20 Years of Tameness
Monica VanDieren
March 8, 2022
20 Years of Tameness +

Honors Program


1
20 Years of Tameness +


2
Agenda
-
Classification Theory for first order logic
-
Non-first order contexts - including Tame AECs
-
Why Study Tame AECs?
-
Ubiquitous
-
Informs Shelah's Categoricity Conjecture
-
New Model Theoretic Ideas (e.g. limit models)
-
-
Classification Theory for Tame AECs
3
Morley's Theorem: Suppose T is a countable first order theory. If there exists an uncountable λ such that T is λ-categorical, then T is μ-categorical in all uncountable μ.
4
ℵ0
ℵ1
ℵ0
categorical in λ
Morley's Theorem: Suppose T is a countable first order theory. If there exists an uncountable λ such that T is λ-categorical, then T is μ-categorical in all uncountable μ.
4
ℵ0
ℵ1
ℵ0
categorical in λ
categorical in μ
uncountably categorical
Theory of algebraically closed fields of fixed characteristic (Steinitz, 1910)
Classifying First Order (countable) Theories
All complete first order theories of countable signature
5
uncountably categorical
Theory of multicolored directed graphs omitting directed cycles
Theory of free groups on n>1
generators
Theory of differentially closed fields of characteristic 0
Theory of algebraically closed fields of fixed characteristic (Steinitz, 1910)
Classifying First Order (countable) Theories
All complete first order theories of countable signature
Theory of random graph
5
uncountably categorical
Theory of multicolored directed graphs omitting directed cycles (Shelah, 1996)
Theory of free groups on n>1
generators (Sela, 2006)
Theory of differentially closed fields of characteristic 0 (Blum, 1968)
Theory of algebraically closed fields of fixed characteristic (Steinitz, 1910)
Classifying First Order (countable) Theories
All complete first order theories of countable signature
Theory of random graph
superstable
stable
simple
NSOP
5
uncountably categorical
Classifying First Order (countable) Theories
All complete first order theories of countable signature
superstable
stable
simple
NSOP
6
uncountably categorical
Classifying First Order (countable) Theories
All complete first order theories of countable signature
superstable
stable
simple
NSOP
Increasing levels of structure
(e.g. independence relations,
rank functions, etc.)
6
Can we develop a similar classification for non-first order theories?
?
7
First Order Theories
8
First Order Theories
Lω1,ω Theories
Incomplete Map of Non-elementary Classes
8
First Order Theories
Lω1,ω Theories
Incomplete Map of Non-elementary Classes
8
First Order Theories
Lω1,ω Theories
Lκ+,ω Theories
Incomplete Map of Non-elementary Classes
8
First Order Theories
Lω1,ω Theories
Lκ+,ω Theories
Abstract Elementary Classes
Incomplete Map of Non-elementary Classes
8
First Order Theories
Lω1,ω Theories
Lκ+,ω Theories
Abstract Elementary Classes
Tame
Incomplete Map of Non-elementary Classes
8
Abstract Elementary Classes
Classification Theory for
Tame
9
Abstract Elementary Classes
Classification Theory for
Tame
Categorical in high enough cardinality
9
Abstract Elementary Classes
Classification Theory for
Tame
Categorical in high enough cardinality
Stable
3
Abstract Elementary Classes
Classification Theory for
Tame
Categorical in high enough cardinality
Stable
Superstable
9
Test Question for
Classification Theory
Morley's Theorem: Suppose T is a countable first order theory. If there exists an uncountable λ such that T is λ categorical, then T is μ-categorical in all uncountable μ.
10
Test Question for
Classification Theory
Infinitary Logic Conjecture (Shelah, 1976): Suppose ψ∈Lω1,ω in a countable language. If there exists a λ≥ℶω1 such that ψ is λ categorical, then ψ is μ-categorical in all μ≥ℶω1.
Morley's Theorem: Suppose T is a countable first order theory. If there exists an uncountable λ such that T is λ categorical, then T is μ-categorical in all uncountable μ.
10
Test Question for
Classification Theory
Infinitary Logic Conjecture (Shelah, 1976): Suppose ψ∈Lω1,ω in a countable language. If there exists a λ≥ℶω1 such that ψ is λ categorical, then ψ is μ-categorical in all μ≥ℶω1.
AEC Conjecture: Suppose K is an AEC in a language of cardinality LS(K). If there exists a λ≥ℶ(2LS(K))+∗ such that K is λ-categorical, then K is μ-categorical in all μ≥ℶ(2LS(K))+.
