8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES
SH863
Saharon Shelah
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Einstein Institute of Mathematics
Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram
Jerusalem 91904, Israel
Department of Mathematics
Hill CenterBusch Campus
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
110 Frelinghuysen Road
Piscataway, NJ 088548019 USA
Abstract. We further investigate the class of models of a strongly dependent (rst
order complete) theory T, continuing [Sh 715], [Sh 783] and relatives. Those are prop
erties (= classes) somewhat parallel to superstability among stable theory, though are
dierent from it even for stable theories. We show equivalence of some of their deni
tions, investigate relevant ranks and give some examples, e.g. the rst order theory of
the padics is strongly dependent. The most notable result is: if A +T , I C
and I
T
+() then some J I of cardinality
+
is an indiscernible sequence
over A.
This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation
I would like to thank Alice Leonhardt for the beautiful typing.
First Typed  04/May/12
Latest Revision  09/Sept/4
Typeset by A
M
ST
E
X
1
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
2 SAHARON SHELAH
Annotated content
0 Introduction, pg.57
1 Strong dependent: basic variant, pg.828
[We dene
ict
(T) and strongly dependent (= strongly
1
dependent
ict
(T) =
0
), (1.2), note preservation passing from T to T
eq
, preservation under in
terpretation (1.4), equivalence of some versions of witness <
ict
(T)
(1.5), and we deduce that without loss of generality m = 1 in (1.2). An ob
servation (1.10) will help to prove the equivalence of some variants. To some
extent, indiscernible sequences can replace an element and this is noted in
1.8, 1.9 dealing with the variant
icu
(T). We end with some examples, in
particular (as promised in [Sh 783]) the rst order theory of the padic is
strongly dependent and this holds for similar elds and for some ordered
abelian groups expanded by subgroups. Also there is a (natural) strongly
stable not strongly
2
stable T.]
2 Cutting indiscernible sequence and strongly
, pg.2942
[We give equivalent conditions to strongly dependent by cutting indiscernibles
(2.1) and recall the parallel result for T dependent. Then we dene
ict,2
(T)
(in 2.3) and show that it always almost is equal to
ict
(T) in 2.8. The ex
ceptional case is T is strongly dependent but not strongly
2
dependent for
which we give equivalent conditions (2.3 and 2.10.]
3 Ranks, pg.4353
[We dene M
0
A
M
1
, M
0
A,p
M
2
(in 3.2) and observe some basic prop
erties in 3.3. Then in 3.5 for most = 1, . . . , 12 we dene <
, <
at
, <
pr
,
,
explicit
splitting and last but not least the ranks dprk
,
(x). Easy prop
erties are in 3.7, the equivalence of rank is innite, is [T[
+
, T is strongly
dependent in 3.7 and more basic properties in 3.9. We then add more cases
( > 12) to the main denition in order to deal with (verssion of) strongly
dependency and then have parallel claims.]
4 Existence of indiscernibles, pg.5457
[We prove that if [A[ + [T[ and a
m
C for < Q
+ of cardinality
+
, a
b
t
: t I) being indis
cernible for I k.
(G) strongly
3
stable and primely regular types.
We prove the density of primely regular types (for strongly
3
stable T) and
we comment how denable groups help.
(H) T is ndependent
We consider strengthenings nindependent of T is independent.]
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
4 SAHARON SHELAH
0 Introduction
Our motivation is trying to solve the equations x/dependent = superstable/stable
(e.g. among complete rst order theories). In [Sh 783, 3] mainly two approximate
solutions are suggested: strongly
I, a
t
: t II
C for < :=
+
then for some stationary S , a
, as was asked
by Grossberg and the author (see on this question [Sh 702, 2.92.20]). A positive
answer appears in [Sh 197], but under a very strong assumption on T: not only T
is dependent but every subsets P
1
, . . . , P
n
of [M[ the theory Th(M, P
1
, . . . , P
n
) is
dependent, i.e., being dependent is preserved by monadic expansions.
Here we prove that if T is strongly stable and [T[ then Q
+
T
(
+
)
<
+
.
We certainly hope for a better result (using Q
n
([T[) for some x n or even (2
)
+
instead of Q
dependent does not really solve the equation we have started with.
However, this is not necessarily bad, the notion strongly
i
( x, y
i
) : i < ) is
=
i
( x
, y
i
)
if((i)=)
:
, < and i < .
1A) We say that =
i
( x, y
i
) : i < ) witness <
ict
(T) (with m = g( x)) when
it is as in part (1).
2) T is strongly dependent (or strongly
1
dependent) when
ict
(T) =
0
.
Easy (or see [Sh 783]):
1.3 Observation. If T is strongly dependent then T is dependent.
1.4 Observation. 1)
ict
(T
eq
) =
ict
(T).
2) If T
= Th(M
) for = 1, 2 then
ict
(T
1
)
ict
(T
2
) when:
() M
1
is (rst order) interpretable in M
2
.
3) If T
= Th(C, c)
cA
then
ict
(T
) =
ict
(T).
4) If M is the disjoint sum of M
1
, M
2
(or the product) and Th(M
1
), Th(M
2
) are
dependent then so is Th(M); so M
1
, M
2
, M has the same vocabulary.
5) In Denition 1.2, for some ,
is consis
tent with T.
Remark. 1) Concerning Part (4) for strongly dependent, see CohenShelah [CoSh:E65].
Proof. Easy.
1.4
1.5 Observation. Let g( x) = m; =
i
( x, y
i
) : i < ) and let
i
( x, y
i
) : i <
) where
i
( x, y
i
) = [
i
( x, y
1
i
)
i
( x, y
2
i
)] and let
i
( x, y
i
) : i < ) where
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
8 SAHARON SHELAH
i
( x, y
i
) = [
i
( x, y
1
i
)
i
( x, y
2
i
)]. Then
1
2
3
(
2)
2
[]
(
2)
3
[]
and
for = 2, 3 and
3
1
1
where
[]
=
i
( x, y
i
)
(i)
: i < ) and
1
witness <
ict
(T)
2
we can nd a
i
k
: k < , i < ) in C such that g( a
i
k
) = g( y
i
), a
i
k
: k <
) is indiscernible over a
j
k
: j < , j ,= i, k < for each i < and
i
( x, a
i
0
)
i
( x, a
i
1
) : i < is consistent, i.e. nitely satisable in C
3
like
2
but in the end
i
( x, a
i
0
)
i
( x, a
i
1
) : i < is consistent.
1.6 Remark. 1) We could have added the indiscernibility condition to
1
, i.e., to
1.2(1) as this variant is equivalent to
1
.
2) Similarly we could have omitted the indiscernibility condition in
2
but demand
in the end: if k
<
i
< for i < then
i
( x, a
i
k
i
)
i
( x, a
i
i
) : i < is
consistent and get an equivalent condition.
3) Similarly we could have omitted the indiscernibility condition in
3
but demand
in the end if k
i
<
i
< for i < then
i
( x, a
i
k
i
)
i
( x, a
1
i
) : i < is
consistent and get an equivalent condition.
4) We could add
3
1
.
5) In
2
,
3
(and the variants above) we can replace by any ), see 1.7).
6) What about
2
1
? We shall now describe a model whose theory is a
counterexample to this implication. We dene a model M,
M
= P, P
i
, R
i
: i <
, P a unary predicate, P
i
a unary predicate, R
i
a binary predicate:
(a) [M[ the universe of M is ( )
(b) P
M
=
(c) P
M
i
= i
(d) R
M
i
= (, (i, q)) :
, q and [= (i) q
(e)
i
(x, y) = P(x) P
i
(y) R
i
(x, y) for i < .
Now
() Why (for Th(
M)) do we have
2
?
For i < , k < let a
i
k
= (i, k) P
M
i
recalling .
Easily a
i
k
: k < , i < ) are as required in
2
. E.g. the unique
realizing
the type. Also for each i < , the sequence a
i
k
: k < ) is indiscernible over
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 9
a
j
m
: j < , j ,= i and m < .
Why? Because for every automorphism of the rational order (, <), for the given
i < we can dene a function
i
with domain M by
()
1
for j < and q we let
i
((j, q)) be (j, q) if j ,= i and (j, (q)) if j = i
()
2
for ,
we have
i
() = i (j < )(j ,= i (j) = (j)) and
(i) =
i
((i)).
So
i
is an automorphism of M over
_
j=i
P
M
j
which includes the function (a
i
q
, a
i
(q)
) :
q
() Why (for Th(M)), we do not have
1
?
Because M [= (y
1
, y
2
)[P
i
(y
1
) P
i
(y
2
) y
1
,= y
2
2
=1
(x)(
i
(x, y
)
P(x)
i
(x, y
3
))].
Proof. The following series of implications clearly suces.
1
implies
2
Why? As
1
, clearly for any
0
we can nd a
i
g( y
i
)
C for i < , < and
c
:
), c
g( x)
C such that [=
i
[ c
, a
i
:
< ) is indiscernible over a
j
s witness
2
as c
2
3
(hence in particular
2
3
and
2
3
).
Trivial; read the denitions.
3
2
(hence in particular
3
3
and
2
3
).
By compactness, for the dense linear order 1 we can nd a
i
t
for i < , t 1
such that for each i < the sequence a
i
t
: t 1) indiscernible over a
j
s
: j ,=
i, j < , s 1 and for any s
0
<
R
s
1
the set
i
( x, a
i
s
0
)
i
( x, a
i
s
1
) : i < is
consistent, say realized by c = c
s
0
,s
1
. Now let u = i < : C [=
i
[ c, a
i
s
0
] and
for n < dene
b
i
n
as a
i
s
0
+n(s
1
s
0
)
if i u and as a
i
s
1
n(s
1
s
0
)
if i u. Now
b
i
n
: n < , i < ) exemplies
2
.
2
implies
1
(hence by the above
2
2
and
3
3
).
Let a
i
: [2, )) as well as
a
i
1n
: n ) are indiscernible sequences over a
j
t
: j < , j ,= i and t Z c.
For t Z, i < let
b
i
t
= a
i
2t
a
i
2t+1
, so C [=
i
[ c,
b
i
0
] (as this just means C [=
i
( c, a
i
0
)
i
[ c, a
i
1
]) and C [=
i
[ c,
b
i
s
] when s Z0 (as the sequences c a
i
2s
and c a
i
2s+1
realize the same type). So
b
i
3
implies
3
.
Read the denitions.
3
implies that for some
2 we have
1
[]
.
As in the proof of
2
1
; but we elaborate: let
a
i
b
i
: < ) : i <
_
witness
3
noting
i
( x, y
i
1
, y
i
2
) : i < ) where g( y
i
1
) = g( y
i
) = g( y
i
2
). Let
c realize
i
( x, a
i
0
,
b
i
0
)
i
( x, a
i
1
,
b
i
1
) : i < . Without loss of generality for each
i < the sequence a
i
b
i
b
j
: j i
and < c.
By this extra indiscernibility assumption for each i < we can nd
0
(i),
1
(i)
0, 1 such that n 2 C [=
i
[ c, a
i
n
]
0
(i)
i
[ c,
b
i
n
]
1
(i)
. By the choice of c we
have C [=
i
( c, a
i
0
,
b
i
0
)
i
( c, a
i
1
,
b
i
1
), hence by the choice of
i
, we cannot have
C [=
i
[ c, a
i
0
]
0
(i)
i
[ c, a,
b
i
0
]
1
(i)
i
[ c, a
i
1
]
0
(i)
i
[ c,
b
i
1
]
1
(i)
.
Hence there are
3
(i),
4
(i) 0, 1 such that
4
(i) = 0 C [=
i
[ c, a
i
3
(i)
]
1
0
(i)
4
(i) = 1 C [=
i
[ c,
b
i
3
(i)
]
1
1
(i)
.
Lastly choose = 1
4
(i)
(i) : i < ) and we choose
d
i
3
(i)
if
4
(i) = 0 and n > 0 then
d
i
n
= a
i
1+n
if
4
(i) = 1 and n = 0 then
d
i
n
=
b
i
3
(i)
if
4
(i) = 1 and n > 0 then
d
i
n
=
b
i
1+n
.
Now check that
d
i
3
[]
,
3
are equivalent where
2.
Why? Because the formula (
i
(x, a
i
0
)
i
(x, a
i
1
)) is equivalent to (
i
(x, a
i
0
)
(i)
i
(x, a
i
1
)
(i)
.
1.5
1.7 Observation. 1) In Denition 1.2 without loss of generality m(= g( x)) is 1.
2) For any we have: <
ict
(T) i for some innite linear order I
i
(for i < )
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 11
and a
i
t
: t I
i
, i < ) such that a
i
t
: t I
i
) is indiscernible over a
j
s
: s I
j
and
j ,= i, j < A and nite C, for ordinals i < , the sequence a
i
t
: t I
i
) is not
indiscernible over A C.
3) In 1.5, for any (
0
) from the statement
2
we get an equivalent one if we
replace by ; similarly for
3
.
Proof. 1) For some m, there is =
i
( x, y
i
) : i < ), g( x) = m witnessing
<
ict
(T); without loss of generality m is minimal. Fixing by 1.5 we know that
2
from that observation 1.5 hold. Let a
i
: < ) is an
indiscernible sequence over a
j
: j ui c
m1
.
In this case for i u let
i
( x
, y
i
) :=
i
( x (m 1), x
m1
) y
i
) and
=
i
( x
, y
i
) : i u) and
b
i
= c
m1
) a
i
, y
i
) :
i u). Now
b
i
holds
(the consistency exemplied by c (m 1)), hence (in the notation of 1.5)
1
[]
holds for some
\u
2 contradiction to the minimality of m.
Case 2: Not Case 1.
We choose v
(a) v
: <
(b) v
is nite
(c) for some i v
, a
i
: j v
i, < c
m1
[ is minimal.
In the induction step, the set u
= v
the sequence a
i()
: j u
: < ) is not
indiscernible over a
j
: j v, < c
m1
. So v
= i() v satises
(a) + (b) + (c) hence some nite v
() v
from a
j
: j v
()
: < ) is
not indiscernible over c
m1
)
.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
12 SAHARON SHELAH
Also we can nd n() < and ordinals
,,0
<
,,1
< . . . <
,,n()1
< for
= 1, 2 such that the sequences
d a
i
()
,1,0
. . . a
i
()
,1,n()1
and
d a
i
()
,2,0
. . . a
i
()
,2,n()1
realize dierent types over c
m1
.
Now we consider a
i
()
. . . a
i
()
+n()1
where := max
,1,n()1
+1,
,2,n()1
+
1, so renaming without loss of generality
,1,n()1
<
,2,0
. Omitting some
a
i
()
,1,m
= m,
,2,m
= n() + m for m < n().
Now we dene
b
:=
d
a
i
()
n()
. . . a
i
()
n()+n()1
for < , < .
By the indiscernibility of a
i
()
: < ) over
d
a
j
: j v
, <
a
j
: j i
: < ) is an indiscernible
sequence over
0
,
1
realizes
dierent types over c
m1
so we can choose
(x, y
) such that C [=
(c
m1
,
0
)
i
(c
m1
,
b
i
1
) for i < .
So
(x, y
1.7
A relative of
ict
(T) is
1.8 Denition. 1)
icu
(T) =
icu,1
(T) is the minimal such that for no m <
and =
i
( x
i
, y
i
) : i < ) with g( x
i
) = m n
i
can we nd a
i
g( y
i
)
C for
< , i < and c
,n
m
C for
such that:
(a) c
,n
: n < ) is an indiscernible sequence over a
i
: < , i <
(b) for each
and i < we have C [=
i
( c
,0
. . . c
,n
i
1
, a
i
)
if(=(i))
.
2) If is as in (1) then we say that it witnesses <
icu
(T).
3) T is strongly
1,
dependent if
icu
(T) =
0
.
1.9 Claim. 1)
icu
(T)
ict
(T).
2) If cf() >
0
then
icu
(T) >
ict
(T) > .
3) The parallels of 1.4, 1.5, 1.7(2) hold
1
.
1
and of course more than 1.7(2), using an indiscernible sequence of m
< .
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 13
Proof. 1) Trivial.
2) As in the proof of 1.7.
3) Similar.
1.9
To translate statement on several indiscernible sequences to one (e.g. in 2.1) notes:
1.10 Observation. Assume that for each < , I
) is indiscernible over A a
t
: t I
and (and
for notational simplicity I
: <
, t I
g( a
t
) = () and lastly for we let () = () : < .
Then there is
b
t
: t I) such that
(a) g(
b
t
) = ()
(b)
b
t
: t I) is an indiscernible sequence over A
(c) t I
a
t
=
b
t
[
)
(d) if C C and P is a set of cuts of I such that [J is a convex subset of
I not divided by any member of P
b
t
: t J) is indiscernible over
A C] then we can nd P
: < ), P
is a set of cuts of I
such that
[P
not divided
by any member of P
then a
t
: t J) is indiscernible over A C
(e) if C C and P is a set of cuts of I such that [J is a convex subset of
I not divided by any member of P
b
t
: t J) is indiscernible over
A C b
s
: s IJ] then we can nd P
: < ), P
is a set of cuts
of I
such that [P
then a
t
: t J) is indiscernible
over A C a
t
: t IJ
(f) moreover in clause (d),(e) we can choose P
induced by P, i.e.(J
, J
) : (J
, J
) P(I
, ), (, I
).
Proof. Straightforward. E.g.,
Without loss of generality I
:
< . We can nd
b
t
()
C for t I, < such that: if n < ,
0
< . . . <
n1
< , t
0
<
I
. . . <
I
t
1
and s
0
<
I
. . . <
I
a
1
for < n then the sequence
(
0
t
0
0
. . .
0
t
0
k
0
1
) . . . (
n1
t
n1
0
. . .
n1
t
n1
k
n1
1
) realizes the same type as the sequence
( a
s
0
0
. . . a
0
s
0
k
n
1
) . . . ( a
n1
s
n1
0
. . . a
n1
s
n1
k
n1
1
); this is possible by compactness. Us
ing an automorphism of C without loss of generality t I
t
= a
t
. Now for
t I let a
t
be ( a
0
t
a
1
t
. . . a
1
. . . )
<
.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
14 SAHARON SHELAH
Clauses (a)+(b)+(c) trivially hold and clauses (d),(e),(f) follows.
1.10
In the following we consider natural examples which are strongly dependent, see
more in 2.5.
