa | ea Now, we have a ¯^ ¯0 , a ¯^ ¯ and e ∈ aclL (¯ a) ∩ aclL (¯ a ). So, SUL (¯ a) = SUL (¯ ae) = SUL (¯ a/e) + SUL (e), and thus SUL (e) = SUL (¯ a) − SUL (¯ a/e) = SUL (¯ a) − SUL (¯ a/e¯ a0 ) = SUL (¯ a) − SUL (¯ a/¯ a0 ). Exactly the same calculation for SULP shows that SULP (e) = SULP (¯ a) − SULP (¯ a/¯ a0 ). But L-forking coincides with LP -forking inside P (M ). So, SUL (¯ a) = SULP (¯ a) and SUL (¯ a/¯ a0 ) = SULP (¯ a/¯ a0 ). Thus SULP (e) = SUL (e). 2 By elimination of hyperimaginaries in supersimple theories [4], canonical base of a strong n-type is a set of imaginaries, and is contained in the algebraic closure (in T eq ) of a single imaginary contained in its definable closure. As in [8], we will identify canonical bases with such single imaginaries. L

| P (M ) b. Take any (small) B ⊂ Lemma 3.2 Assume a, b ∈ M \P (M ) and a6 ^ L | B b, and let C = CbL (ab/B). Then C does not depend on P (M ) such that a6 ^ 11

the choice of B and eq (i) C ∈ aclL (ab) P

(ii) SULP (a/b) = SUL (C) (and finite) Proof: (i) We will work in a large saturated elementary extension N eq of M eq . L

| B P (M ). Thus C is interalgebraic with CbL (ab/P (M )). Take any Clearly, ab^ automorphism f of (M eq , P ) fixing ab. Extend it to an automorphism f 0 of N eq . Clearly f 0 fixes stpL (ab/P (M )). Thus it fixes CbL (ab/P (M )), and there are finitely many possible images of C under such f . So, the Autab (M eq , P )eq orbit of C is finite, and thus C ∈ aclL (ab). P

(ii) First note that both SU-ranks are finite (by the properties of SU-rank in TP and supersimplicity of T ). Note also that since a, b 6∈ P (M ), SUL (a/B) = SUL (b/B) = 1. Note that SULP (Ca/b) = SULP (a/bC) + SULP (C/b) = 0 + L

| ∅ P C (follows from C being SULP (C/b) = SULP (C), since a ∈ aclL (bC) and b^ algebraic over P (M ), b ∈ M \P (M ) and the characterization of forking in TP ). On the other hand, SULP (Ca/b) = SULP (C/ab) + SULP (a/b) = SULP (a/b), by (i). By Lemma 3.1, SUL (C) = SULP (C), so SULP (a/b) = SUL (C). 2 Proposition 3.3 The following are equivalent for an SU-rank 1 theory T : (i) T is k-pseudolinear L

| ∅ P b then SULP (a/b) ≤ k. (ii) for any a, b ∈ (M, P ) |= TP , if a6 ^ Proof: (i → ii) Assume (i). If a, b ∈ M \P (M ), then (ii) follows from Lemma L

| ∅ P b). But if 3.2(ii). If one of a, b is in P (M ), so is the other one (otherwise a^ L | ∅ P b, then SULP (a/b) = 0. a, b ∈ P (M ) and a6 ^ (ii → i) For any (non-trivial) plane curve stpL (ab/B) in T we may assume that B ⊂ P (M ) and a, b ∈ M \P (M ). Then we apply Lemma 3.2(ii). 2 Corollary 3.4 The following are equivalent for an SU-rank 1 T : (i) T is pseudolinear L

| ∅ P b, (ii) there is k ∈ ω such that whenever a, b ∈ (M, P ) |= TP and a6 ^

12

SULP (a/b) ≤ k (iii) for any n ∈ ω there is kn ∈ ω such that whenever a, b1 , . . . , bn ∈ (M, P ) |= L | ∅ P ¯b, SULP (a/¯b) ≤ kn . TP and a6 ^

Proof: If suffices to show (i → iii). So, assume (i). If a ∈ P (M ), SULP (a/¯b) ≤ 1. If a ∈ M \P (M ), then (iii) follows from Proposition 2.3 and Lemma 2.1.