Morley's Theorem: Suppose T is a countable first order theory. If there exists an uncountable λ such that T is λ categorical, then T is μ-categorical in all uncountable μ.
∗ This bound is smaller when LS(K)=ℵ0.
10
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a ordering, ≺, satisfying:
11
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
If M∈K and M≅N, then N∈K.
11
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
12
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
If M,N∈K and M≺N,
then M is a submodel of N.
12
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
If M≺M∗, N≺M∗, and M⊆N,
then M≺N
13
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
If M≺M∗, N≺M∗, and M⊆N,
then M≺N
M
M∗
13
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
If M≺M∗, N≺M∗, and M⊆N,
then M≺N
N
M∗
13
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
If M≺M∗, N≺M∗, and M⊆N,
then M≺N
M
N
M∗
13
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
If M≺M∗, N≺M∗, and M⊆N,
then M⪯N.
M
N
M∗
13
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
14
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A
M
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
There exists λ=LS(K) such that for every M∈K and for every A⊆M, there exists N∈K so that N≺M and ∥N∥≤∣A∣+λ.
14
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A
N
M
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
There exists λ=LS(K) such that for every M∈K and for every A⊆M, there exists N∈K so that N⪯M and ∥N∥≤∣A∣+λ.
14
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
A5a. Union Conditions
15
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
M0
Mi
Mi+1
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
If ⟨Mi∈K∣i<α⟩ is an ≺-increasing sequence, then ⋃i<αMi∈K and for each i<α, Mi≺⋃i<αMi.
A5a. Union Conditions
. . .
. . .
15
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
M0
Mi
Mi+1
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
If ⟨Mi∈K∣i<α⟩ is an ≺-increasing sequence, then ⋃i<αMi∈K and for each i<α, Mi≺⋃i<αMi.
A5a. Union Conditions
. . .
. . .
⋃i<αMi
15
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
Mi
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
If ⟨Mi∈K∣i<α⟩ is an ≺-increasing sequence, then ⋃i<αMi∈K and for each i<α, Mi≺⋃i<αMi.
A5a. Union Conditions
⋃i<αMi
M0
Mi+1
. . .
. . .
15
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
A5a.
A5b. Union Conditions
16
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
M0
Mi
Mi+1
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
If ⟨Mi∈K∣i<α⟩ is an ≺-increasing sequence and N is such that for each i<α, Mi≺N, then ⋃i<αMi≺N.
. . .
. . .
A5a.
A5b. Union Conditions
16
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
M0
Mi
Mi+1
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
If ⟨Mi∈K∣i<α⟩ is an ≺-increasing sequence and N is such that for each i<α, Mi≺N, then ⋃i<αMi≺N.
A5b. Union Conditions
. . .
. . .
N
A5a.
16
AEC Definition
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
M0
Mi
Mi+1
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
If ⟨Mi∈K∣i<α⟩ is an ≺-increasing sequence and N is such that for each i<α, Mi≺N, then ⋃i<αMi⪯N.
A5b. Union Conditions
. . .
. . .
⋃i<αMi
N
A5a.
16
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
Amalgamation Property
A5. Union Conditions
N
M2
M1
17
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
Amalgamation Property
A5. Union Conditions
N
M2
M′
M1
17
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
Amalgamation Property
A5. Union Conditions
N
M2
M′
f
M1
17
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
Amalgamation Property
A5. Union Conditions
N
M2
M′
f
f(M1)
M1
17
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
Amalgamation Property
A5. Union Conditions
N
M2
M′
f
f(M1)
M1
f↾N=idN
17
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
AP
A5. Union Conditions
Joint Embedding Property
M1
M2
18
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
AP
A5. Union Conditions
Joint Embedding Property
M1
M2
M′
18
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
A5. Union Conditions
Joint Embedding Property
f1(M1)
f2(M2)
M′
f1
f2
M1
M2
AP
18
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
A5. Union Conditions
M
No Maximal Models
AP
JEP
19
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
A5. Union Conditions
M
No Maximal Models
M′
AP
JEP
19
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
AP
A5. Union Conditions
JEP
No Maximal Models
This implies the existence of a monster model.
M
20
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
AP
A5. Union Conditions
JEP
No Maximal Models
This implies the existence of a monster model, C.
C
M
20
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
AP
A5. Union Conditions
JEP
No Maximal Models
M′
This implies the existence of a monster model, C.
C
f
M
20
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
AP
A5. Union Conditions
JEP
M
No Maximal Models
M′
This implies the existence of a monster model, C.