1.11 Claim. 1) Assume T is a complete rst order theory of an ordered abelian
group expanded by some individual constants and some unary predicates P
i
(i < i())
which are subgroups and T has elimination of quantiers.
T is strongly dependent i we cannot nd i
n
< i() and
n
Z0 for n < such
that:
() we can nd b
n,
C for n, < such that
(a)
1
<
2
n
(b
n,
2
b
n,
1
) / P
C
i
n
(b) for every
there is c
such that c
b
n,(n)
P
C
i
n
for n < .
2) Let M be (Z, +, , 0, 1, <, P
n
) where P
n
= na : a Z so we know that
T = Th(M) has elimination of quantiers. Then T is strongly dependent hence
Th(Z, +, , 0, <) is strongly dependent.
1.12 Remark. 1) This generalizes the parallel theorem for stable abelian groups.
2) Note, if G is the ordered abelian group with sets of elements Z[x], addition of
Z[x] and p(x) > 0 i the leading coecient is > 0, in Z, P
n
as above (so denable),
then Th(G) is not strongly dependent using P
n
for n prime.
2) On elimination of quantiers for ordered abelian groups, see Gurevich [Gu77].
Proof. 1) The main point is the if direction. We use the criterion from 2.1(2),(4)
below. So let a
t
: t I) be an innite indiscernible sequence and c C (with a
t
not
necessarily nite). Without loss of generality C [= c > 0 and a
t
= a
t,
: <
)
list the members of M
t
, a model and even a [T[
+
saturated model, (see 2.1(4)) and
let p
t
= tp(c, M
t
).
Note that
()
1
if a
s,i
= a
t,j
and s ,= t then a
r,i
: r I) is constant.
Obviously without loss of generality c / M
t
: t I but C is torsion free (as an
abelian group because it is ordered) hence
()
2
Z0 c / M
t
: t I
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 15
()
3
for t I, a M
t
and Z0 let
a
i()+1
2 be such that [
a
(i()) =
1 c > a] and for i < i(), [
a
(i) = 1 c a P
C
i
]
()
4
for t I and a M
t
let p
a
:=
_
Z\{0}
(p
a
q
a
) where
2
p
a
(x) := x ,=
a, (x > a)
a
(i())
and q
a
(x) := P
i
(x a)
a
(i)
: i < i().
Now
0
for Z0 and <
let I
= t I : a
t,
< c
1
u
1
, u
0
, u
1
) is a partition of
where
(a) u
1
= <
(b) u
0
= <
(c) u
1
= <
2
if Z0 then
(a) I
, I when u
0
(d) I
: u
1
, I has at most 2 members.
[Why? Recall <
C
is a linear order. So for each Z0, u
1
by the denition
of u
1
the set I
:= t I : a
t,
< c is an initial segment of I, also t II
c <
C
a
t,
as c / M
s
: s I by ()
2
.
Now suppose , u
1
and [I
[ > 1 and I
, I
/ , I then choose t
1
<
I
t
2
from I
and t
0
I
, t
3
II
. As I
, I
[ 1.
So I
, I
/ , I [I
[ 1 and by symmetry [I
[ 1. So [I
:
u
1
, I[ 2, i.e. clause (d) of
2
holds; the other clauses should be clear.]
Now clearly
3
if , < (), Z0 and a
t,
= a
t,
(for some equivalently for every
t I) then:
(a) ( u
1
) ( u
1
)
2
recall that
1
= ,
0
=
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
16 SAHARON SHELAH
(b) ((c) < a
t,
) (a
t,
< (()c)) recalling c, ()c /
_
tI
M
t
(c) I
= II
.
Also
4
if
1
,
2
are from 1, 2, . . . and
1
a
t,
=
2
a
t,
then
(a) [ u
1
u
1
], [ u
0
u
0
] and [ u
1
u
1
]
(b) (t I
) (t I
) hence I
= I
.
[Why? Clause (a) is obvious. For clause (b) note that t I
a
t,
<
2
c
1
a
t,
<
1
(
2
c)
2
a
t,
<
2
(
1
c) a
t,
<
1
c t I
.]
By symmetry, i.e. by
3
clearly
5
the statement (c),(d) in
2
holds for u
1
.
Obviously
6
if u
0
then I
, I.
Together
7
I
: <
0
there are initial segments J
t J
] then
a
t,
(i()) =
a
s,
(i()).
[Why? By the above and the denition of
a
t,
(i()) we are done.]
1
for each t I we have p
a
(x) : a M
t
p
t
(x).
[Why? Use the elimination of quantiers and the closure properties of
M
t
. That is, every formula in p
t
(x) is equivalent to a Boolean combi
nation of quantier free formulas. So it suces to deal with the cases
(x, a) p
t
(x) which is atomic or negation of atomic and x appear. As
for b
1
, b
2
C exactly one of the possibilities b
1
< b
2
, b
1
= b
2
, b
2
< b
1
holds
and by symmetry, it suces to deal with
1
(x, a) >
2
(x, a),
1
(x, a) =
2
(x, a), P
i
((x, a)), P
i
((x, a)) where (x, y),
1
(x, y),
2
(x, y) are terms
in '(
T
). As we can substract, it suces to deal with (x, a) > 0, (x, a) =
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 17
0, P
i
((x, a)), P
i
((x, a)). By linear algebra as M
t
is closed under the op
erations, without loss of generality (x, a) = x a
t,
for some Z and
<
a
t,
(x), in the case
(x, a) = P
i
(x a
t,
) or (x, a) = P
i
(x a
t,
) use q
a
t,
(x) for
a
t,
(i).]
2
if Z0, n < and a
0
, . . . , a
n1
M
t
then for some a M
t
we have
< n i < i()
(i) = 1
a
(i) = 1
[Why? Let a
M
t
realize p
t
a
0
, . . . , a
n1
, exist as M
t
was chosen as
[T[
+
saturated; less is necessary. Now c a
P
C
i
a
P
C
i
(c a
) = ((c a
) (a
)) P
C
i
and let a := a
.]
3
assume Z0, i < i(), <
, s
1
<
I
s
2
and t Is
1
, s
2
then:
(a) if
a
s
1
,
(i) = 1 and
a
s
2
,
(i) = 0 then
a
t,
(i) = 0
(b) if
a
s
1
,
(i) = 0 and
a
s
2
,
(i) = 1 then
a
t,
(i) = 0.
[Why? As we can invert the order of I it is enough to prove clause (a).
By the choice of a
a
we have c a
s
1
,
P
C
i
, c a
s
2
,
/ P
C
i
hence
a
s
1
,
a
s
2
,
/ P
C
i
hence also a
s
2
,
a
s
1
,
/ P
C
i
.
By the indiscernibility we have a
t,
a
s
1
,
/ P
C
i
and as c a
s
1
,
P
C
i
we
can deduce c a
t,
/ P
C
i
hence
a
t,
(i) = 0. So we are done.]
4
for each Z0, i < i() and <
the set I
i,
:= t :
a
t,
(i) = 1 is
, I or a singleton.
[Why? By
3
.]
5
if I
= I
i,
: Z0, i < i(), <
and I
i,
is a singleton is innite
then (possibly inverting I) we can nd t
n
I and
n
<
,
n
Z0 and
i
n
< i() for n < such that
(a) t I then [
n
c a
t,
n
P
C
i
n
] t = t
n
for every n <
(b) a
t,
n
a
s,
n
: s ,= t I) are pairwise not equal mod P
C
i
n
(c) t
n
< t
n+1
for n < .
[Why? Should be clear.]
6
if I
= I
i,
: Z0, <
i,
is a singleton is nite
and J
( < () 6) are as in
0
, then tp( a
s
, c) = tp( a
t
, c) whenever
(s, t II
<()
(s J
t J
) recalling a
t
list the elements of M
t
.
[Why? By
4
and
1
(and
0
) recalling the choice of p
a
in ()
4
.]
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
18 SAHARON SHELAH
Assume c, a
t
: t I) exemplify T is not strongly dependent then I
cannot be
nite (by
6
) hence I
is innite so by
5
we can nd (t
n
,
n
,
n
, i
n
) : n < ) as
there.
That is, for n < , < let b
n,
:= a
t
,
n
. So
7
n
c b
n,
P
C
i
n
i
n
c a
t
,
n
P
C
i
n
i t
= t
n
i = n
8
if
1
<
2
then b
n,
2
b
n,
2
/ P
C
i
n
.
[Why? By clause (b) of
5
.]
Now
9
if
is increasing then there c
C such that
n <
n
c
b
n,(n)
P
C
i
n
.
[Why? As a
t
: t I) is an indiscernible sequence, there is an automorphism
f = f
of C which maps a
t
n
to a
t
(n)
for t I so f
(b
,n
) = b
n,(n)
. Hence
c
= f
n,
: n, <
) satisfying (a) + (b) of () of 1.11.
[Why? Let = P
i
n
(
n
x
y
n,(n)
) :
, n < P
i
n
(
n
x
n,
1
n
x
n,
2
) :
n < ,
1
<
2
< . If is satised in C we are done, otherwise there is a nite
inconsistent
, let n
be such that: if y
n,
appear in
then n, < n
. But
the assignment y
n,
b
nn
+
for n < n
, < n
exemplied that
is realized, so
we have proved half of the claim. The other direction should be clear, too.]
2) The rst assertion (on T) holds by part (1); the second holds as the set of terms
0, 1, 2, . . . , n1 is provably a set of representatives for Z/P
n
which is nite.
1.11
1.13 Example: Th(M) is not strongly stable when M satises:
(a) has universe
N
(actually mentioned in clause (a))
(c) val
M
: K
M
M
, the valuation
(d) ac
M
: K
M
k
M
, the function giving the leading coecient (when as in
natural cases the members of K are power series)
(e) of course, the sentences saying that the following hold:
()
M
is an ordered abelian group
() k is a eld
() K is a eld
() val,ac satises the natural demands.
1A) Above we replace language by language when: in clause (b), i.e. (a)(),
M
has 1
ac
M
n
: K
M
k
M
satises:
<n
ac
M
(x) = ac
M
k
(y) val
M
(x y) >
val
m
(x) +n.
2) We say that such M (or Th(M)) has elimination of the eld quantier when:
every rst order formula (in the language of Th(M)) is equivalent to a Boolean
combination of atomic formulas, formulas about k
M
(i.e., all variable, free and
bounded vary on P
M
1
) and formulas about
M
; note this denition requires clause
(d) in part (1).
It is well known that (on 1.15,1.16 see, e.g. [Pa90], [CLR06]).
1.15 Claim. 1) Assume is a divisible ordered abelian group and k is a perfect eld
of characteristic zero. Let K be the xed power series for (, k), i.e. f : f
k
and supp(f) is well ordered where supp(f) = s : f(s) ,= 0
k
. Then the model
dened by (K, , k) has elimination of the eld quantiers.
2) For p prime, we can consider the padic eld as a valued eld in the DenefPas
language and its rst order theory has elmination of the eld quantiers (this
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
20 SAHARON SHELAH
version of the padics and the original one are (rstorder) biinterpretable; note
that the eld k here is nite and formulas speaking on which is the ordered abelian
group Z are well understood).
We will actually be interested only in valuation elds M with elimination of the
eld quantiers. It is well known that
1.16 Claim. Assume C = C
T
is a (monster,i.e. quite saturated) valued eld in the
DenefPas language (or in the language) with elimination of the eld quantiers.
If M C then
(a) it satises the cellular decomposition of Denef which implies
3
:
if p S
1
(M) and P
0
(x) p then p is equivalent to
p
[]
:= p
[]
c
: c P
M
0
where p
[]
c
= p
[,1]
c
p
[,2]
c
and
p
[,1]
c
= (val(x c),
d) p : (x, y) is a formula speaking on
M
only so
d
M
, c P
M
0
and
p
[,2]
c
= (ac(x c),
d) p : speaks on k
M
only but for the language
we should allow (ac
0
(x c), . . . , ac
n
(x c),
d) for some n <
(b) if p S
1
(M), P
0
(x) p and c
1
, c
2
P
M
0
and val
M
(xc
1
) <
M
val
M
(xc
2
)
belongs to p(x) then p
[]
c
2
(x) p
[]
c
1
(x) and even val(x c
1
) < val(x c
2
)
p
[]
c
1
(x)
(c) for c
>
(k
M
), the type tp( c, , k
M
) determines tp( c, , M) and similarly
for
M
.
1.17 Claim. 1) The rst order theory T of the padic eld is strongly dependent.
2) For any theory T of a valued eld F which has elimination of the eld quantier
we have:
T is strongly dependent i the theory of the valued ordered group and the theory of
the residue elds of F are strongly dependent.
3) Like (2) when we use the language and we assume k
M
is nite.
1.18 Remark. 1) In 1.17 we really get that T is strongly dependent over the residue
eld + the valuation ordered abelian group.
2) We had asked in a preliminary version of [Sh:783,3]: show that the theory of
the padic eld is strongly dependent. Udi Hrushovski has noted that the criterion
(St)
2
presented there (and repeated in 0.1 here from [Sh 783, 3.10=ss.6]) apply so
3
note: p S
1
(A, M), A M is a little more complicated
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 21
T is not strongly
2
dependent. Namely take the following equivalence relation E on
Z
p
:val(xy) val(c), where c is some xed element with innite valuation. Given
x, the map y (x +cy) is a bijection between Z
p
and the class x/E.
3) By [Sh 783, 3], the theory of real closed elds, i.e. Th(1) is strongly dependent.
Onshuus shows that also the theory of the eld of the reals is not strongly
2
de
pendent (e.g. though Claim [Sh 783, 3.10=ss.6] does not apply but its proof works
using pairwise not too near
bs, in general just an uncountable set of
bs).
4) See more in 5.
Of course,
1.19 Observation. 1) For a eld K, Th(K) being strongly dependent is preserved
by nite extensions in the eld theoretic sense by 1.4(2).
2) In 1.17, if we use the language and k
N
is innite, the theory is not strongly
dependent.
Proof. 1) Recall that by 1.11(2), the theory of the valued group (which is an ordered
abelian group) is strongly dependent, and this trivially holds for the residue eld
being nite. So by 1.15(2) we can apply part (3).
2) We consider the models of T as having three sorts: P
M
0
the eld, P
M
1
the ordered
abelian group (like value of valuations) and P
M
2
the residue eld.
Let
1
(a) I be an innite linear order, without loss of generality complete and
dense (and with no extremal members),
(b) a
t
: t I) an indiscernible sequence, a
t
C and let c C
(a singleton!)
and we shall prove
2
for some nite J I we have: if s, t IJ and (s J)(r <
I
s r <
I
t)
then a
s
, a
t
realizes the same type over c.
This suces by 2.1 and as there by 2.1(4) without loss of generality
3
a
t
= a
t,i
: i < ) list the elements of an elementary submodel M
t
of C = C
T
(we may assume M
t
is
1
saturated; alternatively we could have assumed
that it is quite complete).
Easily it follows that it suces to prove (by the L.S.T. argument but not used)
2
for every countable u there is a nite J I which is O.K. for a
t
u :
t I).
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
22 SAHARON SHELAH
Let f
t,s
be the mapping a
s,i
a
t,i
for i < ; clearly it is an isomorphism from M
s
onto M
s
.
Now
4
p
t
= tp(c, M
t
) so (p
t
)
[]
a
for a M
t
is well dened in 1.16(a).
The case P
2
(x)
t
p
t
is easy and the case P
1
(x)
t
p
t
is easy, too, by an
assumption (and clause (c) of 1.16), so we can assume P
0
(x)
t
p
t
(x).
Let U = i < : a
s,i
P
C
0
for every ( some) s I.
Now for every i U
()
1
i
the function (s, t) val
C
(a
t,i
a
s,i
) for s <
I
t satises one of the following
Case (a)
1
i
: it is constant
Case (b)
1
i
: it depends just on s and is a strictly monotonic (increasing, by
<
) function of s
Case (c)
1
i
: it depends just on t and is a strictly monotonic (decreasing, by
<
) function of t.
[Why? This follows by inspection.]
For = 1, 0, 1 let U
val
C
(a
t,j
a
s
1
,i
) hence
val
C
((a
t,j
a
s
2
,i
)(a
t,j
a
s
1
,i
)) = val
C
(a
t,j
a
s
2
,i
) which means val
C
(a
t,j
a
s
2
,i
) =
val
C
((a
s
2
,i
a
s
1
,i
)) = val
C
(a
s
2
,i
a
s
1
,i
). So in the right side t does not appear, in
the left side s
1
does not appear, hence by the equality the left side, val
C
(a
t,j
a
s
2
,i
),
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 23
does not depend on t and the right side, val
C
(a
s
2
,i
a
s
1
,i
) does not depend on s
2
but as i U
1
it does not depend on s
1
. Together by the indiscernibility for s <
I
t
we have val
C
(a
t,i
a
s,i
) is constant, i.e. case (a)
2
i,j
holds. So we can from now on
assume: for each t I the sequence val
C
(a
t,j
a
s,i
) : s satises s <
I
t) is constant
or for each t I it is <
increasing with s.
Second, assume: for some (equivalently every) s I the sequence val
C
(a
t,j
a
s,i
) : t satises s <
I
t) is <
increasing with s.
Third, assume: for some (equivalently every) t I the sequence val
C
(a
t,j
a
s,i
) :
s satises s <
I
t) is constant. This implies that s <
I
t val
C
(a
t,j
a
s,i
) = e
t
for some e = e
t
: t I). If for some (equivalently every) s I the sequence
val
C
(a
t,j
a
s,i
) : t satises s <
I
t) is constant then clearly case (a)
2
i,j
holds so we
can assume this fails so by the end of second this sequence is <
increasing hence
e
t
: t I) is <
e
t
1
, which means that val
C
(a
t,j
a
s,i
) <
val
C
(a
t
1
,j
a
s,i
). This implies that val
C
((a
t,j
a
s,i
)(a
t
1
,j
a
s,i
)) = val
C
(a
t,j
a
s,i
)
which means that val
C
(a
t,j
a
t
1
,j
) = val
C
(a
t,j
a
s,i
) = e
t
as required; so case (c)
2
i,j
and we are done (if Third... holds).
Fourth, assume that for some (equivalently every) s I the sequence val
C
(a
t,j
a
s,i
) : t satises s <
I
t) is constant, then we proceed as in third getting case (b)
2
i,j
instead of case (c)
2
i,j
.