13

References [1] Itay Ben-Yaacov, Ivan Tomasic, Frank O. Wagner, Constructing an almost hyperdefinable group, Journal of Mathematical Logic, volume 4 (2004), 181-212 [2] Itay Ben-Yaacov, Anand Pillay, Evgueni Vassiliev, Lovely pairs of models, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, volume 122 (2003), 235-261. [3] Steven Buechler, Pseudoprojective strongly minimal sets are locally projective, Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 56, no. 4, Dec.1991. [4] Steven Buechler, Anand Pillay, Frank O. Wagner, Supersimple theories, J. AMS 14 (2001) 109124. [5] Ehud Hrushovski, Unimodular minimal structures, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 46 (1992), no. 3, 385–396. [6] Bruno Poizat, Paires de structures stables, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 48 (1983), 234-249. [7] Ivan Tomasic, Frank O. Wagner, Applications of the group configuration theorem in simple theories, Journal of Mathematical Logic, 3(2):239-255, 2003. [8] Evgueni Vassiliev, Generic pairs of SU-rank 1 structures, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 120 (2003) 103-149.

Evgueni Vassiliev (new spelling: Yevgeniy Vasilyev) Sir Wilfred Grenfell College, Memorial University of Newfoundland Corner Brook, NL A2H 6P9, Canada E-mail: [email protected]

14

On pseudolinearity and generic pairs

Feb 24, 2009 - dim, stp, acl, SU and Cb). A set A ⊂ (M,P) is called P-independent, if. A |. L. P (A)P(M). In [8], we showed that an LP -type of a P-independent set in a generic pair is determined by its quantifier free LP -type. For any pair of sets A ⊂. B in the universal domain of T we can “embed” them in a generic T-pair (M,P).

164KB Sizes 1 Downloads 102 Views

Recommend Documents

AUTOMORPHISMS AND AUTOEQUIVALENCES OF GENERIC ...
category of OX-modules instead of the bounded derived category of coherent sheaves (Section 4.3). ...... Algebraic structures and moduli spaces, CRM Proc.

Optimal hash functions for approximate closest pairs on ...
Jan 30, 2009 - Use a different hash function, such as mapping n bits to codewords of an. [n, k] error-correcting code. GMO (IDA/CCR). Optimal hash functions.

On the use of perceptual Line Spectral pairs ...
India Software Operations Ltd, Bangalore, India. Goutam Saha received his BTech and PhD Degrees from ... are very popular especially in VoIP communication. LSFs are also successfully introduced in speaker recognition task ... A comparison is also sho

Starter Activity: Product pairs - cloudfront.net
environmental, social, economic issues included in the reasons for product choice? If you choose to do this activity before a piece of work on sustainability you.

Reflection paper on the dissolution specification for generic solid oral ...
Aug 10, 2017 - 6. 2.1.4. Only batches with acceptable in vivo behaviour included in pharmaceutical .... bioequivalence study of a generic vs. a reference drug product. 1.2.4. .... the point estimates for Cmax plus the respective 90% confidence.

generic postcard.pdf
Page 1 of 1. a little. Note. a little. Note. a little. Note. a little. Note. Page 1 of 1. generic postcard.pdf. generic postcard.pdf. Open. Extract. Open with. Sign In.

skating pairs sochi.pdf
skating pairs sochi.pdf. skating pairs sochi.pdf. Open. Extract. Open with. Sign In. Main menu. Displaying skating pairs sochi.pdf.

Generic Desired Adaptation Outcomes
Robust policies, programmes and actions for CC adaptation. 3. Accurate weather forecasting, reliable seasonal predictions, climate projections & effective early.

Generic WBT Rules.pdf
Page 1 of 5. Rule #1. Follow. directions. quickly! Page 1 of 5. Page 2 of 5. Rule #2. Raise your. hand for. permission to. speak. Page 2 of 5. Page 3 of 5. Rule #3.

all pairs shortest paths algorithms - Semantic Scholar
Given a communication network or a road network one of the most natural ... ranging from routing in communication networks to robot motion planning, .... [3] Ming-Yang Kao, Encyclopedia of Algorithms, SpringerLink (Online service).