C
f
f(M′)
f↾M=idM
20
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
AP
A5. Union Conditions
JEP
A
No Maximal Models
This implies the existence of a monster model, C.
C
Allowing us to define (Galois) types over models.
21
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
AP
A5. Union Conditions
JEP
A
No Maximal Models
This implies the existence of a monster model, C.
C
Allowing us to define (Galois) types.
tp(a/A)=tp(b/A)
a
b
21
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
AP
A5. Union Conditions
JEP
A
No Maximal Models
This implies the existence of a monster model, C.
C
Allowing us to define (Galois) types.
tp(a/A)=tp(b/A)
a
Ma
Mb
b
21
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
AP
A5. Union Conditions
JEP
A
No Maximal Models
This implies the existence of a monster model, C.
C
Allowing us to define (Galois) types.
tp(a/A)=tp(b/A) iff there exists f an automophism of C
a
Ma
Mb
f
b
21
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
AP
A5. Union Conditions
JEP
A
No Maximal Models
This implies the existence of a monster model, C.
C
Allowing us to define (Galois) types.
tp(a/A)=tp(b/A) iff there exists f an automophism of C
so that f↾A=idA and
a
b
Ma
Mb
f
f↾A=idA
21
Our Setting
K is a class of models in a fixed language L(K) with a partial ordering, ≺, satisfying:
A1. Closure under isomorphisms
A2. Extends submodel relation
A3. Coherence
A4. Löwenheim Skolem
AP
A5. Union Conditions
JEP
A
No Maximal Models
This implies the existence of a monster model, C.
C
Allowing us to define (Galois) types.
tp(a/A)=tp(b/A) iff there exists f an automophism of C
so that f↾A=idA and f(a)=b.
a
b=f(a)
Ma
Mb
f
f(Ma)
f↾A=idA
21
Our Setting - Tame AECs
K is an Abstract Elementary Class satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
A class is χ-tame if for every N∈K of cardinality ≥χ, and for every pair of types over N, if qa=tp(a/N)=tp(b/N)=qb there exists A⊆N of cardinality <χ, so that qa↾A=qb↾A.
C
a
b
N
22
Our Setting - Tame AECs
K is an Abstract Elementary Class satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
A class is χ-tame if for every N∈K of cardinality ≥χ, and for every pair of types over N, if qa=tp(a/N)=tp(b/N)=qb there exists M≺N of cardinality <χ, so that qa↾M=qb↾M.
C
a
N
In other words, if tp(a/M)=tp(b/M) for every M⊆N of cardinality <χ, then tp(a/N)=tp(b/N).
M
b
22
Our Setting - Tame AECs
K is an Abstract Elementary Class satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
A class is χ-tame if for every N∈K of cardinality ≥χ, and for every pair of types over N, if qa=tp(a/N)=tp(b/N)=qb there exists M≺N of cardinality <χ, so that qa↾M=qb↾M.
C
a
b=fM(a)
fM(N)
In other words, if tp(a/M)=tp(b/M) for every M≺N of cardinality <χ, then tp(a/N)=tp(b/N).
M
fM
fM↾M=idM
N
22
Our Setting - Tame AECs
K is an Abstract Elementary Class satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
A class is χ-tame if for every N∈K of cardinality ≥χ, and for every pair of types over N, if qa=tp(a/N)=tp(b/N)=qb there exists M≺N of cardinality <χ, so that qa↾M=qb↾M.
C
a
N
In other words, if tp(a/M)=tp(b/M) for every M≺N of cardinality <χ, then tp(a/N)=tp(b/N).
M′
b
N
22
Our Setting - Tame AECs
K is an Abstract Elementary Class satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
A class is χ-tame if for every N∈K of cardinality ≥χ, and for every pair of types over N, if qa=tp(a/N)=tp(b/N)=qb there exists M≺N of cardinality <χ, so that qa↾M=qb↾M.
C
a
b=fM′(a)
fM′(N)
In other words, if tp(a/M)=tp(b/M) for every M≺N of cardinality <χ, then tp(a/N)=tp(b/N).
M′
fM′
fM′↾M′=idM′
N
22
Our Setting - Tame AECs
K is an Abstract Elementary Class satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
A class is χ-tame if for every N∈K of cardinality ≥χ, and for every pair of types over N, if qa=tp(a/N)=tp(b/N)=qb there exists M≺N of cardinality <χ, so that qa↾M=qb↾M.