So assume that none of the above occurs, hence for every (equivalently some)
t I the sequence val
C
(a
t,j
a
s,i
) : s satises s <
I
t) is <
increasing (with s, by
rst...and third above) and for every (equivalently some) s I the sequence
val
C
(a
t,j
a
s,i
) : t satises s <
I
t) is <
val
C
(a
t
2
,j
a
s,i
)
val
C
(a
t
1
,j
a
s,i
) = val
C
((a
t
2
,j
a
s,i
) (a
t
1
,j
a
s,i
)) = val(a
t
2
,j
a
t
1
,j
) hence
val
C
(a
t
1
,j
a
s,i
) does not depend on s as s does not appear on the left side, but,
see above, it is <
i
I + we have:
(a)
3
i
val
C
(c a
s,i
) = val
C
(a
t,i
a
s,i
) when s <
I
t and s I
<t
i
(b)
3
i
val
C
(c a
s,i
) : s I
>t
i
) is constant and if r I
>t
i
and s <
I
t are
from I
>t
i
then val
C
(c a
r,i
) <
val
C
(a
t,i
a
s,i
)
(c)
3
i
ac
C
(c a
s,i
) = ac
C
(a
t,i
a
s,i
) when s <
I
t and s I
<t
i
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
24 SAHARON SHELAH
(d)
3
i
ac
C
(c a
s,i
) : s I
>t
i
) is constant.
[Why? Recall the denition of U
1
which appeared just after ()
1
i
recalling that we
are assuming I is a complete linear order, see
1
(a).]
()
4
the set J
1
= t
i
: i U
1
has at most one member in I.
[Why? Otherwise we can nd i, j from U
1
such that t
i
,= t
j
are from I. Now apply
()
2
i,j
+ ()
3
i
+ ()
3
j
.]
So without loss of generality
()
5
J
1
is empty.
[Why? If not let J
0
= t
and for I
>t
.]
Now
1
if i U
1
and t
i
= then
(a) for every s
0
<
I
s
1
<
I
s
2
<
I
s
3
we have
(b) val
C
(x a
s
3
,i
) > val
C
(a
s
2
,i
a a
s
1
,i
) p
[]
a
s
0
,i
and
(c) c satises the formula in the left side; on p
[]
a
s
0
,j
, see
3
.
[Why? By clause (b) of 1.16 and ()
3
i
+ ()
3
j
and reect.]
Hence
2
if W
1
= i U
1
: t
i
= then
W
1
where for W U we let
W
if s <
I
t then
s,t
W
where for U
U :
s,t
U
, s, t I and f
t,s
maps p
[]
a
s,i
: i U
onto p
[]
a
t,i
: i U
.
[Why? Should be clear as J
1
= and the indiscernibility of a
t
: t I) and
1
.]
3
assume that: for every i U
1
satisfying t
i
= , there is j U
1
such
that t
j
= and s, t I val
C
(c a
t,j
) > val
C
(c a
s,i
). Then:
3
if s
0
<
I
s
1
<
I
s
2
then val
C
(x a
s
2
,j
) > val
C
(c a
s
1
,i
) p
[]
a
s
0
,i
and
the formula on the left is satised by c.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 25
[Why? Should be clear.]
Hence
4
if the assumption of
3
holds then
W
2
holds for W
2
= i U
1
: t
i
= .
[Why? As in
2
.]
Consider the assumption
5
the hypothesis of
3
fails and let j() U
1
exemplify this (so in particular
t
j()
= ). Let W
3
= i U
1
: t
i
= and val
C
(c a
s,j()
) >
val
C
(c a
t,i
) for any s, t I and W
4
= i U
1
: t
i
= and i / W
3
so
j() W
4
6
if
5
then
W
3
.
[Why? Similarly to the proof of
2
.]
7
if
5
then
(a) val
C
(c a
s,j
) : s I and j W
4
) is constant
(b) val
C
(c a
r,j()
) <
val
C
(a
t,i
a
s,i
) hence (p
s
)
[]
a
s,j()
(p
s
)
[]
a
s,i
when
i W
4
and s <
I
t r I
(c) for some nite J
1
I we have: if s, t JJ
1
and (r J
1
)(s <
I
s
r <
I
t)) then tp(val
C
(c a
s,j()
), M
s
) = f
s,t
(tp(val
C
(c a
t,j()
), M
t
))
(d) for some nite J
2
I we have: if s, t IJ
2
and (r J
r
)(r <
I
s
r <
I
t) then tp(ac
C
(c a
s,j()
), M
s
) = f
s,t
(tp(ac
C
(c a
t,j()
), M
t
)
(e) for some nite J
3
I we have: if s, t IJ
3
and (r J)(r <
I
s
r <
I
t, then
s,t
W
4
[Why? Let i W
4
; so i W
2
, hence i U
1
, which means that case (b)
1
i
of
()
1
i
holds, so for each t I the sequence val
C
(a
t,i
a
s,i
) : s satises s <
I
t)
is <
increasing. Also as i W
2
clearly t
i
= hence by ()
3
i
(b)
3
i
we have
val
C
(ca
s,i
) : s I) is constant, call it e
i
. All this apply to j(), too. Now
as i W
4
we know that for some s
1
, t
1
I we have val
C
(c a
s
1
,j()
)
val
C
(c a
t
1
,i
), i.e. e
j()
e
i
. By the choice of j() for every j U
1
such
that t
j
= , i.e. for every j W
2
for some (equivalently every) s, t I
we have val
C
(c a
s,j
) val
C
(c a
t,j()
). In particular this holds for j = i,
hence for some s
2
, t
2
I we have val
C
(c a
s
2
,i
) val
C
(c a
t
2
,j()
), i.e
e
i
e
j()
so together with the previous sentence, e
i
= e
j()
, so clause (a)
of
7
holds. Also, the rst phrase in clause (b) is easy (using ()
3
i
(b)
3
i
second
phrase); the second phrase of (b) follows because e
i
= e
j()
. For clause (c)
note that Th(
M
) is strongly stable, for clause (d) note that Th(k
M
) is
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
26 SAHARON SHELAH
strongly dependent.
Lastly, for clause (e) combine the earlier clauses.]
8
for some nite J I, if s, t IJ and (r J)(r <
I
s r <
I
t) then
s,t
U
1
[Why? If the hypothesis of
3
holds let J = and if it fails (so
5
,
6
,
7
apply), let J be as in
7
(d), (e), so it partitions I to nitely many intervals.
It is enough to prove
s,t
W
for several W U
1
which covers U
1
. Now by
2
this holds for W
1
= i U
1
: t
i
= . If the assumption of
3
holds we
get the same for W
2
by
4
and if it fails we get it for W
3
by
6
and for W
4
by
7
(e) and the choice of J. Using U
1
= W
1
W
2
, W
2
= W
3
W
4
we are
done.]
As we can replace I by its inverse
9
for some nite J I if s, t IJ and (r)(r <
I
s r <
I
t) then
s,t
U
1
.
So we are left with U
0
. For i U
0
let e
0,i
= val(a
t,i
a
s,i
) for s <
I
t, well dened
by the denition of U
0
. Let W
5
:= i U
0
: for every (equivalently some) s ,= t I,
val
C
(c a
s,i
) < val(a
t,i
a
s,i
) and let W
6
:= U
0
W
5
.
Obviously
10
we have
W
5
.
Easily
11
if i, j W
6
then case (a)
2
i,j
of ()
2
i,j
holds.
[Why? By ()
2
i,j
and as i, j W
6
()
1
i
(a) + ()
1
i
(b).]
12
if i, j W
6
and s ,= t I then val
C
(a
t,j
a
s,i
) = e
0,i
.
[Why? As W
6
= U
0
W
5
.]
Hence
13
e
0,i
: i W
6
) is constant, call the constant value e
so s ,= t I i, j
W
6
val
C
(a
t,j
a
s,i
) = e
.
Easily
14
for every i W
6
the set I
i,c
:= s I : val
C
(c a
s,i
) > e
15
let W
7
:= i W
6
: I
i,c
,= and let t
i
= I
i,c
for i W
7
16
if i, j W
7
then t
i
= t
j
.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 27
[Why? Otherwise let t I be such that t
i
< t t
j
< t, now val
C
(c a
t
i
,j
) >
val
C
(a
t,i
a
t
i
,i
) = e
and val
C
(c a
t
j
,j
) > val
C
(a
t,j
a
t
j
,j
) = e
hence e
<
val
C
((c a
t
i
,i
) (c a
t
j
,j
)) = val
C
(a
t
j
,j
a
t
i
,i
) but the last one is e
by
12
,
contradiction.]
17
without loss of generality W
7
= .
[Why? E.g. as otherwise we can prove separately for I
<t
i
and for I
>t
i
for any
i W
7
.]
18
if i, j W
6
and s ,= t I then ac
C
(ca
t,j
) ac
C
(ca
s,i
) = ac
C
(a
s,i
a
t,j
).
[Why? As val
C
(c a
t,j
), val
C
(c a
s,i
) and val
C
(c
s,i
(c
t,j
) are all equal to e
.]
The rest should be clear.
3) For the language: the proof is similar.
1.17
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
28 SAHARON SHELAH
2 Cutting indiscernible sequence and strongly
+
dependent
2.1 Observation. 1) The following conditions on T are equivalent, for
(a) T is strongly dependent, i.e.,
0
=
ict
(T)
(b)
if I = a
t
: t I) is as above and C C is nite then there is a convex
equivalence relation E on I with nitely many equivalence classes such that:
if s I then a
t
: t (s/E)) is an indiscernible sequence over C.
2) We can add to the list in (1)
(b)
like (b)
but C a singleton
(c)
like (c)
, (b)
, (b)
, (c)
, (c)
= a
u
: u [I
1
+ I +
I
1
]
<
0
) indiscernible over A = Rang( a
) we have:
() u [I]
<
0
a
u
= a
u
() for every B A of cardinality < , every subtype of the type of
a
u
: u [I
1
+ I
1
]
<
0
) over a
u
: u [I]
<
0
) of cardinality < is
realized in A (we can use only A and a
t
: t I), of course).
Remark. 1) Note that 2.8 below says more for the cases
ict
(T) >
0
so no point
to deal with it here.
2) We can in 2.1 add in (b)
, (c)
, (b
, (c
Let >
0
, as in the proof of 1.5, because we are assuming (a), there are
=
i
( x, y
i
) : i < ) and a
i
C be the concatenation of a
i
realizes
n
(x, a
n
n
)
n
(x, a
n
n+1
) : n < .
So for each n, tp( a
n
n
,
) ,= tp(a
n
n+1
,
) hence tp( a
n
,
) ,= tp( a
n+1
,
).
So any convex equivalence relation on as required (i.e. such that E
tp( a
) = tp( a
.
(b)
(c)
Trivial.
(c)
(a)
Let a
t
: t I) and C exemplify (c)
n+1
indiscernible over C
(f) E
n+1
I
n+1
is a convex equivalence relation with nitely many
classes, each dense (no extreme member) or singleton, if J
is an innite equivalence class of E
n+1
I
n+1
then a
t
: t J) is
n+1
indiscernible over C and
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
30 SAHARON SHELAH
[I
n+1
/E
n+1
[ is minimal under those conditions
(g) E
n+1
(II
n+1
) = E
n
(II
n+1
), so E
n+1
renes E
n
(h) we choose (
n+1
, E
n+1
) such that if possible I
n+1
/E
n+1
has
4 members.
There is no problem to carry the induction as T is dependent (see 2.2(1) below
which says more or see [Sh 715, 3.4+Def 3.3]).
For n > 0, E
n
I
n
is an equivalence relation on I
n
with nitely many equivalence
classes, each convex; so as I is a complete linear order clearly
()
1
for each n > 0 there are t
n
1
<
I
. . . < t
n
k(n)1
from I
n
such that s
1
I
n
s
2
I
n
[s
1
E
n
s
2
(k)(s
1
< t
n
k
s
2
< t
n
k
s
1
> t
n
k
s
2
> t
n
k
)].
As n > 0 E
n
,= E
n1
clearly
()
2
k(n) 2 and [I
n
/E
n
[ = 2k(n) 1
()
3
I
n,
: < k(n) t
n
, t
n
+1
)
I
n
if 0 = then I
n,
= (, t
n
)
I
n
if = k(n) 1 then I
n,
= (t
n
, )
I
n
.
As (see end of clause (f))) we cannot omit any t
n
0
<
I
. . . <
I
s
m1
from I
n,
t
n
+1
I
n,+1
such that C [= [ a
s
0
, . . . , c] [a
s
0
, . . . , c].
Hence easily
()
6
J I
n,
: < k(n) i J is a maximal open interval of I
n
such that
a
t
: t J) is
n
indiscernible over C.
By clause (h) and ()
6
()
7
if k(n) < 4 and < k(n) then a
t
: t I
n,
) is an indiscernible sequence
over C
hence
()
8
if k(n) < 4 then for no m > n do we have I
m
I
n
.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 31
Note that
()
9
m < n I
n
I
m
I
n
I
m
= 0.
Case 1: There is an innite u such that I
n
: n < ) are pairwise disjoint.
For each n we can nd c
n
>
C and k
n
< (no connection to k(n) from above!)
and ( x
0
, . . . , x
k
n
1
, y)
n
such that a
t
: t I
n
) is not
n
( x
0
, . . . , x
k
n
1
, c)
indiscernible (so g( x
) = ). So we can nd t
0
< . . . < t
k
n
1
in I
n
for = 1, 2 such
that [=
n
[ a
t
0
, . . . , a
t
k
n
1
, c
n
]
if(=2)
. By minor changes in
n
,
n
, without loss of generality c
n
is without repetitions hence without loss of generality n < c
n
= c
.
Without loss of generality
n
is closed under negation and without loss of
generality t
1
k
n
1
<
I
t
2
0
. We can choose t
m
k
I
n
(m < , m / 1, 2, k < k
n
)
such that for every m < , k < k
n
we have t
m
k
<
I
t
m
k+1
, t
m
k
n
1
<
I
t
m+1
0
; let
a
n,m
= a
t
m
0
. . . a
t
m
k
n
1
and let x = x
i
: i < g( c
n,(n)
, x)
n
( a
n,(n)+1
, x) : n < is consistent. This is enough for
showing
ict
(T) >
0
.
Case 2: There is an innite u such that I
n
: n u) is decreasing.
For each n u, E
n
I
n
has an innite equivalence class J
n
(so J
n
I
n
) such
that n < m n, m u I
m
J
n
. By ()
8
clearly for each n u, k(n) 4
hence we can nd (n) < k(n) such that I
n
= (I
n,(n)
t
n
,n
I
n,(n)+1
) is disjoint
to J
m
. Now I
n
: n u) are pairwise disjoint and we continue as in Case 1.
By Ramsey theorem at least one of the two cases occurs so we are done.
2) By induction on [C[.
3),4) Easy by now.
2.1
Recall
2.2 Observation. 1) Assume that T is dependent, a
t
: t I) is an indiscernible
sequence, a nite set of formulas, C C nite. Then for some convex equivalence
relation E on I with nitely many equivalence classes, each equivalence class in an
innite open convex set or is a singleton such that for every s I, a
t
: t s/E) is
an indiscernible sequence over a
t
: t I(s/E) C.
2) If I is dense and complete there is the least ne such E. In fact for J an open
convex subset of I we have: J is an Eequivalence class i J is a maximal open
convex subset of I such that a
t
: t J) is indiscernible over C a
t
: t IJ.
3) Assume if I is dense (no extreme elements) and complete then there are t
1
<
I
. . . < t
k1
such that stipulating t
0
= , t
k
= , I
= (t
, t
+1
)
I
, we have
(a) a
t
: t I
) is indiscernible over C
(b) if 1, . . . , k 1) and t
<
I
t
<
I
t
+
, then a
t
: t (t
, t
+
)
I
) is not
indiscernible over C.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
32 SAHARON SHELAH
Proof. 1) See clause (b) of [Sh 715, Claim 3.2].
2),3) Done inside the proof of 2.1 and see proof of 2.10.
2.2
2.3 Denition. 1) We say that =
i
( x, y
i
) : i < ) witness <
ict,2
(T) when
there are a sequence a
i,
: < , i < ) and
b
i
: i < ) such that
(a) a
i,
: < ) is an indiscernible sequence over a
j,
: j i and
< for each i <
(b)
b
i
a
j,
: j < i, <
(c) p =
i
( x, a
i,0
b
i
),
i
( x, a
i,1
b
i
) : i < is consistent (= nitely satisable
in C).
2)
ict,2
(T) is the rst such that there is no witness for <
ict,2
(T).
3) T is strongly
2
dependent (or strongly
+
dependent) if
ict,2
(T) =
0
.
4) T is strongly
2
stable if it is strongly
2
dependent and stable.
2.4 Observation. If M is a valued eld in the sense of Denition and [
M
[ > 1 then
T := Th(M) is not strongly
2
dependent.
Proof. Let a
M
be positive,
0
(x, a) := (val(x) a), E(x, y, a) := ( val(x, y)
2a) and F(x, y) = x
2
+ y (squaring in K
M
). Now for b
0
(M, a), the funciton
F(, b) is ( 2)to1 function from
0
(M, a) to b/E. So we can apply [Sh 783, 4].
Alternatively let a
n
M
, a
n
<
M a
n+1
for n < be such that there are
b
n,
K
M
for < such that < < val
M
(b
n,
b
n,
) > a
n
a
n
and
val(b
n
, ). Without loss of generality for eac n < the sequence b
n,
: < ) is
indiscernible over b
n
1
,
1
: n
1
n, < a
n
1
: n
1
< . Now for
clearly p
= val(x a
m,(m)
: m < n) > a
n
: n < , it is consistent, and we
have an example.
2.4
Note that the denition of strongly
2
dependent here (in 2.3) is equivalent to the
one in [Sh 783, 3.7](1) by (a) (e) of Claim 2.9 below.
The following example shows that there is a dierence even among the stable T.
2.5 Example: There is a strongly
1
stable not strongly
2
stable T (see Denition 2.3).