C
a
N
In other words, if tp(a/M)=tp(b/M) for every M≺N of cardinality <χ, then tp(a/N)=tp(b/N).
M′′
b
N
22
Our Setting - Tame AECs
K is an Abstract Elementary Class satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
A class is χ-tame if for every N∈K of cardinality ≥χ, and for every pair of types over N, if qa=tp(a/N)=tp(b/N)=qb there exists M≺N of cardinality <χ, so that qa↾M=qb↾M.
C
a
fM′′(N)
In other words, if tp(a/M)=tp(b/M) for every M≺N of cardinality <χ, then tp(a/N)=tp(b/N).
M′′
fM′′
b=fM′′(a)
fM′′↾M′′=idM′′
N
22
Our Setting - Tame AECs
K is an Abstract Elementary Class satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
A class is χ-tame if for every N∈K of cardinality ≥χ, and for every pair of types over N, if qa=tp(a/N)=tp(b/N)=qb there exists M≺N of cardinality <χ, so that qa↾M=qb↾M.
C
a
N
In other words, if tp(a/M)=tp(b/M) for every M≺N of cardinality <χ, then tp(a/N)=tp(b/N).
b
22
Our Setting - Tame AECs
K is an Abstract Elementary Class satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
Definition (Grossberg-V) A class is χ-tame if for every N∈K of cardinality ≥χ, and for every pair of types over N, if qa=tp(a/N)=tp(b/N)=qb there exists M≺N of cardinality <χ, so that qa↾M=qb↾M.
C
a
N
In other words, if tp(a/M)=tp(b/M) for every M≺N of cardinality <χ, then tp(a/N)=tp(b/N).
b=fN(a)
fN
fN↾N=idN
22
Why study tameness?
23
Why study tameness?
23
A1: Tame AECs are "Everywhere"
Tame
AECs
Why study tameness?
23
A1: Tame AECs are "Everywhere"
Tame
Homogeneous
Finitary
Excellent
Universal
AECs
Why study tameness?
23
A1: Tame AECs are "Everywhere"
Tame
Homogeneous
Finitary
Excellent
Universal
?
AECs
Why study tameness?
23
A1: Tame AECs are "Everywhere"
Tame
Homogeneous
Finitary
Excellent
Universal
?
AECs
-
Mod(ψ) where ψ∈Lκ,ω with κ strongly compact (Makkai-Shelah)
-
Homogeneous Classes
- Finitary Classes
- Quasi-minimal class axiomatizing Schanuel's Conjecture (Zilber)
- Excellent classes (Kolesnikov-Grossberg)
- Universal classes (Boney)
- All AECs are tame iff there is class-many almost strongly compact cardinals (Boney, Boney-Unger)
24
Why study tameness?
A1: Tame AECs are "Everywhere"
A2: Tameness Informs Work on Shelah's Categoricity Conj.
∗ This bound is smaller when LS(K)=ℵ0.
Until 2006 most related results
involved set theoretic assumptions.
Shelah's Categoricity Conjecture: Suppose K is an AEC in a language of cardinality LS(K). If there exists a λ≥ℶ(2LS(K))+∗ such that K is λ-categorical, then K is μ-categorical in all μ≥ℶ(2LS(K))+.
25
Why study tameness?
If K is categorical in some λ+>ℶℶ(2LS(K))+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying ℶ(2LS(K))+<μ<λ+.
Downward Categoricity Transfer (Shelah, 1999)
Let K be an AEC satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
ℶℶ(2LS(K))+
categoricity in λ+
categoricity in λ+
ℶ(2LS(K))+
26
Downward Categoricity Transfer (Shelah, 1999)
Let K be an AEC satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
ℶℶ(2LS(K))+
categoricity in μ
categoricity in λ+
ℶ(2LS(K))+
26
If K is categorical in some λ+>ℶℶ(2LS(K))+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying ℶ(2LS(K))+<μ<λ+.
Downward Categoricity Transfer (Shelah, 1999)
Let K be an AEC satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
ℶℶ(2LS(K))+
Upward Categoricity Transfer (Grossberg-V, 2006)
If K is χ-tame for some χ≥LS(K) and is categorical in some λ+>LS(K)+χ+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying λ+≤μ.
LS(K)
categoricity in λ+
LS(K)+χ+
categoricity in λ+
ℶ(2LS(K))+

26
If K is categorical in some λ+>ℶℶ(2LS(K))+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying ℶ(2LS(K))+<μ<λ+.