Proof. Fix large enough. Let F be a eld, let V be a vector space over F of
innite dimension, let V
n
: n < ) be a decreasing sequence of subspaces of V with
V
n
/V
n+1
having innite dimension and V
0
= V and V
= V
n
: n < have
dimension . Let x
n
+ V
n+1
: < ) be a basis of V
n
/V
n+1
and let x
,i
: i Z
and < ) be a basis of V
. Let M = M
) = x
n+1
, F
M
1
(x
,i
) =
x
,i+1
(e) F
M
2
, a linear unary function:
F
M
2
(x
0
) = x
0
, F
M
2
(x
n+1
) = x
n
and F
M
2
(x
,i
) = x
,i1
(f) predicates: P
M
n
= V
n
so P
n
unary
Now
()
0
for any models M
1
, M
2
of Th(M
) with uncountable P
M
n
: n < for
= 1, 2, the set F exemplify M
1
, M
2
are '
,
0
equivalent where:
F is the family of partial isomorphisms f from M
1
into M
2
such that
for some n, N
i
: > 0, i = ) we have:
(a) Dom(f) =
i<n
N
i
N
(b) N
i
P
M
1
i
is a subspace when i < n i =
(c) N
i
is of nite dimension
(d) N
i
P
M
1
i+1
= 0 for i < n
(e) similar conditions on N
i
= f(N
i
) for i < n i =
()
1
T = Th(M
0
by ()
2
.]
Now
()
4
T is not strongly
2
dependent.
[Why? By 0.1. Alternatively, dene a term
n
(y) by induction on n :
0
(y) = y,
n+1
(y) = F
1
(
n
(y)), and for
increasing let
p
(y) = P
1
(y
0
(x
0
(0))
), P
2
(y
0
(x
0
(0)
)
1
(x
1
(1)
)), . . . ,
P
n
(y
(x
()
) : < n), . . . .
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
34 SAHARON SHELAH
Clearly each p
is nitely satisable in M
)
+
be large enough and =
0
.
We shall prove
ict
(T) =
0
by the variant of (b)
) . By 1.10
without loss of generality each a
1
for some a
n
(n Z), A c(A
i
: i Z) and a
n
: n < 0) a
: <
) a
n
: n 0) is an indiscernible sequence over A
and a
: < )A) is
linearly independent over A
, A is the universe of N, N is
1
saturated and
N N
is
1
saturated (and does not depend on )
Hence by ()
0
2
(a) ,= a
,i
= a
,j
a
,i
= a
,i
A
(b) if u then cl( a
: u A) is C
(c) if u is nite we get an
1
saturated model (not really used).
(We can use the stronger 2.1(4)). Easily
3
if a N
, b c(N
: < A) then:
(a) a = b a A
(b) a b P
C
n
(c A)(a c P
C
n
b c P
C
n
).
[Why? Let b =
C
( a
0
, . . . , a
m1
, a), a
>
A, a term,
0
<
1
< . . . <
m1
, c
>
A, then for every k < large enough b
:=
C
(a
k
, a
k+1
, . . . , a
k+m1
, a) belongs
to A and in Case (a): a = b a = b
P
C
n
.]
4
if a
c(N
: u
A) and u
for = 1, 2 then:
(a) if a
1
= a
2
then for some b c(N
: u
1
u
2
A) we have
a
1
b = a
2
b A
(b) if a
1
a
2
P
C
n
then for some b c(N
: u
1
u
2
A) and
c A we have a
2
b c P
C
n
and a
2
b c P
C
n
.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 35
[Why? Similarly to
2
.]
Now let c C, the proof splits to cases.
Case 1: c c( a
: < A).
So for some nite u , c c( a
: u), easily a
: u) is an
indiscernible set over A c, and we are done.
Case 2: For some nite u , for every n for some c
n
c( a
: u A) we
have c c
n
P
M
n
(but not case 1).
Clearly u is as required. (In fact, easily c( a
: u A) is
1
saturated
(as u is nite, by
2
(c)) hence there is c
c(a
: u A) such that
n < c
c
n
P
M
n
.
Case 3: Neither case 1 nor case 2 (less is needed).
Let n(1) < be maximal such that for some c
n(1)
A we have c c
n(1)
P
M
n(1)
(for n = 0 every c
: u A), now u is as
required (by
3
+
4
above).
Subcase 3B: Not subcase 3A.
Choose u = works because neither case 1, nor case 2 hold with u = .
2.5
2.6 Remark. We can prove a claim parallel to 1.11, i.e. replacing strong dependent
by strongly
2
dependent.
2.7 Claim. 1)
ict,2
(T
eq
) =
ict,2
(T).
2) If T
= Th(M
) for = 1, 2 then
ict,2
(T
1
)
ict,2
(T
2
) when:
() M
1
is (rst order) interpretable in M
2
.
3) If T
= Th(C, c)
cA
then
ict,2
(T
) =
ict,2
(T).
4) If M is the disjoint sum of M
1
, M
2
(or the product) and Th(M
1
), Th(M
2
) are
strongly
2
dependent then so is Th(M).
Proof. Similar to 1.11.
2.7
Now
ict
(T) is very close to being equal to
ict,2
(T).
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
36 SAHARON SHELAH
2.8 Claim. 1) If =
ict,2
(T) ,=
ict
(T) then:
(a)
ict,2
(T) =
1
ict
(T) =
0
(b) there is an indiscernible sequence a
t
: t I) with a
t
C and c C, I is
dense complete for clarity such that
() for no nite u I do we have: if J is a convex subset of I disjoint to
u then a
t
: t J) is indiscernible over a
t
: t IJ c.
2) If T is strongly
+
dependent then T is strongly dependent.
3) In the denition of
ict,2
(T), without loss of generality m = 1.
Proof. 1) We use Observation 1.5. Obviously
ict
(T)
ict,2
(T), the rest is proved
together with 2.10 below.
2) Easy.
3) Similar to the proof of 1.7 or better to use 2.10(1),(2).
2.8
2.9 Claim. The following conditions on T are equivalent:
(a)
ict,2
(T) >
0
(b) we can nd A and an indiscernible sequence a
t
: t I) over A satisfying
a
t
C and t
n
I increasing with n and c
>
C such that for every n
t
n
<
I
t tp( a
t
n
, A c a
t
m
: m < n) ,= tp( a
t
, A c a
t
m
: m < n)
(c) similarly to (b) but t
n
<
I
t tp( a
t
m
, A c a
s
: s <
I
t
n
) ,= tp(a
t
, A
c a
s
: s <
I
t
n
)
(d) we can nd A and a sequence a
n
t
: t I
n
), I
n
an innite order such that
a
n
t
: t I
n
) is indiscernible over A a
m
t
: m ,= n, m < , t I
n
: < , n < )
such that: for every
the set p
=
n
( x, a
n
, a
n1
(n1)
, . . . , a
9
(0)
)
if(=(n))
:
n < , < is consistent.
Proof. Should be clear from the proof of 2.1 (more 2.3).
2.9
2.10 Observation. 1) For any and we have (d) (c)
(b)
(a); if
in addition we assume (
0
=
ict
(T) < =
1
=
ict,2
(T)) then we have also
(c)
(b)
if a
t
: t I) is an indiscernible sequence, I a linear order, a
t
C and
C C is nite then for some set P of < initial segments of I we have:
() if s, t I and (J P)(s J t J) then a
s
, a
t
realizes the same
type over C (if I is complete this means: for some J I of cardinality
< , if s, t I realizes the same quantier free type over J in I then
a
s
, a
t
realizes the same type over C)
(c)
J = t
k
J] then
a
s
0
. . . a
t
n1
and a
t
0
. . . a
t
n1
realize the same type over C
(d)
ict,2
(T).
2) We can in clause (b)
, (c)
is nonempty.
Without loss of generality g( a
0
C be a
0
a
1
. . . a
were a
has length
<
g( a
i
. Let c realize p =
i
( x, a
2i
)
i
( x, a
2i+1
) : i < .
Easily c (or pedantically Rang( c)) and a
.
(a) (b)
.
If =
0
, this holds by 2.1(1); in general, this holds by the proof of 2.1(1) and
this is why there we use .
(b)
(c)
Obvious.
(a) (d)
The witness for (a) is a witness for (d).
(d) (c)
Let
i
( x, y
i
) : i < ) witness (d), i.e., witness <
ict,2
(T), so there are a
i,
:
< , i < ) and
b
i
: i < ) satisfying clauses (a),(b),(c) of Denition 2.3. By
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
38 SAHARON SHELAH
Observation 1.10 we can nd an indiscernible sequence a
: < ), g( a
) =
where
j
:= g( y
i
) : i < j such that i < < a
i
[
i
,
i+1
) = a
i
. Now
a
then easily
(i < )(J P)(J [i, i + ] / , [i, i + , hence [P[ . Now clearly
b
i
: < ) which
together with c exemplify (c)
.
It is enough to prove
() assume (c)
then
(i) (d)
(ii) (a) except possibly when (a) + (b) of 2.8(1) holds, in particular
0
=
ict
(T) < =
1
=
ict,2
(T).
Toward this we can assume that
T is dependent and C, a
t
: t I) form a witness to (c)
.
Let c list C without repetitions and without loss of generality I is a dense complete
linear order (so with no extreme elements). Let g( x
0
<
I
. . . <
I
s
m(i)1
and s
0
<
I
. . . <
I
s
m(i)1
and s
, s
0
, . . . , a
s
m(i)1
, c]
i
[ a
s
0
, . . . , a
s
m(i)1
c].
For each i < [T[, for each 1, . . . , m(i) we can choose
,i
and nd w
i,
such
that
()
2
(a) w
i,
It
i,
(b) w
i,
is nite
(c) if s
1
< t
i,(i)
< s
2
then a
t
: t (s
1
, s
2
)
I
) is not
i
indiscernible
over C a
t
: t w
i
.
If the set t
i,k
: i < [T[, k = 1, . . . , m(i) 1 has cardinality < we are done, so
assume that
()
3
t
i,
: i < [T[ and [1, m(i)] has cardinality .
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 39
Case 1: >
0
(so we have to prove (a)).
By Hajnal free subset theorem and by ()
3
there is u
0
[T[ of order type such
that i u
0
t
i,
: = 1, . . . , m(i)1 _ t
j,
: j u
0
i and = 1, . . . , m(j)1.
There are u u
w
i,(i)
: i u. We shall now prove <
ict
(T), this gives (a), (d)
so it suces.
Clearly by 1.5 it suces to show ( any cardinality
0
)
u
there are a
i
C for i u, < and set A such that
(a) a
i
: j u, j ,= i, <
A
(b) a
i
: < ) is not
i
indiscernible over A c.
By compactness it suces to prove
v
for any nite v u and =
0
; also we can
replace by any innite linear order.
We can nd (s
1,i
, s
2,i
) : i v) such that
()
4
s
1,i
<
I
t
i,(i)
<
I
s
2,i
(for i v)
()
5
(s
1,i
, s
2,i
)
I
is disjoint to (s
1,j
, s
2,j
) : j vi
w
j,(j)
v.
So
_
a
j
t
: t (s
1,j
, s
2,j
)
I
) : j v
_
and choosing A = a
t
: t w
i,(i)
, i v are as
required above. So we are done.
Case 2: =
0
so we have to prove (d) and clause (ii) of () and (for proving
part (2) of the present 2.10) that without loss of generality [C[ = 1.
We can nd A and u
1
(a) A C
(b) u I is nite
(c) if n < and t
0
<
I
. . . <
I
t
n1
for = 1, 2 and
(k < n)(s u)(t
1
k
= s t
2
k
= s t
1
k
<
I
s t
2
k
<
I
s) then
a
t
1
0
. . . a
t
1
n1
, a
t
2
0
. . . a
t
2
n1
realize the same type over A
(d) if A
, u
[ [A[.
This is possible because C is nite and the empty set satises clauses (a),(b),(c)
for A by our present assumption A ,= C, so let c CA. Now we try to choose
(i
k
,
k
, w
k
) by induction on k <
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
40 SAHARON SHELAH
(a) i
k
<
(b) 1
k
m(i) 1
(c) t
i
k
,
k
I
(d) w
k
u w
0
. . . w
k1
t
i
0
,k
0
, . . . , t
i
k1
,
k1
(e) w
k
It
i
k
,
k
is nite
(f) if s
<
I
t
i
k
,
k
<
I
s
then a
t
: t (s
, s
)
I
) is not indiscernible over
a
s
: s w
k
c.
If we are stuck in k then w
k1
[I]
<
0
when k > 0, u when k = 0 show that a
t
:
t I), A c contradict the choice of A and so witness (c)
. If we succeed then
we prove as in Case 1 that
ict
(Th(C, a)
aA
) >
0
so by 1.4 we get
ict
(T) >
0
.
2.10
2.11 Conclusion. T is strongly
2
dependent by Denition 2.3 i T is strongly
2
dependent by [Sh 783, 3,3.7] which means we say T is strongly
2
(or strongly
+
)
dependent when: if a
t
: t I) is an indiscernible sequence over A, t I
g( a
t
) = and
b
>
(C) then we can divide I to nitely many convex sets
I
) is an indiscernible
sequence over a
s
: s II
b.
Discussion: Now we dene T is strongly
2,
dependent, parallely to 1.8, 1.9 from
the end of 1.
2.12 Denition. 1)
icu,2
(T) is the minimal such that for no m < and =
i
( x
i
, y
i
) : i < ) with g( x
i
) = m n
i
can we nd a
i
g( y
i
)
C for < , i <
and c
,n
m
C for
such that:
(a) c
,n
: n < ) is an indiscernible sequence over a
i
: < , i <
(b) for each
and i < we have C [=
i
( c
,0
. . . c
,n
i
1
, a
i
)
if(=(i))
.
2) If is as in (1) then we say that it witnesses <
icu,2
(T).
3) T is strongly
1,
dependent if
jcu
(T) =
0
.
2.13 Claim. 1)
icu,2
(T)
ict,2
(T).
2) If cf() >
0
then
icu,2
(T) >
ict,2
(T) > .
3) The parallel of 1.4, 1.5, 1.7(2) holds.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 41
3 Ranks
(3A) Rank for strongly dependent T
3.1 Explanation/Thesis:
(a) For stable theories we normally consider not just a model M (and say a
type in it, but all its elementary extensions; we analyze them together
(b) for dependent theories we should be more liberal, allowing to replace M by
N
[a]
when M N N
1
, a
g( a)
(N
1
), (N
[ a]
is the sum of N by restrictions
of relation in N
1
denable with parameters from a
(c) this motivates some of the ranks below).
Such ranks relate to strongly
1
dependent, they have relatives for strongly
2
depen
dent.
Note that we can represent the x K
,m
(and ranks) close to [Sh 783, 1]
particularly = 9.
3.2 Denition. 1) Let M
0
A
M
1
for M
0
, M
1
C and A C means that:
(a) M
0
M
1
(equivalently M
0
M
1
)
(b) for every
b M
1
, the type tp(
b, M
0
A) is f.g. (= nitely satisable) in
M
0
.
2) Let M
0
A,p
M
1
for M
0
, M
1
C, A C and p S
<
(M
1
A) or just p is a
(< )type over M
1
A means that
(a) M
0
M
1
(b) if
b M
1
, c M
0
, a
1
A, a
2
A, C [=
1
[
b, a
1
, c] and
2
( x,
b, a
2
, c) p or
is just a (nite) conjunction of members of p (e.g. empty) then for some
M
0
we have C [=
1
[
1
, a
1
, c] and
2
( x,
, a
2
, c) p or just is a nite
conjunction of members of p.
3.3 Observation. 1) M
0
A,p
M
1
implies M
0
A
M
1
.
2) If p = tp(
b, M
1
A) S
m
(M
1
A) then M
0
A,p
M
1
i M
1
A
b
M
2
.
3) If M
0
A
M
1
A
M
2
then M
0
A
M
2
.
4) If M
0
A,p(M
1
A)
M
1
A,p
M
2
then M
0
A,p
M
2
.
5) If the sequences M
1,
: ), A
M
1,
for < then M
0
A
M
1,
. Similarly using <
A
,p
.
6) If M
1
M
2
and p is an mtype over M
1
A then M
1
A
M
2
M
1
A,p
M
2
.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
42 SAHARON SHELAH
Proof. Easy.
3.4 Discussion: 1) Note that the ranks dened below are related to [Sh 783, 1].
An alternative presentation (for 3, 6, 9, 12) is that we dene M
A
as (M, a)
aA
and T
A
= Th(C, a)
aA
and we consider p S(M
A
) and in the denition of ranks
to extend A and p we use appropriate q S(N
B
), M
A
N
A
, A B. Originally we
prsent here many variants, but now we present only two ( = 8, 9), retaining the
others in (5A).
2) We may change the denition, each time retaining from p only one formula with
little change in the claims.
3) We can dene x K
,m
such that it has also N
x
where M
x
N
x
( C
T
) and:
(A) change the denition of x
at
y to:
(a) N
y
N
x
(b) A
x
A
y
A
x
N
x
(c) M
x
M
y
N
x
(d) p
y
p
x
(B) change y explicitly
split strongly over x according to and replacing in
(e), (e)
p
x
by p
x
(C) dprk
m
,
is changed accordingly.
So now dprk
m
may be any ordinal so 3.7 may fail, but the result in 3 becomes
stronger covering also some model of nonstrongly dependent.
3.5 Denition. 1) For = 8, 9 let
K
m,
=
_
x :x = (p, M, A), M a model C
T
, A C
T
,
p S
m
(M A) and if = 9 then
p is nitely satisable in M
_
.
If m = 1 we may omit it.
For x K
m,
let x = (p
x
, M
x
, A
x
) = (p[x], M[x], A[x]) and m = m(x) recalling p
x
is an mtype.
2) For x K
m,
let N
x
be M
x
expanded by R
( x, y, a)
=
b
g( y)
M : ( x,
b, a) p
for ( x, y, z) '(
T
), a
g( z)
A and R
( y, a)
=
b
g( y)
M : C [= [
b, a] for
( y, z) '(
T
), a
g( y)
C; let
x
=
N
x
.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 43
2A) In part (1) and (2): if we omit p we mean p = tp(<>, MA) so we can write
N
A
, a
A
model so in this case p = (
b, a) :
b M, a M and C [= [
b, a].
3) For x, y K
m,
let
() x
pr
y means that x, y K
m,
and
(a) A
x
= A
y
(b) M
x
A[x]
M
y
(c) p
x
p
y
(d) M
x
A[x],p[y]
M
y
() x
at
x
k+1
for k < n and
(x, y) = (x
0
, x
n
)
where
() x
at
y i (x, y K
m,
and) for some x
K
m,
we have
(a) x
pr
x
(b) A
x
A
y
A
x
M
x
(c) M
y
M
x
(d) p
y
p
x
(A
x
M
y
) so 1, 4 p
y
= p
x
M
y
and p
y
= p
x
(M
y
A
y
).