Downward Categoricity Transfer (Shelah, 1999)
Let K be an AEC satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
ℶℶ(2LS(K))+
Upward Categoricity Transfer (Grossberg-V, 2006)
If K is χ-tame for some χ≥LS(K) and is categorical in some λ+>LS(K)+χ+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying λ+≤μ.
LS(K)
categoricity in λ+
LS(K)+χ+
categoricity in μ
ℶ(2LS(K))+
26
If K is categorical in some λ+>ℶℶ(2LS(K))+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying ℶ(2LS(K))+<μ<λ+.
Downward Categoricity Transfer (Shelah, 1999)
Let K be an AEC satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
ℶℶ(2LS(K))+
Upward Categoricity Transfer (Grossberg-V, 2006)
If K is χ-tame for some χ≥LS(K) and is categorical in some λ+>LS(K)+χ+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying λ+≤μ.
LS(K)
categoricity in λ+
Upward and Downward Bounds Improved (Vasey, 2017)
If K is LS(K)-tame and is categorical in some λ+>LS(K), then it is categorical in all μ>min(λ,ℶ(2LS(K))+).
ℶ(2LS(K))+
LS(K)+χ+
categoricity in λ+
26
If K is categorical in some λ+>ℶℶ(2LS(K))+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying ℶ(2LS(K))+<μ<λ+.
Downward Categoricity Transfer (Shelah, 1999)
Let K be an AEC satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
ℶℶ(2LS(K))+
Upward Categoricity Transfer (Grossberg-V, 2006)
If K is χ-tame for some χ≥LS(K) and is categorical in some λ+>LS(K)+χ+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying λ+≤μ.
LS(K)
categoricity in λ+
Upward and Downward Bounds Improved (Vasey, 2017)
If K is LS(K)-tame and is categorical in some λ+>LS(K), then it is categorical in all μ>min(λ,ℶ(2LS(K))+).
ℶ(2LS(K))+
LS(K)+χ+
categoricity in μ
26
If K is categorical in some λ+>ℶℶ(2LS(K))+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying ℶ(2LS(K))+<μ<λ+.
Downward Categoricity Transfer (Shelah, 1999)
Let K be an AEC satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
ℶℶ(2LS(K))+
Upward Categoricity Transfer (Grossberg-V, 2006)
If K is χ-tame for some χ≥LS(K) and is categorical in some λ+>LS(K)+χ+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying λ+≤μ.
LS(K)
categoricity in λ+
Upward and Downward Bounds Improved (Vasey, 2017)
If K is LS(K)-tame and is categorical in some λ+>LS(K), then it is categorical in all μ>min(λ,ℶ(2LS(K))+).
ℶ(2LS(K))+
LS(K)+χ+
categoricity in μ
26
If K is categorical in some λ+>ℶℶ(2LS(K))+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying ℶ(2LS(K))+<μ<λ+.
Downward Categoricity Transfer (Shelah, 1999)
Let K be an AEC satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
ℶℶ(2LS(K))+
Upward Categoricity Transfer (Grossberg-V, 2006)
If K is χ-tame for some χ≥LS(K) and is categorical in some λ+>LS(K)+χ+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying λ+≤μ.
LS(K)
categoricity in λ+
Upward and Downward Bounds Improved (Vasey, 2017)
If K is LS(K)-tame and is categorical in some λ+>LS(K), then it is categorical in all μ>min(λ,ℶ(2LS(K))+).
ℶ(2LS(K))+
LS(K)+χ+
categoricity in λ+
26
If K is categorical in some λ+>ℶℶ(2LS(K))+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying ℶ(2LS(K))+<μ<λ+.
Downward Categoricity Transfer (Shelah, 1999)
Let K be an AEC satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
ℶℶ(2LS(K))+
Upward Categoricity Transfer (Grossberg-V, 2006)
If K is χ-tame for some χ≥LS(K) and is categorical in some λ+>LS(K)+χ+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying λ+≤μ.
LS(K)
categoricity in μ
Upward and Downward Bounds Improved (Vasey, 2017)
If K is LS(K)-tame and is categorical in some λ+>LS(K), then it is categorical in all μ>min(λ,ℶ(2LS(K))+).
ℶ(2LS(K))+
LS(K)+χ+
26
If K is categorical in some λ+>ℶℶ(2LS(K))+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying ℶ(2LS(K))+<μ<λ+.
Downward Categoricity Transfer (Shelah, 1999)
Let K be an AEC satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
ℶℶ(2LS(K))+
Upward Categoricity Transfer (Grossberg-V, 2006)
If K is χ-tame for some χ≥LS(K) and is categorical in some λ+>LS(K)+χ+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying λ+≤μ.
LS(K)
categoricity in μ
Upward and Downward Bounds Improved (Vasey, 2017)
If K is LS(K)-tame and is categorical in some λ+>LS(K), then it is categorical in all μ>min(λ,ℶ(2LS(K))+).
ℶ(2LS(K))+
LS(K)+χ+
λ+
χ-tame
AP, JEP, and NMM
26
If K is categorical in some λ+>ℶℶ(2LS(K))+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying ℶ(2LS(K))+<μ<λ+.
Downward Categoricity Transfer (Shelah, 1999)
Let K be an AEC satisfying AP, JEP, and NMM.
Upward Categoricity Transfer (Grossberg-V, 2006)
If K is χ-tame for some χ≥LS(K) and is categorical in some λ+>LS(K)+χ+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying λ+≤μ.
Upward and Downward Bounds Improved (Vasey, 2017)
If K is LS(K)-tame and is categorical in some λ+>LS(K), then it is categorical in all μ>min(λ,ℶ(2LS(K))+).
λ+
χ-tame
AP, JEP, and NMM
27
If K is categorical in some λ+>ℶℶ(2LS(K))+, then it is categorical in all μ satisfying ℶ(2LS(K))+<μ<λ+.
λ+
χ-tame
AP, JEP, and NMM
follow from categoricity
successor assumption removed in categoricity cardinal
follows from categoricity
What the downward/upward results leave open...
27
Categoricity for Universal Classes (Vasey 2017)
Let K be a universal class with LS(K)=ℵ0.
λ+
χ-tame
AP, JEP, and NMM
follow from categoricity
successor assumption removed in categoricity cardinal
follows from categoricity
What the downward/upward results leave open...
27
λ+
χ-tame
AP, JEP, and NMM
follow from categoricity
successor assumption removed in categoricity cardinal
follows from categoricity
What the downward/upward results leave open...
Categoricity for Universal Classes (Vasey 2017)
Let K be a universal class with LS(K)=ℵ0.
27
What the downward/upward results leave open...
λ+
χ-tame
AP, JEP, and NMM
follow from categoricity
successor assumption removed in categoricity cardinal
follows from categoricity
What the downward/upward results leave open...
Categoricity for Universal Classes (Vasey 2017)
Let K be a universal class with LS(K)=ℵ0.
27
What the downward/upward results leave open...
Let K be a universal class with LS(K)=ℵ0. If K is categorical in some λ>ℶℶω1 then K is categorical in all λ>ℶℶω1.
λ+
χ-tame
AP, JEP, and NMM
follow from categoricity
successor assumption removed in categoricity cardinal
follows from categoricity
What the downward/upward results leave open...
Categoricity for Universal Classes (Vasey 2017)
27
A3: The AEC setting uncovers new model theoretic concepts
Why study Tame AECs?
Limit Models
Frames & μ-splitting
Towers
28
M0
Mi
Mi+1
. . .
. . .
⋃i<θMi
A3: The AEC setting uncovers new model theoretic concepts
Why study Tame AECs?
Limit Models
Frames & μ-splitting
Towers
28
Limit Models
M0
Mi
Mi+1
. . .
. . .
Definition (Shelah). If there exists a ≺-increasing sequence ⟨Mi∈Kμ∣i<θ⟩ so that for each i<θ, Mi+1 is universal over Mi, then ⋃i<θMi is a (μ,θ)-limit model.
⋃i<θMi
29
Limit Models
M0
Mi
Mi+1
. . .
. . .
M′
Definition (Shelah). If there exists a ≺-increasing sequence ⟨Mi∈Kμ∣i<θ⟩ so that for each i<θ, Mi+1 is universal over Mi, then ⋃i<θMi is a (μ,θ)-limit model.
⋃i<θMi
29
Limit Models
M0
Mi
Mi+1
. . .
. . .
M′
f
f(M′)
Definition (Shelah). If there exists a ≺-increasing sequence ⟨Mi∈Kμ∣i<θ⟩ so that for each i<θ, Mi+1 is universal over Mi, then ⋃i<θMi is a (μ,θ)-limit model.
⋃i<θMi
29
Limit Models
Definition (Shelah). If there exists a ≺-increasing sequence ⟨Mi∈Kμ∣i<θ⟩ so that for each i<θ, Mi+1 is universal over Mi, then ⋃i<θMi is a (μ,θ)-limit model.