4) For x, y K
m,
we say that y explicitly
splits strongly over x when:
=
(
1
,
2
),
1
,
2
'(
T
) and for some x
and ( x, y)
2
we have clauses
(a),(b),(c),(d) of part (3)() and
(e) there are a such that
() a = a
i
: i < + 1) is
1
indiscernible over A
x
M
y
() A
y
A
x
= a
i
: i < ; yes not + 1! (note that A
y
A
x
= and
not A
y
A
x
as we use it in (e)() in the proof of 3.7)
() a
i
M
x
b) ( x, a
b) belongs to p
x
for k < .
5) We dene dprk
m
,
: K
m,
Ord by
(a) dprk
m
,
(x) 0 always
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
44 SAHARON SHELAH
(b) dprk
m
,
(x) +1 i there is y K
m,
which explicitly
splits strongly
over x and dprk
,
(y)
(c) dprk
m
,
(x) i dprk
m
,
(x) for every < when is a limit ordinal.
Clearly well dened. We may omit m from dprk as x determines it.
6) Let dprk
m
,
(T) = dprk
,
(x) : x K
m,
; if m = 1 we may omit it.
7) If
1
=
2
= we may write instead of (
1
,
2
). If = '(
T
) then we
may omit it.
Remark. There are obvious monotonicity and inequalities.
3.6 Observation. 1)
pr
is a partial order on K
.
2) K
m,9
K
m,8
.
3) x
8
pr
y x
9
pr
y.
4) x
8
at
y x
9
at
y.
5) y explicitly
splits 8strongly over x i y explicitly
splits 9strongly over x.
6) If x K
m,9
then dprk
m
,9
(x) dprk
m
,8
(x).
7) If a
m
C and y = (tp( a, M A), M, A) and x = (tp( a, M A), M, A) then
x K
m,8
.
8) In part (7) if tp( a, M A) is nitely satisable in M then also y K
m,9
.
9) If x K
m,
and >
0
then there is y K
m,
such that x
pr
y and
M
y
is saturated, moreover M
y
A[y],p[y]
is saturated (hence in Denition 3.2(4)
without loss of generality M
x
is ([M
x
A
x
[
+
)saturated).
Proof. Easy.
3.7 Claim. 1) For each = 8, 9 we have dprk
(T) = i dprk
(T) [T[
+
i
ict
(T) >
0
.
2) For each m [1, ), similarly using dprk
m
ict
(T) >
0
implies dprk
(T) =
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 45
By the assumption there is a sequence =
n
(x, y
n
) : n < ) exemplifying
0
<
ict
(T). Let >
0
and I be Z ordered lexicographically and let I
=
Z and I
=
n
(x, a
n
t
)
if((n)=t)
: n < , t I is
consistent (i.e., nitely satisable in C).
Choose a complete T
1
T with Skolem functions and M
[= T
1
expanding C be
such that in it a
n
n
be the Skolem hull in M
of a
m
t
: m < n, t I
1
a
m
t
: m [n, ) and
t I and let M
n
= M
n
(T). So we have M
n
C which includes a
m
t
: t
I, m [n, ) such that M
n+1
M
n
and a
n
t
: t I
2
) is an indiscernible sequence
over M
n+1
a
m
t
: m < n, t I hence a
n
t
: t I
2
) is an indiscernible sequence
over M
n+1
A
m
; the indiscernibility holds even in M
where A
n
= a
m
t
: m < n
and t I
1
. We delay the case = 9. Let
I be chosen as: (2, i) : i < ). Let
p S(M
0
) be such that it includes p
.
Lastly, let x
n
= x
n
= (p
n
, M
n
, A
n
) where p
n
= p (A
n
M
n
). By 3.6(7) clearly
x
n
K
.
It is enough to show that dprk
(x
n
) < dprk
(x
n
) > dprk
(x
n+1
) as by
the ordinals being well ordered this implies that dprk
(x
n
) = for every n. By
Denition 3.5(5) clause (b) it is enough to show (xing n < ) that x
n+1
explicitly
split strongly over x
n
using a
n
(1,i)
: i < ) a
n
(2,n)
). To show this, see Denition
3.5(4) we use x
n
:= x
n
, clearly x
n
pr
x
n
as x
n
= x
n
K
n
as A
x
n+1
= A
x
n
a
n
t
: t I
1
and
a
n
t
: t I
1
M
x
n
so clause (b) of Denition 3.5(3)() holds. Also M
x
n+1
M
x
n
and p
x
n+1
p
x
n
(A
x
n
M
x
n+1
) holds trivially so also clause (c),(d) of Denition
3.5(3)() holds.
Lastly,
n
(x, a
n
(1,i)
) for i < ,
n
(x, a
(2,n)
) belongs to p
hence to p
x
n+1
hence
by renaming also clause (e) from Denition 3.5(4) holds. So we are done.
We are left with the case = 9. For the proof above to work we need just that
p( S(M
0
)) satises n < p (M
n
A
n
) is nitely satisable in M
n
. Toward this
without loss of generality for each n there is a function symbol F
n
(M
) such
that: if
n
I then c
:= F
M
n
( a
0
(0)
, . . . , a
n1
(n1)
) realizes
m
(x, a
m
t
)
if(t=(m))
:
m < n and < , so F
n
has arity g(y
m
) : m < n.
Let D be a uniform ultralter on and let c
C realize p
= (x,
b) :
b
M
0
, (x, y) '(
M
) and n : C [= (c
n
,
b) D, so clearly p = tp(c
, M
0
, C)
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
46 SAHARON SHELAH
S(M
0
) extends
n
(x, a
m
t
)
if(t=(n))
: n < and t I. So we have just to check
that p
n
= p (A
n
M
n
) is nitely satisable in M
n
, so let ( x,
b) p
n
, so we
can nd k() < ( Z) such that
b is included in the Skolem hull M
n,k()
of
a
m
(1,a)
: m < n and a Z a < k() a
m
t
: m [n, ), t I inside M
.
Let
be dened by
(m) = (m) for m [n, )
(m) = (1, k() n +m) for m < n.
By the indiscernibility:
()
1
for every n, C [= (c
n
,
b) (c
n
,
b)
and by the choice of p
()
2
n : C [= (c
n
,
(T) [T[
+
:
Trivial.
dprk
(T) [T[
+
ict
(T) >
0
:
We choose by induction on n sequences
n
and x
n
: < [T[
+
), a
n
: < [T[
+
)
such that:
n
(a)
n
=
m
(x, y
m
) : m < n); that is
n
=
n
m
(x, y
n
m
) : m < n) and
n
m
(x, y
n
m
) =
n+1
m
(x, y
m+1
m
) for m < n so we call it
m
(x, y
m
)
(b) x
n
and dprk
(x
n
)
(c) a
n
= a
n,m
,k
: k < , m < n) where the sequence a
n,m
,k
is from A
x
n
.
(d) for each < [T[
+
and m < n the sequence a
n,m
,k
: k < ) is
indiscernible over a
n,i
,k
: i < n, i ,= m, k < M
x
n
A
n
(e) we have
b
n,m
A
x
n
= a
n,i
,k
: i < m, k < A
n
b
n,m
a
n,i
,k
: i < m, k < (i) A
n
then (p
x
n
M
x
n
)
m
( a
n,m
,(m)
,
b
n,m
)
m
( x, a
n,m
,(m)+1
,
b
n,m
) :
m < n is nitely satisable in C.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 47
For n = 0 this is trivial by the assumption rkdp
(T) [T[
+
see Denition 3.5(6)
(and 3.5(7)).
For n + 1, for every < [T[
+
, (as rkdp
(x
n
+1
) > by Denition 3.5(5)) we
can nd z
n
, y
n
,
n
(x, y
n
), a
n,
,k
: k < ) such that Denition 3.5(4) is satised with
(x
n
+1
, z
n
, y
n
,
n
(x, y
), a
n,
,k
: k < )) here standing for (x, x
, y, (x, y), a
k
: k <
)) there such that rkdp
(y
n
b
n,
(x, y
n
) =
n
(x, y
n
) is unbounded in [T[
+
, so
n+1
is well dened so clause (a) of
n+1
holds.
For < [T[
+
let
n
() = Min(S
n
) and let x
n+1
= y
n
()
so clause (b) of
n+1
holds. Let a
n+1,m
,k
: k < ) be a
n,m
()+1,k
: k < ) if m < n and a
n,
(),k
: k < )
if m = n and let A
n+1
= A
n
()
, so clauses (c) + (d) from
n+1
holds. Also we let
b
n+1,m
is
b
n,m
()
if m < n and is
b
n,
()
if m = n. Next we check clause (e) of
n+1
.
Let
n+1
be as required in subclause () of clause (e) of
n+1
. By the in
duction hypothesis (p
x
n
+1
M
x
n
+1
)(x, a
n,m
,(m)
),
b
n,m
)(x, a
n,m
,(m)+1
,
b
n,m
) :
m < n is nitely satisable in C.
By clause (d) of 3.5(3)() it follows that (p
z
n
M
z
n
) (x, a
n,m
+1,(m)
), b
n,m
)
(x, a
n,m
+1,(m)+1
) : m < is nitely satisable in C (i.e. we use M
x
n
+1
A[z
n
],p[z
n
]M[z
n
]
M
z
n
(M
y
n
a
n+1,m
,k
: k (n) or k = A
n
+1
)( x, a
n+1,m
,(m)
,
b
m,n
)(x, a
n+1,m
,(m)+1
;
b
n,m
) :
m < n is nitely satisable in C.
Similarly (p
z
n
(M
y
n
)(x, a
n+1,m
,(n)
,
b
n+1,n
)(x, a
n+1,n
,
)(x, a
n+1,n
,(m)
,
b
n+1,m
)
(x, a
n+1,m
,(m+1)
,
b
n+1,m
m<n
((x, a
n,m
0
) (x, a
n,m
1
)].
We choose a
n,m
k
= a
n,m
,k()+k
b
n,m
b
n,m
:
m < n a
n,m
,k
: m < n and k < k() and let = 0; clearly we are done.
3.7
3.9 Observation. 1) If x K
and [T[ + [A
x
[ < M
x
 then for some M
0
M
x
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
48 SAHARON SHELAH
we have M
0
 = and for every y
pr
x satisfying M
0
M
y
we have dprk
(y) =
dprk
(x).
1A) If dprk
(T), (with (2
T
)
+
this is
easier).
1B) If dprk
,
(x) < then it is < [
1
2
[
+
+
0
.
2) If x
pr
y then dprk
(x) dprk
(y).
3) If x
pr
y and z explicitly splits strongly over y then z explicitly splits strongly
over x.
4) The previous parts hold for m > 1, too.
Proof. 1) We do not need a really close look at the rank for this. First, x an
ordinal .
We can choose a vocabulary
,,m
of cardinality [A[ +[[ +[T[ such that:
1
for any set A xing a sequence a = a
: < ), M
A,p
or more exactly M
a,p
is a
,,m
model;
we let
2
(a) ds() = : a decreasing sequence of ordinals <
(b)
: an ordinal
(c) for u
let
m
u
= : has the form
n
( x, y
) : u) where
x = x
: < m),
( x, y
n
) '(
T
) and
3
there are functions
,m
for m < , an ordinal, satisfying
(a) if u
, Ord and
m
u
, then
,m
(u) is a set of rst order
sentences
(b)
,m
(u) is a set of rst order sentences
(c) if x K
m,
and a = a
: < ) list A
x
then dprk
(x) i
Th(M
a,p[x]
)
,m
( ) is consistent for some
m
ds()
(d) if ,
are isomorphic (see below) then
,m
( ) is consistent i
,m
(
)
is;
where
4
=
n
( x, y
) : u),
=
( x, z
( x, y
) =
h()
( x, z
h()
) for
u.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 49
[Why
3
? just reects on the denition.]
Now if = dprk
(x).
1A) Now the proof is similar to the third part of the proof of 3.7(1) and is standard.
We choose by induction on n a formula
n
( x, y
n
) < [T[
+
for some decreasing
sequence
m,
of ordinals > of length n, we have
n,
(
n
) is consistent with Th(M
x
n
a[x
n
],p[x
n
]
) where Dom(
n,
) =
n,
:
n and
n,
n,
( x, y
n,
n,
) =
( x, y
) for < n.
The induction should be clear and clearly is enough.
1B) Similarly.
2) We prove by induction on the ordinal that dprk
(y) dprk
(x) .
For = 0 this is trivial and for a limit ordinal this is obvious. For successor
order let = + 1 so there is z K
we are done.
3) Easy as
pr
is transitive.
4) Similarly.
3.9
(3B) Ranks for strongly
+
dependent T:
We now deal with a relative of Denition 3.5 relevant for strongly
+
dependent.
3.10 Denition. 1) For 14, 15 we dene K
m,
= K
m,6
(and if m = 1 we
may omit it and
pr
=
6
pr
,
at
=
6
at
,
=
6
.
2) For x, y K
m,
we say that y explicitly
split strongly over x when:
=
(
1
,
2
),
1
,
2
'(
T
) and for some x
and ( x, y)
2
with g( x) = m we
have clauses (a),(b),(c),(d) of clause () of Denition 3.5(3) and
(e)
there are
b, a such that
() a = a
i
: i < ) is
1
indiscernible over A
x
M
y
() A
y
A
x
a
i
: i <
()
b A
x
and a
i
M
x
for i <
() ( x, a
0
b) ( x, a
1
b) p
x
.
3) dprk
m
(T) = dprk
(x) + 1 : x K
.
4) If
1
= =
2
we may write instead of
and if = '(
T
) we may omit
. Lastly, if m = 1 we may omit it.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
50 SAHARON SHELAH
Similarly to 3.6.
3.11 Observation. 1) If x, y K
15
then y explicitly
split 15strongly over x i
y explicitly
split 14strongly over x.
2) If x K
m,15
then dprk
m
,15
(x) dprk
m
,14
(x).
Proof. Easy by the denition.
3.12 Claim. 1) For = 14 we have dprk
(T) = i dprk
(T) [T[
+
i
ict,2
(T) >
0
.
2) For each m [1, ) similarly using dprk
m
(T).
3) The parallel of 3.9 holds (for = 14, 15).
Proof. 1)
ict,2
(T) >
0
implies dprk
(T) = .
As in the proof of 3.7.
dprk
(T) = dprk
(T) [T[
+
for any .
Trivial.
dprk
(T) [T[
+
ict,2
(T).
We repeat the proof of the parallel statement in 3.7, and we choose
b but not
a
n+1,n
,
.
2) By part (1) and 2.8(3).
3) Similar proof.
3.12
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 51
4 Existence of indiscernibles
Now we arrive to our main result.
4.1 Theorem. 1) Assume
(a) 8, 9
(b) > () = dprk
m
= Q
2(()+1)
()
(d) a
C
T
for <
+
, g( a
) = m
(e) A C
T
, [A[ +[T[ .
Then for some u [
+
+
, the sequence a
: u) is an indiscernible sequence
over A.
2) If T is strongly dependent, then for some () < [T[
+
part (1) holds, i.e., if
clauses (c),(d),(e) from there holds then the conclusion there holds.
4.2 Remark. 0) This works for = 14, 15, 17, 18, too, see (5A).
1) A theorem in this direction is natural as small dprk points to denability and
if the relevent types increases with the index and are denable say over the rst
model then it follows that the sequence is indiscernible.
2) The Q
2(+1)
() is more than needed, we can use
+
()
where we dene
=
+ (2
)
+
: < by induction on .
3) We may like to have a onemodel version of this theorem. This will be dealt with
elsewhere.
Proof. Clearly x K
m,
p
x
S
m
(A
x
M
x
) and we shall use clause (e) of
Denition 3.5(4).
By 3.6(6), it is enough to prove this for = 9, but the proof is somewhat simpler
for = 8, so we carry the proof for = 8 but say what more is needed for = 9.
We prove by induction on the ordinal that (note that the M
if the sequence I = a
: <
+
) satises
+
the sequence a
there are , B,
M, p such that
(a) =
2(+1)
()
for every <
(b)
M = M
: <
+
) and M
C
T
is increasing continuous (with )
(c) M
has cardinality
(d) a
m
(M
+1
) for <
+
(e) p
= tp( a
, M
A B)
(f) B C, [B[
0
(g) x
= (p
, M
, A B) belongs to K
m,
and satises dprk
m
(x
) < .
Why is this enough? We apply () for the case = () so =
and we choose
M
is increasing
continuous, a
: < M
.
If = 8 ne; if = 9 it seemed that we have a problem with clause (g). That is
in checking x
K
n,
we have to show that p
is nitely satisable in M
. But
this is not a serious one: in this case note that for some club E of
+
, for every
E the type we have tp(a
, M
. So letting
M
= M
, a
= a
when <
+
,
E and otp(C
) = and similarly
p
= tp( a
, M
, C) we can use (a
, M
, p
) : <
+
) so we are done.
So let us carry the induction; arriving to we let
= Q
2+
(), for <
3; note that
+1
=
and
2
= . Let be large enough and let B
(H (), , <
=
dprk(p
()
, M
()
, A B) and =
1
, hence =
+
. We try by induction on
+
+
+
to choose (N
) such that
(a)
<
AB,p
()
M
()
is increasing continuous with
(c) N
has cardinality
(d) < a
(e) a
realizes p
()
(N
A B)
(f) if p
()
splits over N
AB then p
()
(N
+1
AB) splits over
N
A B
(g) (p
(N
A B), N
, A B) <
pr
(p
()
, M
()
, A B) and they
(have to) have the same dprk
(h) N
A B.
By clause (e) of
clearly [, +
+
) tp( a
, N
A B) does not
split over N
N
+1
it follows that tp( a
, N
+ a
: [
+
, ) A B does not split
over N
+
1
A B. Hence by [Sh:c, I,2] that the sequence a
j
: j [, +
+
)) is
an indiscernible sequence over N
A B so as M
+
+
we are done.
Case 2: For =
+
, p
()
splits over N
A B.
So we can nd (x, y) '(
T
) and
b, c
g( y)
(M
()
AB) realizing the same
type over N
AB and ( x,
b), ( x, c) p
()
. So without loss of generality
b =
d, c = c
d where
d
>
(A B) and
b
, c
m()
(M
()
) for some m(). As
N
<
AB
M
()
(see clause (b) of
)
such that Av(N
A B, D) = tp(
, N
A B) = tp( c
, N
A B).
Without loss of generality
m()
(N
) : ( x,
,
d) p
()
belongs to D,
as otherwise we can replace ,
, c
by , c
.