M0
Mi
Mi+1
. . .
. . .
⋃i<θMi
M′
f
f(M′)
f↾Mi=idMi
29
Uniqueness of Limit Models
Suppose that α and θ are limit ordinals <μ+ and M∈Kμ.
Let K be an AEC and fix μ>LS(K).
Uniqueness question: Under what non-trivial conditions can we conclude that if Mα is a (μ,α)-limit model over M and Mθ is a (μ,θ)-limit model over M, then there exists f:Mα≅Mθ with f↾M=idM?
M=M0α
Mi+1α
Miα
Mα=⋃i<αMiα
30
Uniqueness of Limit Models
Suppose that α and θ are limit ordinals <μ+ and M∈Kμ.
Let K be an AEC and fix μ>LS(K).
M=M0θ=M0α
Miθ
Mi+1θ
. . .
. . .
⋃i<θMiθ
Mi+1α
Miα
Mα=⋃i<αMiα
Uniqueness question: Under what non-trivial conditions can we conclude that if Mα is a (μ,α)-limit model over M and Mθ is a (μ,θ)-limit model over M, then there exists f:Mα≅Mθ with f↾M=idM?
30
Uniqueness of Limit Models
Suppose that α and θ are limit ordinals <μ+ and M∈Kμ.
Let K be an AEC and fix μ>LS(K).
M=M0θ=M0α
Miθ
Mi+1θ
. . .
. . .
⋃i<θMiθ
Mi+1α
Miα
Mα=⋃i<αMiα
f
Uniqueness question: Under what non-trivial conditions can we conclude that if Mα is a (μ,α)-limit model over M and Mθ is a (μ,θ)-limit model over M, then there exists f:Mα≅Mθ with f↾M=idM?
30
Uniqueness of Limit Models
Suppose that α and θ are limit ordinals <μ+ and M∈Kμ.
Let K be an AEC with AP, JEP, and NMM, and fix μ>LS(K).
Case cf(α)=cf(θ): Back and forth construction produces f.
Case cf(α)=cf(θ): Answer seems related to "superstability".
Uniqueness question: Under what non-trivial conditions can we conclude that if Mα is a (μ,α)-limit model over M and Mθ is a (μ,θ)-limit model over M, then there exists f:Mα≅Mθ with f↾M=idM?
31
M0=Nα0
Nαi+1
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Mi+1
. . .
. . .
⋃i<θMi
Case cf(α)=θ:
Fix increasing and continuous chain ⟨αi∣i<θ⟩ so that limi<θαi=α
32
M0=Nα0
Nαi+1
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Mi+1
. . .
. . .
⋃i<θMi
Case cf(α)=θ:
Back and forth construction produces f viewed as a game of length θ.
32
M0=Nα0
Nαi+1
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Mi+1
. . .
. . .
⋃i<θMi
Case cf(α)=θ:
Back and forth construction produces f viewed as a game of length θ.
In round i+1:
Player I picks a point a in Mi+1
32
M0=Nα0
Nαi+1
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Mi+1
. . .
. . .
⋃i<θMi
Case cf(α)=θ:
Back and forth construction produces f viewed as a game of length θ.
In round i+1:
Player I picks a point a in Mi+1
Player II extends the isomorphism from previous round (fi) so that fi+1:Nαi+1→Mi+1 hits a.
32
M0=Nα0
Nαi+1
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Mi+1
. . .
. . .
⋃i<θMi
Case cf(α)=θ:
Back and forth construction produces f viewed as a game of length θ.
In round i+1:
Player I picks a point a in Mi+1
Player II extends the isomorphism from previous round (fi) so that fi+1:Nαi+1→Mi+1 hits a.
Limit stages i: Player I does nothing and Player II plays the union fi=⋃j<ifj.
32
M0=Nα0
Nαi+1
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Mi+1
. . .
. . .
⋃i<θMi
Case cf(α)=θ:
Back and forth construction produces f viewed as a game of length θ.
In round i+1:
Player I picks a point a in Mi+1
Player II extends the isomorphism from previous round (fi) so that fi+1:Nαi+1→Mi+1 hits a.
Limit stages i: Player I does nothing and Player II plays the union fi=⋃j<ifj.
Player I wins if Player II can't play.
Player II wins otherwise.
If Player II wins M and N are isomorphic.
32
M0=Nα0
Nαi+1
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Mi+1
. . .
. . .