Let M
= (M
()
)
AB{ a
()
}
and let M
+
C be such that M
()
M
+
and
moreover (M
)
AB{ a
()
}
M
+
AB{ a
()
}
and the latter is
+
saturated. Clearly
letting p
+
= (tp( a
()
, M
+
A B) and x
+
()
= (p
+
()
, M
+
()
, A B) we have
x
()
pr
x
+
()
. Note that < (p
(N
A B), N
, A B)
pr
x
()
.
We can nd
m()
(M
+
) realizes Av(N
A
B
=
b
.
We would like to apply the induction hypothesis to
= dprk(x
()
), so let
(a)
=
(b) a
= a
for <
+
(c) M
= N
(d) p
= tp( a
, N
)
(e) B
= B
: < +
(f) A
= A.
We can apply the induction hypothesis to
, i.e., use ()
for some u
+
of
cardinality
+
the sequence a
: u
: u
has cardinality
+
and the sequence a
: u) is indiscernible
over A so we are done.
But we have to check that the demands from
holds (for
+
)
M
= M
: <
+
), p
= p
: <
+
).
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
54 SAHARON SHELAH
Clause (a): As = Q
2
+1
() clearly for every <
we have =
2(+1)
hence
=
2(+1)
.
Clause (b): By
(b),
M is increasing continuous.
Clause (c): By
(c).
Clause (d): By
(d).
Clause (e): By the choice of p
.
Clause (f): By the choice of B
.
Clause (g): Clearly x
K
m,
, but why do we have dprk(x
) <
? This is
equivalent to dprk(x
) < dprk(x
()
).
Recall x
()
pr
x
+
()
and x
) < dprk(x
()
).
What about the nitely satisable of p
, N
A B
) is nitely satisability in N
.
2) By 3.7, dprk
m
b
g( y)
M : ( x,
b, a) p
for ( x, y, z) '(
T
), a
g( z)
A and = 1, 4 a =<> and R
( y, a)
=
b
g( y)
M : C [= [
b, a] for ( y, z) '(
T
), a
g( y)
C; let
x
=
N
x
.
2A) If we omit p we mean p = tp(<>, M A) so we can write N
A
, a
A
model so
in this case p = (
b, a) :
b M, a M and C [= [
b, a].
3) For x, y K
m,
let
() x
pr
y means that x, y K
m,
and
(a) A
x
= A
y
(b) M
x
A[x]
M
y
(c) p
x
p
y
(d) if = 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 then M
x
A[x],p[y]
M
y
(for = 1 this follows from
clause (b))
() x
at
x
k+1
for k < n and
(x, y) = (x
0
, x
n
)
where
() x
at
y i (x, y K
m,
and) for some x
K
m,
we have
(a) x
pr
x
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
56 SAHARON SHELAH
(b) A
x
A
y
A
x
M
x
(c) M
y
M
x
(d) p
y
p
x
(A
x
M
y
) so 1, 4 p
y
= p
x
M
y
and / 1, 4
p
y
= p
x
(M
y
A
y
).
4) For x, y K
m,
we say that y explicitly
splits strongly over x when:
=
(
1
,
2
),
1
,
2
'(
T
) and for some x
and ( x, y)
2
we have clauses
(a),(b),(c),(d) of part (3)() and
(e) when 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, in A
y
there is a
1
indiscernible sequence a
k
:
k < ) over A
x
M
y
such that a
k
>
(M
x
) and ( x, a
0
), ( x, a
1
) p
x
and a
k
A
y
for k <
(e)
for i < + 1
() ( x, a
k
b) ( x, a
b)) belongs
4
to p
x
for k < .
5) We dene dprk
m
,
: K
m,
Ord by
(a) dprk
m
,
(x) 0 always
(b) dprk
m
,
(x) +1 i there is y K
m,
which explicitly
splits strongly
over x and dprk
,
(y)
(c) dprk
m
,
(x) i dprk
m
,
(x) for every < when is a limit ordinal.
Clearly well dened. We may omit m from dprk as x determines it.
6) Let dprk
m
,
(T) = dprk
,
(x) : x K
m,
; if m = 1 we may omit it.
7) If
1
=
2
= we may write instead of (
1
,
2
). If = '(
T
) then we
may omit it.
8) For x K
m,
let x
[]
= (p
x
M
x
, M
x
, A
x
).
So Observation 3.6 is replaced by
4
this explains why = 7, 10 are missing
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 57
5.2 Observation. 1)
pr
is a partial order on K
.
2) K
m,(1)
K
m,(2)
when (1), (2) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and (1) 1, 4
(2) 1, 4 and (2) 3, 6, 9, 12 (1) 3, 6, 9, 12.
2A) K
m,(1)
x
[]
: x K
m,(2)
when (1) 1, 4, (2) 1, . . . , 6, 8, 9, 11, 12.
2B) In (2A) equality holds if x((1), (2)) (1, 2), (1, 3), (4, 5), (4, 6).
3) x
(1)
pr
y x
(2)
pr
y when ((1), (2)) is as in (2) and (2) 2, 3, 8, 9 (1)
2, 3, 8, 9.
3B) x
(1)
pr
y x
[]
(1)
pr
y
[]
when the pair ((1), (2)) is as in (2B).
4) x
(1)
at
y x
(2)
at
y when ((1), (2)) are as in part (3) (hence (2)).
4B) x
(1)
at
y x
[]
(2)
at
y if ((1), (2)) are as in part (2A).
5) y explicitly
splits (1)strongly over x implies y explicitly
splits (2)strongly
over x when the pair ((1), (2)) is as in parts (2),(3) and (1) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
(2) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
6) Assume ((1), (2)) is as in parts (2),(3),(5). If x K
m,(1)
then dprk
m
,(1)
(x)
dprk
m
,(2)
(x); i.e.,
(1), (2)) (3, 2), (2, 5), (3, 5), (6, 5), (3, 6)(9, 8), (8, 11), (9, 11), (12, 11), (9, 12).
7) Assume a
m
C and y = (tp( a, M A), M, A) and x = (tp( a, M A), M, A).
Then
(a) x
[]
= y
[]
(b) x K
m,1
K
m,4
(c) y K
m,2
K
m,5
K
m,8
K
m,11
(d) if tp( a, MA) is nitely satisable in M then also y K
m,3
K
m,6
K
m,9
K
m,12
.
8) If x K
m,(2)
then dprk
m
(2)
(x
[]
) dprk
m
(2)
(x) when the pair ((1), (2)) is
as in part (2A).
9) If x K
m,
and >
0
then there is y K
m,
such that x
pr
y and
M
y
is saturated, moreover M
y
A[y],p[y]
is saturated (hence in Denition 3.2(4)
without loss of generality M
x
is ([M
x
A
x
[
+
)saturated).
5.3 Claim. In 3.7 we can allow = 1, 2, 5 (in addition to = 8, 9).
Proof. Similar but:
ict
(T) >
0
implies dprk
n
and even p
x
n+1
and if > 7,
n
(x, a
n
(1,n)
) for n < ,
n
(x, a
(2,n)
)
belongs to p
hence to p
x
n+1
hence by renaming also clause (e) or (e)
from
Denition 3.5(4) holds. So we are done.
dprk
(T) [T[
+
ict
(T) >
0
when = 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9
(D) In
n
(e) we use
(E) () if 2, 3, 5, 6 and m < n, k < then
m
(x, a
n,m
,k
) p
x
n
k = 0 hence
m
(x, a
n,m
,k
) p
x
n
k ,= 0 for k < 2
() if = 1 then p
x
n
m
(x, a
n,m
,k
)
if(k=0)
: m < n, k < 2 is
consistent
() if = 8, 9 we also have
b
n,m
A
x
n
= a
n,i
,k
: i < m, k < A
n
b
n,m
a
n,i
,k
: i < m, k < (i) A
n
then
(p
x
n
M
x
n
)
m
( a
n,m
,(m)
,
b
n,m
)
m
( x, a
n,m
,(m)+1
,
b
n,m
) :
m < n is nitely satisable in C.
(F) In checking clause (e) of
n+1
Case = 1: We know that p
x
n
+1
m
(x, a
n,m
,k
)
if(k=0)
: m < n and k <
2 is consistent. As x
n
+1
pr
z
n
:= p
z
n
m
(x, a
n,m
+1,k
)
if(k=0)
: m < n and k < 2 is
consistent. But
n
(x, a
n+1,m
,k
) =
n
(x, a
n,m
+1,k
) q
n+1
n
(x, a
n+1
, m
,k
)
if(k=0)
=
n
(x, a
n,
,k
)
if(k=0)
q
n+1
and p
x
n+1
p
z
n
q
n+1
hence p
x
n+1
(x, a
n,m
,k
)
if(k=0)
: m n and k < 2 being a subset of q
n+1
,(1)
(x) dprk
m
,(2)
(x) when ((1), (2)) is as above.
Proof. Easy by the denition.
5.7 Claim. 1) In 3.12(3) we allow = 17, 18.
2) dprk
(T) [T[
+
ict
(T)
1
we allow = 14, 15, 17, 18.
5.8 Theorem. In 4.1 we can allow
(a) 8, 9, 11, 12 and even 14, 15, 17, 18.
Proof. Similar to 4.1.
5.8
We can try to use ranks as in 3 for T which are just dependent. In this case
it is natural to revise the denition of the rank to make it more nitary, say
in Denition 3.5(4), clause (e),(e)
replace a
k
: k < ) by a nite long enough
sequence.
Meanwhile just note that
5.9 Claim. Let = 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 [and even = 14, 15, 17, 18]. For any nite
'(
T
) we have: for every nite
1
, rk
1
,,
(T) = i for every nite
1
,
rk
1
,,
(T) i some (x, y) has the independence property.
Proof. Similar proof to 3.7, 5.3.
Let a
: < ) M be indiscernible.
Let ( x, a
0
), ( x, a
1
) p exemplify p splits strongly over A
= M
:
< A B so tp( a
0
, A
) = tp( a
1
, A
). Let A
+
= A a
0
a
1
and we nd
u
: <
+
1
as required
() there is N
+
M, N
 such that N
N M dprk(A, p
(N
A), N
) = dprk(A, p, M).
5.9
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
60 SAHARON SHELAH
5.10 Question: 1) Can such local ranks help us prove some weak versions of every
p S
(M) is denable? (Of course, the rst problem is to dene such weak
denability; see [Sh 783, 1]).
2) Does this help for indiscernible sequences?
5.11 Denition. We dene K
x
m,
and dxrk
m
,
for x = p, c, q as follows:
(A) for x = p: as in Denition 3.5(4),(5), 5.1(4),(5)
(B) for x = c: as in Denition 3.5(4),(5), 5.1(4),(5) but we demand that in
clause (e),(e)
b
n
) : n < is contradictory
(C) for x = q: as in Denition 3.5(4),(5), 5.1(4),(5) but clauses (e),(e)
of part
(4) we have a
from A
y
for < + such that
(x, a
)
if(<)
: < + p
x
and in (e
) we have a
n
from A
y
and
a
+n
from M
x
. In details:
(e) when 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, in A
y
there is a
1
indiscernible sequence a
k
: k <
) over A
x
M
y
such that a
k
>
(M
x
and a
k
, a
+k
A
y
for k <
(e)
for i < +
() ( x, a
k
b) ( x, a
b) belongs
5
to p
x
does recalling J
, I
+1
are immediate Aneighbors (so indiscernible over A) for < n. They
are neighbors
6
if they have distance n for some n.
3) If I is an innite indiscernible sequence over A then C
A
(I) = I
: I
, I have
distance < .
Discussion: Note that for Th(, <), the rst order theory of the rational order, any
two increasing innite sequences of elements are of distance 2. If we forget above
to have the or I, J
, i.e. K
m,
for m = 1.
5.18 Remark. For this property, T and T
eq
may dier. Probably if we add only
nitely many sorts, the nite rank, i.e., dprk
(x) < n
is
preserved.
5.19 Observation. T is dp
A (or A
= A) there
are I
, J
, J
.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
62 SAHARON SHELAH
Proof. Should be clear.
5.19
5.20 Claim. 1) For = 1, 2 we have T is dp
) : < n ( x
1
, . . . , x
n
) is consistent, (see
[Sh:93]).
5.25 Question: Can we dene reasonable dimension for such types, at least for T
dependent or even strongly dependent?
(C) Local ranks for super dependent and indiscernibles:
Note that the original motivation of introducing strongly dependent in [Sh 783]
was to solve the equation: X/dependent = superstable/stable. However (the various
variants) of strongly dependent, when restricted to the family of stable theories,
gives classes which seem to me interesting but are not the class of superstable T.
So the original question remains open. Now returning to the search for super
dependent we may consider another generalization of superstable.
5.26 Denition. 1) We dene lcrk
m
(p, ) = lcrk
m
0
(p, ) for types p which be
longs to S
m
1
(A) extending p such that i < 1 + lcrk
m
(q
i
, )
(c) lcrk
m
(p, ) , a limit ordinal i lcrk
m
(p) for every < .
2) For p S
m
(A) let
7
lcrk
m
(p, ) be minlcrk
m
(p, ) : '(
T
) nite.
3) Let lcrk
m
(T, ) = lcrk
m
(p, ) + 1 : p S
m
(A), A C.
4) If we omit we mean = [T[
++
.
5.27 Discussion: There are other variants and they are naturally connected to the
existence of indiscernibles (for subsets of
m
C, concerning subsets of
T
C), probably
representability is also relevant ([Sh:F705]).
5.28 Claim. 1) The following conditions on T are equivalent (for all > [T[
+
):
(a)
for some
< [T[
+
for every A and p S
m
7
Easily, if
1
2
L(
T
) are nite and p
2
S
m
2
(A) and p
1
= p
2
1
then krk
m
(p
1
)
lcrk
m
(p
2
). So lcrk
m
(p, ) is well dened.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
64 SAHARON SHELAH
(c)
:
>
) such that p
S
m
g()
(A) and p
and if
1
,=
2
are from
n
then p
1
,= p
2
(c)
0
like (c)
with p
:
>
).
2) Similarly restricting ourselves to A = [M[.
Proof. Easy.
5.28
Closely related is
5.29 Denition. 1) We dene lc
1
rk
m
(p, ) for types p S
m
(A) for A C as
an ordinal or innitely by:
(a) lc
1
rk
m
(p, ) 0 always
(b) lc
1
rk
m
(p, ) = +1 i for every < and nite '(
T
) we can
nd pairwise distinct q
i
S
m
(A) for i < 1 + such that p q
i
and
lc
1
rk
m
(q
i
, )
(c) lc
1
rk
m
(p, ) for a limit ordinal i lc
1
rk
m
(p) for every < .
2) If = Q
2
([T[)
++
we may omit it.
5.30 Claim. 1) The following conditions on T are equivalent when > Q
2
([T[)
++
(a)
for some
< (2
T
)
+
for every A and p S
m
(A) we have lc
1
rk
m
(p, ) <
letting =
n
: n < ,
n
=
:
is a sequence of length n of nite
sets of formulas ( x, y), g( x) = m there is
:
) where
is a
nite set of formulas such that: for every we can nd A and p
,
:
and
g(
)
) such that:
() p
,
S
m
(A)
() if
n
,
n
and
n
)
n+1
, then p
,<>
n
=
p
,
n
for < and p
,<>
for some
:
) as above the set T
is consistent where is
nonempty and:
() if
=
n+1
,
n+1
and ( x, y)
n
then ( y)[
<g( y)
P(y
)
(( x
,
, y) ( x
n,n
, y))]
() if
n+1
n
and < < , then
(x, y)
( y)(
<g( y)
P(y
)
((x
,<>
: y) ( x
,<>
, y)).
2) Similarly restricting ourselves to the cases A = [M[, i.e. A is the universe of
some M C.
Proof. Similar.
5.30
5.31 Denition. 1) We dene lc
2
rk
m
(p, ), lc
3
rk
m
(p, ) like lc
0
rk
m
(p, ), lc
1
rk
m
(p, ) respectively replacing '(
T
) is nite by '(
T
) and arity() <
where.
2) arity() = the number of free variables of , arity() = suparity() :
(if we use the objects ( x) we may use arity(( x)) = g( x)).
5.32 Claim. The parallel of 5.30 for Denition 5.31.
Remark. Particularly the rank lc
3
rk
m
seems related to the existence of indis
cernibility, i.e.
5.33 Conjecture: 1) Assume, lc
rk
m
(T) < for some 3. We can prove (in
ZFC!) that for every cardinal for some we have ()
T
.
2) Moreover is not too large, say is Q
+1
( +[T[) (or just < Q
(2
)
+).
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
66 SAHARON SHELAH
(D) Strongly
2
stable fields
A reasonable aim is to generalize the characterization of the superstable complete
theories of elds. Macintyre [Ma71] proved that every innite eld whose rst
order theory is
0
stable, is algebraically closed. Cherlin [Ch78] proves that every
innite division ring whose rst order theory in superstable is commutative, i.e. is
a eld so algebraically closed. CherlinShelah [ChSh 115] prove any superstable
theory Th(K), K an innite eld is the theory of algebraically closed elds (and
is true even for division rings). More generally we would like to replace stable by
dependent and/or superstable by strongly dependent or at least strongly
2
stable
(or other variant).
Of course, for strongly dependent we should allow at least the following cases (in
addition to the algebraically closed elds): the rst order theory of the real eld
(not problematic as is the only one with nite nontrivial Galois groups), the padic
eld for any prime p and the rst order theories covered by 1.17(2), i.e. Th(K
F
)
for such F.
So
5.34 Conjecture.
(a) if K is an innite eld and T = Th(K) is strongly
2
dependent (i.e.,
ict,2
(T) =
0
) then K is an algebraically closed eld (not strongly!!)
(b) similarly for division rings
(c) if K is an innite eld and T = Th(K) is strongly
1
dependent then K is
nite or algebraically closed or real closed or elementary equivalent to K
F
for some F as in 1.17(2) (like the padics) or a nite algebraic extension of
such a eld
(d) similarly to (c) for division rings.
Of course it is even better to answer 5.35(1):
5.35 Question: 1) Characterize the elds with dependent rst order theory.
2) At least strongly dependent (or another variant see (E),(F) below).
3) Suppose M is an ordered eld and T = Th(M) is dependent (or strongly
dependent). Can we characterize?
Remark. But we do not know this even for stability.
So adopting strongly dependent as our context we look what we can do.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 67
5.36 Claim. For a dependent T and group G interpreted in the monster model C
of T; for every (x, y) '(
T
) there is n
of them.
Remark. If T is stable this holds also for innite by the BaldwinSaxl [BaSx76]
theorem.
Proof. See [Sh:F917].
5.37 Claim. If the complete theory T is strongly
2
dependent then nite kernel
implies almost surjectivity which means that if in C, G is a denable group, a
denable homomorphism from G into G with nite kernel then (G : Rang()) is
nite.
Proof. By a general result from [Sh 783, 3.8=tex.ss.4.5] quoted here as 0.1.
5.37
5.38 Claim. Being strongly
1
saturated separably closed eld of characteristic p which is not algebraically
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
68 SAHARON SHELAH
closed. Let
n
(x) = (y)(y
p
n
= x) and p
(x) =
n
(x) : n < and let xE
n
y
mean
n
(x y), so E
M
n
is an equivalent relation.
Let a
: <
1
) be an indiscernible set such that < <
1
a
1
(M).
Let
n
(x, y
0
, y
1
, . . . , y
n1
, z) = (z)[
n
(z) x = y
0
+y
p
1
+. . . +y
p
n1
n1
+z].
Now by our understanding of Th(M)
(a) if b
0
, . . . , a
n1
)
n
(b, a
0
, . . . , a
n1
)
then
<n
.
[Why? Clause (a) holds because if b
= d
p
n
n
(M), b = a
0
+ a
p
1
+ a
p
2
2
+ . . . + a
p
n1
n1
+ d
p
n
2
and b = a
0
+ a
p
1
+ a
p
2
2
+ . . . + a
p
n1
n1
+ d
p
n
2
. We prove this by induction on
n. For n = 0 this is trivial, n = m + 1 substituting, etc., we get a
0
a
0
=
(a
p
1
a
p
1
) +. . . +(a
p
n1
n1
a
p
n1
n1
) +(d
p
n
2
d
p
n
1
)
1
(M), so by an assumption on
a
: <
1
) it follows that
0
=
0
. As there are unique pth roots the original
equation implies a
1
+a
p
2
+. . . +a
p
n2
n2
+d
p
n
1
= a
1
+a
p
2
+. . . +a
p
n2
n2
+d
p
n
2
, and
we use the induction hypothesis.]
So together:
for every
(
1
), there is b
M such that
() M
n
(b
, a
(0)
, . . . , a
(n1)
) hence
() if n < ,
n
(
1
), ,= n then M [=
n
(b
, a
(0)
, . . . , a
(m1)
).
This suces.
5.40
(E) On strongly
3
dependent:
It is still not clear which versions of strong dependent (or stable) will be most
interesting. Another reasonable version is strongly
3
dependent and see more below.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 69
It has parallel properties and is natural. Hopefully at least some of those versions
allows us to generalize weight (see [Sh:c, V,3]); we intend to return to it elsewhere.
Meanwhile note:
5.41 Denition. 1) T is strongly
3
dependent if
ict,3
(T) =
0
(see below).
2)
ict,3
(T) is the rst such that the following
8
holds:
if is an ordinal, a
(M
+1
) for < , a
: [, )) is an indiscernible
sequence over M
1
M
2
C and c
>
C and
cf() then for some < , a
c.
3) We say T is strongly
stable if T is strongly
: < .
5.42 Claim. 1) If T is strongly
+1
dependent then T is strongly
dependent for
= 1, 2.
2) T is strongly
dependent i T
eq
is; moreover
ict,
(T) =
ict,
(T
eq
).
3) If T
1
is interpretable in T
2
then
ict,
(T
1
)
ict,
(T
2
).
4) If T
2
= Th(B
M,MA
), see [Sh 783, 1] and T
1
= Th(M) then
ict,
(T
2
) =
ict,
(T
1
).
5) T is not strongly
3
dependent i we can nd =
n
( x
0
, x
1
, y
n
) : n < ), m =
g( x
0
)) and for any innite linear order I we can nd an indiscernible sequence
a
t
,
: t I,
>
I increasing), see Denition 5.45 below such that for any in
creasing sequence
I, the set
n
( x
0
, a
s
,
b
n
)
if(s=(n))
: n < and (n1) <
I
s I if n > 0 of formulas is consistent (or use just s = (n), (n)+1 or (n)
I
s,
does not matter).
6) The parallel of parts (1)(5) hold with strongly
3,
instead of strongly
3
. In par
ticular, (parallel to part (5)), we have T is not strongly
3,
dependent i we can
nd =
n
( x
0
, . . . , x
k(n)
, y
n
) : n < ), m = g( x)) and for any innite linear
order I we can nd an indiscernible sequence a
t
,
b
,t
: t I,
>
I increasing),
see 5.45 such that for any increasing
I, ( x
0
, a
s
,
b
n
)
if(s=(n))
: n < and
(n 1) <
I
s if n > 0 ( x
i
0
, . . . , x
i
m1
, c) = ( x
j
0
, . . . , x
j
m1
, c) : m < , i
0
<
. . . < i
m1
< , j
0
< . . . < j
m1
< and c a
s
, b
: s I,
>
I increasing
is consistent.
Proof. 1)4). Easy.
5),6) As in [Sh 897].
5.42
8
we may consider replacing by a linear order and ask for < cuts
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
70 SAHARON SHELAH
Recall this denition applies to stable T (i.e. Denition 5.41(3)).
5.43 Observation. The theory T is strongly
3
stable i: T is stable and we cannot
nd M
n
: n < ), c
>
C and a
n
(M
n+1
) such that:
(a) M
n
is F
a
saturated
(b) M
n+1
is F
a
prime over M
n
a
n
(c) tp( a
n
, M
n
) does not fork over M
0
(d) tp( c, M
n
a
n
) forks over M
n
.
Proof. Easy.
5.43
5.44 Conjecture For strongly
3
stable T we have dimension theory (including weight)
close to the one for superstable theories (as in [Sh:c, V]), we may try to deal with
it in [Sh 839]; related to 5(G) below.
(F) Representability and strongly
4
dependent:
In [Sh 897] we deal with T being fat or lean. We say a class K of models is fat
when for every ordinal there are a regular cardinal and nonisomorphic models
M, N K
which are EF
+
,
equivalent where EF
+
,
is a strong version of the
isomorphism player has a winning strategy in a strong version of the Ehrenfuecht
Frasse game of length . We prove there, that consistently if T is not strongly
stable and T
1
T, then PC(T
1
, T) is fat (in a work in preparation [Sh:F918] we
show that it suces to assume T is not strongly
4
stable; see below).
In [Sh:F705], a work under preparation, we shall deal with representability. The
weakest form (for k a class of index models, e.g. linears order) is: an e.g. rst
order T is weakly krepresented when for every model M of T and say nite set
'(
T
) we can nd an index model I k and sequence a
t
: t I) of nite
sequences from M
C
(or just singletons) which is indiscernible, i.e., see below,
such that [M[ a
t
: t I.
This is a parallel to stable and superstable when we play with essentially the
arity of the functions of k and the size of s considered. The thesis is that T is
stable i it, essentially can be represented for essentially k the class of sets and
parallel representability for k derived for order characterize versions of the class of
dependent theories. We also dene kforking, i.e. replace linear orders other index
set.
We dene
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 71
5.45 Denition. 1) For any structure I we say that a
t
: t I) is indiscernible
(in C over A) when: g( a
t
) depends only on the quantier type of t in I and:
if n < and s = s
0
, s
1
, . . . , s
n1
),
t = t
0
, . . . , t
n1
) realize the same
quantierfree type in I then a
t
:= a
t
0
. . . a
t
n1
and a
s
= a
s
0
. . . a
s
n1
realize the same type (over A) in C.
2) We say that
b
u
: u [I]
<
0
) is indiscernible (in C) (over A) similarly:
if n < , w
0
, . . . , w
m1
0, . . . , n 1 and s = s
: < n),
t = t
:
< n) realize the same quantierfree types in I and u
= s
k
: k
w
, v
= t
k
: k w
then a
u
0
. . . a
u
n1
, a
v
0
. . . a
v
n1
realize the
same type in C (over A).
3) We may use incr(< , I) instead of [I]
<
0
where incr(
I) = incr
(I) = incr(, I) =
: is an increasing sequence of length of members of I; we can use < or
; clearly the dierence between incr(< , I) and [I]
<
0
is notational only (when
we have order).
5.46 Denition. 1) We say that the mtype p( x) does (, n)ict divide over A (or
(, n)ict
1
divide over A) when: there are an indiscernible sequence a
t
: t I), I
an innite linear order and s
0
<
I
t
0
I
s
1
<
I
t
1
<
I
. . .
I
s
n1
<
I
t
n1
such that
1
p( x) tp
( x a
s
, A) ,= tp
( x a
t
, A) for < n.
2) We say that the mtype p( x) does (, n)ict
2
divides over A when above we
replace
1
by:
2
p( x) tp
( x a
s
, a
s
k
: k < A) ,= tp
( x a
t
, a
s
k
: k < A)
for < n.
3) We say that the mtype p( x) does (, n)ict
3
divide over A when above ( a
t
:
t I incr(< n, I)) is indiscernible over A and we replace
1
by
3
p( x) tp
( x a
s
, a
s
0
,...,s
1
A) ,= tp
( x a
t
, a
s
0
,...,s
1
A) for < n.
4) We say that the mtype p( x) does (, n)ict
4
divide over A when there are
n
: inc( n
: inc( n
, I
+
)) is indiscernible over A where I
+
= (I, P
t
)
tJ
and
P
t
:= s I : s < t. Note that if T is stable, we can equivalently require J I.
5) For k 1, 2, 3, 4 we say that the mtype p( x) does (, n)ict
k
forks over A
when for some sequence
( x, a
<()
( x, a
i
)
(b)
( x, a
) does (, n)ict
k
divide over A.
If k = 1 we may omit it, if = '(
T
) we may omit it.
6) We dene ict
k
rk
m
(p), an ordinal or , as follows (easily well dened):
ict
k
rk
m
(p) i p is an mtype and for every nite q p, nite A Dom(p)
and n < and < there is an mtype r extending q which ('(
T
), n) ict
k

forks over A with ict
k
rk
m
(r) . If ict
k
rk
m
(r) _ + 1; and we say that n
witnesses this if the demand above for this n fails. If n + 1 is the minimal witness
let n = ict
k
wg
n
(r).
7)
m
k,ict
(T) is the rst
0
such that for every p S
m
(B), B C there is a set
A B of cardinality < such that p does not ict
k
fork over A. Omitting m means
for some m < ; note that we write
k,ict
(T) to distinguish it from Denition 2.3
of
ict,2
.
8) T is strongly
k
dependent [stable] if
k,ict
(T) =
0
[and T is stable].
9) We dene
k,ict,
(T) parallely i.e., now p( x) is the type of an indiscernible se
quence of mtuples and T is strongly
k,
dependent [stable] if it is dependent [stable]
and
k,ict,
(T) =
0
.
5.47 Claim. 1) For dependent T, the following conditions are equivalent:
(a)
4,ict,
(T) >
0
, see Denition 5.46(4),(7),(9)
(b) there are m, (
, n
'(
T
) nite and n
< and n
: inc
<
(I)) is an indiscernible sequence with a
C
() for
I an increasing sequence, for some c
m
C( < ) we have:
(i) c
: incr(I, < )
(ii) if J is the completion of the linear order I then for no
nite J
0
J do we have: if n < and
0
, . . . ,
n1
incr(I, < ) for = 1, 2 are such that
1
0
. . .
1
n1
and
2
0
. . .
2
n1
realizes the same quantier free type over J
0
in J then a
1
0
. . . a
1
n1
,
a
2
0
. . . a
2
n1
realize the same
type over c
: < in C
(c) the natural rank is always < .
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 73
2) For dependent T the following conditions are equivalent
(a)
m
4,ict
(T) >
0
(b) like (b) is part (1) only c
rk
m
( x = x) = i ict
rk
1
(x = x) = , i.e. can we in part (2)
say that the properties do not depend on m? The positive answer will appear in
CohenShelah [CoSh:919].
Now
5.49 Observation. 1) For k = 1, 2, 3 if p( x) does (, n)ict
k
forks over A then p( x)
does (, n)ict
k+1
forks over A.
2) If T is strongly
k+1
dependent/stable then T is strongly
k
dependent/stable.
3) For k 1, 2, 3, 4 if T is strongly
k
dependent/stable then T is strongly depen
dent/stable; if T
1
is interpretable in T
2
and T
2
is strongly
k
dependent/stable then
so is T
1
.
4) Assume T is stable. If p S
m
(B) does not fork over A B then ict
k

rk
m
(p) = ict
k
rk
m
(p A).
Remark. Also the natural inequalities concerning itc
k
rk
n
() follows by 5.49(1).
Proof. Straight.
5.49
5.50 Example: 1) There is a stable NDOP, NOTOP, not multidimensional count
able complete theory which is not strongly
2
dependent.
2) T = Th(
1
(Z
2
), E
n
)
n<
is as above where Z
2
= Z/2Z as an additive group,
E
n
= (, ) : ,
1
(Z
2
) are such that (n) = (n).
3) As in part (1) but T is not strongly dependent.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
74 SAHARON SHELAH
Remark. This is [Sh 897, 0.2=0z.5]. It shows that the theorem there adds more
cases.
Proof. 1) By part (2).
2) So let M
0
be the additive group (
1
(Z
2
), +) where + is coordinatewise addition
and for let M
= (
1
(Z
2
), P
n
)
n<
, where P
n
=
1
(Z
2
) : (n) is
constantly zero and E
n
= (, ) : ,
1
(Z
2
) are such that (n) = (n)
and M
= (
1
(Z
2
), E
n
)
n<
. So M
, M
.
Let T = Th(M
) and let T
= Th(M
). So for a model N of T
is just an
abelian group in which every element has order 2, with distinguished subgraph P
N
n
for n < so a vector space over the eld Z
2
.
T is stable:
For n < , a model of T
n
is determined by nitely many dimensions: (P
N
k
:
P
N
k+1
) for < n (E
N
n
is interpreted as the equality), so T
n
is superstable not multi
dimensional.
Hence T necessarily is stable.
T is strongly dependent not strongly
2
dependent:
As in 2.5, in fact it is strongly dependent.
T is not multidimensional:
If N is an
1
saturated model of T then it is determined by the following dimen
sion as vector spaces over Z
2
, for n <
()
1
P
N
n
/P
N
n+1
()
2
n<
P
N
n
.
Each corresponds to a regular type (in C
eq
T
).
T has NDOP:
Follows from unidimensionality.
T has NOTOP:
Assume N
C
T
is
1
saturated, N
0
N
by Q
m
=
1
(Z
2
) : [m, m + ) is constantly zero for
m < n.
5.50
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 75
(G) strong
3
stable and primely minimal types
5.51 Hypothesis. T is stable (during 5(G)).
5.52 Denition. [T stable] We say p S
b) is isolated, equivalently
9
N is prime over
M +
b.
5.53 Claim. 1) Denition 5.52 to equivalent to: there are , M, a, N as there.
2) We can in part (1) replace > [T[+[[ regular, prime by cf() (T), F
a

prime respectively.
Proof. Straight.
5.53
Now (recalling Denition 5.41 and Observation 5.43).
5.54 Claim. [T is strongly
3
stable]
If cf()
r
(T) and M N are F
a
= minict
3
rk(tp(a, M)) : a NM and let a NM and
(x,
d
)
tp(a, M) be such that
= ict
3
rk(
(x,
d
)).
Let a NM. We try to choose N
, a
, B
(a) M N
N and a
M
(b) N
is F
a
primary over M +a
and a
0
= a
(c) if = m+ 1 then
() N
N
m
and tp(a
m
, M +a
) is not F
a
isolated
() N
m
is F
a
primary over N
+a
m
() N
is F
a
constructible over N
+1
+a
0
.
9
because N is prime over M + a + c whenever c
>
N
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
76 SAHARON SHELAH
(d)() B
() a
() [B
[ <
() every F
a
isolated type q S
<
(M B
) has no extension in
S
<
(M
B
m
: m ) which forks over M B
() B
is F
a
atomic over M +b
.
Let (N
, a
1
if () < then tp(a
()
, M) is primely regular.
[Why? If not, then for some b N
()
M we have tp(a
()
, M+b) is not F
a
isolated.
We try to choose
b
>
(N
()
)
() tp(
, M
: < b is F
a
isolated
() tp(
, M
: < b, a
k
, . . . , a
()
is F
a
isolated for
k = (), . . . , 0
() tp( a, M
: ) forks over M
: < ().
Now we can nd an F
a
saturated N
which is F
a
constructible over M + B
and
F
a
saturated N
which is F
a
constructible over N
B
()
. By the choice of B
, the
model N
is F
a
is F
a
constructible over M +B
()
+B
.
Clearly N
is F
a
prime over M + B
()
+ B
and N
()
is F
a
prime over M +
B
()
+ B
(as B
N
()
, see clause () above) and B
onto N
()
over M B
()
B. Renaming
without loss of generality f = id
N
so N
= N
()
.
Lastly, we shall show that (N
, b, B
[N
[, b f(N) and [B
)
is F
a
isolated let c
>
(N
be of cardinal
ity < such that stp( c, B
q
) stp( c, M B
)
stp( c, M B
()
B
) as otherwise we can nd c
in C realizing stp( c, B
q
) hence
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 77
stp( c, MB
) ,= stp( c
2
, MB
()
B
);
so for some nite a B
()
,
d M we have stp( c,
d aB
) ,= stp( c
2
,
d aB
) so
without loss of generality c
1
, c
2
are from N
()
contradicting the choice of (). Let
b list B
b c, M B
()
)
stp(
b c, M B
0
. . . B
()
) hence stp( c, M B
()
b) stp( c, M B
0
. . .
B
()
b) so by the choice of
b and the previous sentence really clause (d)() holds
for the choice of (N
()+1
, a
()+1
, B
()+1
) above.
Second, concerning clause (c)() of , by the sentence after the choices of
B
, N
is F
a
constructively over M B
()
B
so clearly
stp(N
, MB
) stp(N
, MB
B
()
) hence stp(B
()
, MB
) stp(B
()
, N
),
so easily stp(B
()
, M B
a
()
) stp(B
()
, N
).
Now B
()
B
is F
a
atomic over M a
()
being N
()
recalling
()
(b)
holds; hence B
()
is F
a
atomic over MB
a
()
hence by the previous sentence
B
()
is F
a
atomic over N
+a
()
but [B
()
[ < hence it is F
a
constructible over
N
+a
()
. As N
is F
a
constructible over B
()
N
is also F
a
constructible over N
a
()
as required in
(c)().
Clause
is F
a
constructible over N
+ a
0
.
Now N
()
= N
is F
a
constructible over B
()
N
and a
>
(N
()
) im
plies stp( a, B
()
N
) stp( a, B
0
. . . B
()
N
) hence by monotonicity
stp( a, B
()
N
) stp( a, a
0
+B
()
+N
is F
a
constructible over a
0
+B
()
+N
. As B
()
N
()
, [B
()
[ < it is enough to
show that B
()
is F
a
atomic over a
0
+N
, b, B
2
if = m+ 1 < 1 +() then tp(a
m
, N
) is not orthogonal to M.
[Why? Toward contradiction assume tp(a
m
, N
)M. So we can nd A
) is stationary, tp(a
0
, . . . , a
m
), N
)
does not fork over A
and tp(A
:= A
M and tp(A
, C
)
is stationary and a
and (recalling N
is F
a
primary over M + a
) we have
stp(A
, C
+a
) stp(A
, M +a
.
As tp(a
m
, M + A
) is parallel to tp(a
m
, N
) and to tp(a
m
, A
) and tp(a
m
, N
)
M is assumed we get that all three types are orthogonal to M. It follows that
stp(a
m
, A
) stp(a
m
, M +A
) but recall a
so stp(a
m
, A
) stp(a
m
, M +a
).
As [A
) is F
a
, C
+
a
) = stp(A
, (A
M) +a
) stp(A
, M +a
). Together stp(a
m
+A
, C
+a
)
stp(a
m
+A
, M +a
) hence tp(a
m
, M +a
) is F
a
isolated, contradicting
(c)().]
To complete the proof by
1
it suces to show () < , so toward contradiction
assume:
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
78 SAHARON SHELAH
3
() = .
As we are assuming
3
, we can nd N
+
1
(a) N
N
+
(b) N
(d) tp(N
+
(e) (N
+
, c)
cN
N
+
+1
is saturated.
[Why? We can choose N
+
and then
choose N
m
satisfying the relevant demands on (N
, N
m
). Lastly, by the uniqueness
of saturated model there is an isomorphism f
from N
m
onto N
m
over N
m
and let
N
= f
(N
).]
Next for < () we can nd I
such that
2
(a) I
N
+
N
+
+1
(b) I
is independent over (N
+
+1
, M)
(i.e. c I
tp(c, N
+
+1
) does not fork over M and I is indepen
dent over N
+
+1
)
(c) tp(N
+
, N
+
+1
I
) is almost orthogonal to M
(d) if c I
then either c
(C,
d
) or tp(c, M) is orthogonal to
(x,
d
(x,
d
) belongs
(e) if q S(N
+
+1
) does not fork over M and
(x,
d
) q or q is
orthogonal to
(x,
d
: c realizes q
has cardinality N

(f) we let I
= I
(C,
d
).
[Why possible? As (N
+
, c)
cN
+
+1
) is saturated.]
Now for < ()
3
I
is independent over (N
+
+1
+a, N
+
+1
).
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 79
As by clause (b) of
2
we have tp(I
, N
+
+1
) does not fork over M, it follows that
I
is independent over (N
+
+1
+a, M). Also by ()
3.1
we know that tp(a, N
+
+1
I
)
does not fork over N
+
+1
. Also tp(a, N
+
+1
) does not fork over N
+1
(because a N
and tp(N
+
+1
, N) does not fork over N
+1
by
1
(d)), together it follows that
()
3.2
tp(a, N
+
+1
+I
, N
+
+1
) does not fork over N
+1
(by
1
(d) because N
N using
symmetry) and tp(a, N
N
+
+1
) does not fork over N
+
a, N
+
+1
) does not fork over N
+1
, hence
3.3
tp(N
, N
+
+1
+a) does not fork over N
+1
+a.
Recall N
is F
a
constructible over N
+1
+ a (by
+1
(c)()), N
is F
a
saturated
and tp(N
+
+1
, N
is also F
a
constructible over N
+
+1
+a (even by the same construction).
As tp(a, N
+
+1
+ I
saturated, it follows
that
()
3.5
tp(N
, N
+
+1
+I
d, N
+
+1
+ I
) is almost
orthogonal to M hence recalling N
N
+
,
()
3.6
tp(N
, N
+
+1
+I
3.5
so can be used later).
Hence by ()
3.5
+ ()
3.6
we have
()
3.7
tp(N
, N
+1
) is almost orthogonal to M.
But N
+1
is F
a
, N
+1
) is orthogonal to M.
But by
(b)
()
3.9
a
.
By
2
we have
()
3.10
tp(a
, N
+1
) is not orthogonal to M.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
80 SAHARON SHELAH
Together ()
3.8
+()
3.9
+()
3.10
give a contradiction, so ()
3.1
fails hence
3
holds.]
Now (recalling clause (f) of
2
)
4
I
(C,
d
) by the choice
of a in the beginning of the proof of 5.54.]
5
for each n, tp(a, N
+
n
) does ('(
T
), n)ict
3
fork over M.
[Why? By 5.55 below with I
, N
+
n
here standing for I
n1
, N
3.5
.]
> ict
3
rk(tp(a, N
+
n
)) for every n < .
[Why? By the choice of
(x,
d
), a,
= ict
3
rk(tp(a, M)) and by
5
and the denition of ict
3
rk() this follows.]
7
for each n, tp(a, N
+
n
) is not orthogonal to M.
[Why? By
2
(b) +
4
.]
Hence we can nd q S(M) such that:
8
(a) some automorphism of C over
d
maps tp(a, N
n
) to a type
parallel to q
(b) ict
3
rk(q) <
q, [q
[ < then q
(N) _ M
[actually clause (d) follows by (c)].
This contradicts the choice of
: n) is increasing
(b) A M N
0
(c) I
N
+1
N
is independent over (N
, M) for < n
(d) tp(a, N
) forks over N
+1
(e) tp(N
+1
, N
+I
) is almost orthogonal to M.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 81
Proof. Left to the reader noting that I
: < n is independent).
5.55
5.56 Remark. 1) We may give more details on the last proof and intend to continue
the investigation of the theory of regular types (in order to get good theory of
weight) in this context somewhere else.
2) We can use essentially 5.55 to dene a variant of the rank for stable theory. So
5.55 can be written to use it and so 5.57 connect the two ranks.
5.57 Claim. Assume k 3, 4 and ict
k
rk(T) < , see Denition 5.46(6).
If cf() [T[
+
or less and M N are saturated then for some a, (x, a), n
we have:
(a) a NM
(b) if T is stable, the type p = tp(a, M) is primely regular
(c) a
>
M and (x, a) p
(d) (wict
k
rk((x, a))) + (ict
k
wg((x, a))) is minimal.
Proof. We choose a,
(x,
d
), , n
such that
(a) a NM
(b)
d
M
(c) C [= [a,
d
]
(d) = ict
k
rk(
(x,
d
))
(e) under clauses (a)(d), the ordinal is minimal
(f) n
witness + 1 _ ict
k
rk((x,
d
))
(g) under clauses (a)(f) the number n
(< ) is minimal.
Clearly there are such a,
, a
) by
induction on < such that
(x,
d
) tp(a, N
()
)
it follows that (N
()
, c) _ M and any a
(N
()
, c)M is as required.]
This is enough.
5.57
Similarly to Denition 5.46.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
82 SAHARON SHELAH
5.58 Denition. Let T be stable.
1) For an mtype p( x) we dene sict
3
rk
m
(p( x)) as an ordinal or by dening
when ict
3
rk
m
(p( x)) for an ordinal by induction on
()
p( x)
sict
3
rk
m
(p( x)) i for every < and nite q( x) p(x) and n < we
have
()
,n
q( x)
we can nd M
: n), I
: < n) and a
(a) M
C is F
a
1
(T)
saturated
(b) M
M
+1
(c) q( x) is an mtype over M
0
(d) a realizes q( x) and sict
3
rk(tp( a, M
n
))
(e) I
>
(M
+1
) is independent over (M
, M
0
)
(f) I
+ a, M
0
)
(clearly without loss of generality I
is a singleton).
2) If sict
3
rk
m
(p( x)) = < then we let sict
3
wg
m
(p( x)) be the maximal n such
that for every nite q( x) p( x) we have ()
,n
q( x)
.
3) Above instead sict
3
rk(tp( a, A)) we may write sict
3
rk
m
( a, A); similarly for scit
3

wg
m
( a, A); if m = 1 we may omit it.
5.59 Claim. 1) T is strongly
3
stable i T is stable and sict
3
rk
m
(p( x)) < for
every mtype p( x).
2) For every type p( x) there is a nite q( x) p( x) such that (sict
3
rk(p( x)), sict
3

wg(p( x)) = sict
3
rk(q( x)), sict
3
wg(q( x))).
3) If p( x) q( x) then sict
3
rk(p( x)) sict
3
rk(q( x)) and if equality holds then
sict
3
wg
m
(p( x)) sict
3
wg
m
(q( x)).
4) (T stable) If p( x), q( x) are stationary parallel types, then sict
3
rk
m
(p( x)) = sict
3

rk
m
(q( x)), etc. If a
1
, a
1
realizes p S
m
(A) then sict
3
rk
m
(rm stp( a
1
, A)) = sict
3

rk
m
(stp( a
2
, A)). Similarly for sict
3
wg
m
. Also automorphisms of C preserve sict
3

rk
m
and sict
3
wg.
5.60 Claim. p( x) does (, n)ict
3
forks over A for every n when:
(a) G is a denable group over A (in C)
(b) b G realizes a generic type of G from S(A) as was proved to exist in
[Sh 783, 4.11], or T stable
(c) p( x) S
<
(A+b) forks over A.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 83
Remark. We may have said it in 5(F).
Proof of 5.60. Straight.
5.61 Conclusion.: Assume T is strongly
3
dependent.
If G is a typedenable group in C
T
then there is no decreasing sequence G
n
:
n < ) of subgroups of G such that (G
n
: G
n+1
) = for every n.
5.62 Remark. 1) In 5.60 we can replace ict
3
: by ict
4
and also by suitable
variants for stable theories.
2) Similarly in 5.61.
(H) T is ndependent
On related problems and background see [Sh 702, 2.92.20], (but, concerning
indiscernibility, it speaks on nite tuples, i.e. < in 5.71, which aect the
denitions and the picture). On a consequence of T is 2dependent for denable
subgroups in C (and more, e.g. concerning 5.64), see [Sh 886].
5.63 Denition. 1) A (complete rst order) theory T is nindependent when
clause (a)
n
in 5.64 below holds.
2) The negation isndependent.
5.64 Problem Sort out the relationships between the following candidates for T is
nindependent (T is order order complete, also we can x ; omitting m we mean
1)
(a)
n
some ( x, y
0
, y
1
, . . . , y
n1
) is nindependent, i.e. (a)
n
m
for some m
(a)
n
m
some ( x, y
0
, y
1
, . . . , y
n1
) is nindependent where g( x) = m where
( x, y
0
, y
1
, . . . , y
n1
) is nindependent when there are a
g( y
)
C for
< , < n and ( x, a
0
(0)
, . . . , a
n1
(n1)
) :
n
is increasing) is an
independent (sequence of formulas)
(b)
n
m
there is an indiscernible sequence a
: < ), = ( x, y
0
, . . . , y
n1
), m =
g( x), g( y
) = g( a
b, a
s
0
, . . . , a
s
n1
][
b, a
t
0
, . . . , a
t
n1
]
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
84 SAHARON SHELAH
(c)
n
m
for some = ( x, y
0
, . . . , y
n1
), g( x) = m, for every j [1, ), for innitely
many k there are a
i
g( y)
C for i < k such that [p ( x, a
0
i
0
, . . . , a
n1
i
n1
) :
i
i
: < n, i < k[[ 2
k
n1
m
.
Remark. We can phrase (b)
n
m
, (c)
n
m
as alternative denitions of ( x, y
0
, . . . , y
n1
)
is nindependent. So in (b)
n
m
better to have n indiscernible sequences.
5.65 Observation. If ( x, y
0
, . . . , y
n1
) satises clause (a)
n
then it satises a strong
form of clause (c)
n
(for every k and the number is 2
k
n
.
Remark. Clearly Observation 5.65 can be read as a sucient condition for being
ndependent, e.g.
5.66 Conclusion. T is ndependent when: for every m, and nite '(
T
) for
innitely many k < we have [A[ k [S
m
(A)[ < 2
(k/)
n
.
5.67 Question: 1) Can we get clause (a) from clause (c)?
2) Can we use it to prove (a)
n
1
(a)
n
m
?
5.68 Observation. In 5.64, if clause (a) then clause (b).
5.69 Question: Does (b) imply (a)?
5.70 Claim. If T satises (a)
n
for every n then: if ()
<
2
then
T
()
0
where
5.71 Denition. We say that
T
()
when: if a
i
(C
T
) for i < then for
some U []
the sequence a
i
: i U ) is an indiscernible sequence in C
T
.
Remark. 1) Note that for < this property behaves dierently.
2) Of course, if = 2
+T
and ()
<
then
T
()
.
3) See on the non2independent T and denable groups in [Sh 886].
5.72 Conjecture. Assume (a)
n
(or another variant of ndependent). Then ZFC
(
T
()
).
5.73 Question: Can we phrase and prove a generalization of the typedecomposition
theorems for dependent theories ([Sh:900]) to ndependent theories T, e.g. when
(
+1
) =
+1
for < n, B
(H (
+
), , <
+
) has cardinality
, [B
+1
]
, C
T
, B
+1
, . . . , B
n
B
.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 85
REFERENCES.
[BaSx76] John T. Baldwin and Jan Saxl. Logical stability in group theory. J.
Austral. Math. Soc. Ser. A, 21:267276, 1976.
[Ch78] Gregory Cherlin. Superstable division rings. In Logic Colloquium 77
(Proc. Conf., Wroclaw, 1977), volume 96 of Stud. Logic Foundations
Math, pages 99111, Amsterdam New York, 1978. NorthHolland.
[ChSh 115] Gregory Cherlin and Saharon Shelah. Superstable elds and groups.
Annals of Mathematical Logic, 18:227270, 1980.
[CLR06] R. Cluckers, L. Lipshitz, and Z. Robinson. Analytic cell decomposi
tion and analytic motivic integration. Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup., to
appear. math.AG/0503722.
[CoSh:E65] Moran Cohen and Saharon Shelah. On strongly dependent theories.
[CoSh:919] Moran Cohen and Saharon Shelah. Stable theories and representation
over sets. Mathematical Logic Quarterly, submitted. 0906.3050.
[FiSh:E50] Eyal Firstenberg and Saharon Shelah. Pseudo unidimensional depen
dent theories.
[Gu77] Yuri Gurevich. Monadic theory of order and topology. I. Israel Journal
of Mathematics, 27:299319, 1977.
[Ma71] Angus Macintyre. On
1
categorical theories of elds. Fundamenta
Mathematicae, 71:125, 1971.
[On0x1] Alf Onshuus. thForking, Algebraic Independence and Examples of
Rosy Theories. Preprint, 2003. math.LO/0306003.
[On0x2] Alf Onshuus. Properties and Consequences of thIndependence.
Preprint, 2004. math.LO/0205004.
[Pa90] Johan Pas. Cell decomposition and local zeta functions in a tower
of unramied extensions of a padic eld. Proc. London Math. Soc.,
60:3767, 1990.
[Sh:F931] Saharon Shelah. A dependent dream and recounting types.
[Sh 886] Saharon Shelah. Denable groups for dependent and 2dependent the
ories. Journal of Symbolic Logic, submitted. math.LO/0703045.
[Sh 877] Saharon Shelah. Dependent T and Existence of limit models. Tbilisi
Mathematical Journal, submitted. math.LO/0609636.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
86 SAHARON SHELAH
[Sh:900] Saharon Shelah. Dependent theories and the generic pair conjec
ture. Communications in Contemporary Mathematics, submitted.
math.LO/0702292.
[Sh:906] Saharon Shelah. No limit model in inaccessibles. Proceedings of the
Makkaifest, accepted. 0705.4131.
[Sh:E63] Saharon Shelah. Quite Complete Real Closed Fields revisited.
[Sh:F705] Saharon Shelah. Representation over orders of elementary classes.
[Sh 839] Saharon Shelah. Stable Frames and weight. Preprint.
[Sh:F917] Saharon Shelah. Strongly dependent theories and denable groups.
[Sh:F918] Saharon Shelah. Theories with EFEquivalent NonIsomorphic Models
II.
[Sh:93] Saharon Shelah. Simple unstable theories. Annals of Mathematical
Logic, 19:177203, 1980.
[Sh 197] Saharon Shelah. Monadic logic: Hanf numbers. In Around classication
theory of models, volume 1182 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages
203223. Springer, Berlin, 1986.
[Sh:c] Saharon Shelah. Classication theory and the number of nonisomorphic
models, volume 92 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Math
ematics. NorthHolland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, xxxiv+705 pp,
1990.
[Sh 702] Saharon Shelah. On what I do not understand (and have some
thing to say), model theory. Mathematica Japonica, 51:329377, 2000.
math.LO/9910158.
[Sh 715] Saharon Shelah. Classication theory for elementary classes with the
dependence property  a modest beginning. Scientiae Mathematicae
Japonicae, 59, No. 2; (special issue: e9, 503544):265316, 2004.
math.LO/0009056.
[Sh 757] Saharon Shelah. Quite Complete Real Closed Fields. Israel Journal of
Mathematics, 142:261272, 2004. math.LO/0112212.
[Sh 876] Saharon Shelah. Minimal bounded index subgroup for dependent the
ories. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 136:1087
1091, 2008. math.LO/0603652.
[Sh 897] Saharon Shelah. Theories with EFEquivalent NonIsomorphic Models.
Tbilisi Mathematical Journal, 1:133164, 2008. math.LO/0703477.
(
8
6
3
)
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
2
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9

0
9

2
3
STRONGLY DEPENDENT THEORIES SH863 87
[Sh 783] Saharon Shelah. Dependent rst order theories, continued. Israel Jour
nal of Mathematic, 173:160, 2009. math.LO/0406440.
Molto più che documenti.
Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.
Annulla in qualsiasi momento.