⋃i<θMi
Round 0:
Player I picks a point in M0 and
Player II, defines f0:Nα0→M0 to be the identity mapping.
33
M0=Nα0
Nαi+1
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Mi+1
. . .
. . .
⋃i<θMi
Round i:
Player I picks a point in M0 and
Player II, defines f0:Nα0→M0 to be the identity mapping.
Suppose the game has proceeded to stage i+1.
So Player II has found fi:Nαi→Mi
33
M0=Nα0
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Case cf(α)=θ: Round i+1
Mi+1
Mi
⋃i<θMi
Nαi+1
M0=Nα0
34
M0=Nα0
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Case cf(α)=θ: Round i+1
Mi+1
Mi
⋃i<θMi
fi(Ni)
Nαi+1
M0=Nα0
fi
f0
34
M0=Nα0
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Case cf(α)=θ: Round i+1
Mi+1
Mi
⋃i<θMi
fi(Ni)
Nαi+1
M0=Nα0
fi
f0
a
34
M0=Nα0
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Case cf(α)=θ: Round i+1
Mi+1
Mia
⋃i<θMi
fi(Ni)
Nαi+1
M0=Nα0
fi
f0
a
WMA Mi+1 is a limit model over Mi, then by the DLS we can find Mia containing Mi⋃{a} with Mi+1 universal over Mia
34
M0=Nα0
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Case cf(α)=θ: Round i+1
Mi+1
Mia
⋃i<θMi
fi(Ni)
Nαi+1
M0=Nα0
a
fi−1
fi−1(Mi)
34
M0=Nα0
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Case cf(α)=θ: Round i+1
Mi+1
Mia
⋃i<θMi
fi(Ni)
Nαi+1
M0=Nα0
a
fi−1
g(fi−1(Mia))
fi−1(Mi)
g
34
M0=Nα0
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Case cf(α)=θ: Round i+1
Mi+1
Mia
⋃i<θMi
fi(Ni)
Nαi+1
M0=Nα0
a
fi−1
g(fi−1(Mia))
fi−1(Mi)
g
h:=( ∘ )−1
34
M0=Nα0
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Case cf(α)=θ: Round i+1
Mi+1
Mia
⋃i<θMi
fi(Ni)
Nαi+1
M0=Nα0
a
fi−1
g(fi−1(Mia))
g
h:=( ∘ )−1
h⊃fi↾Nαi
fi
34
M0=Nα0
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Case cf(α)=θ: Round i+1
Mi+1
Mia
⋃i<θMi
fi(Ni)
Nαi+1
M0=Nα0
a
g(fi−1(Mia))
h
h(Nαi+1)
fi
34
M0=Nα0
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Case cf(α)=θ: Round i+1
Mi+1
Mia
⋃i<θMi
fi(Ni)
Nαi+1
M0=Nα0
a
h
fi
34
M0=Nα0
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Case cf(α)=θ: Round i+1
Mi+1
Mia
⋃i<θMi
fi(Ni)
Nαi+1
M0=Nα0
a
h
j(h(Nαi+1))
j
34
M0=Nα0
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Case cf(α)=θ: Round i+1
Mi+1
Mia
⋃i<θMi
fi(Ni)
Nαi+1
M0=Nα0
a
h∘
j(h(Nαi+1))
j
fi+1:=
fi
34
M0=Nα0
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Case cf(α)=θ: Round i+1
Mi+1
Mia
⋃i<θMi
fi(Ni)
Nαi+1
M0=Nα0
a
fi+1
fi
34
fi+1
M0=Nα0
Nαi
⋃i<θNαi
Mi+1
Mia
⋃i<θMi
fi(Ni)
Nαi+1
M0=Nα0
a
fi+1
fi
35
⋃i<θfi
Player 2 wins. Therefore ⋃i<θNαi≅⋃i<θMi
Different cofinalities - Categorical Settings
Answer #1: Infinitary Logic
If K is categorical in λ>LS(K) and K=Mod(ψ) where ψ∈Lκ,ω
- for κ is strongly compact (Makkai-Shelah, 1990)
- for κ is measurable and μ<λ (Kolman-Shelah, 1996)
Uniqueness question: Under what non-trivial conditions can we conclude that if Mα is a (μ,α)-limit model over M and Mθ is a (μ,θ)-limit model over M, then there exists f:Mα≅Mθ with f↾M=idM?
36
Uniqueness question: Under what non-trivial conditions can we conclude that if Mα is a (μ,α)-limit model over M and Mθ is a (μ,θ)-limit model over M, then there exists f:Mα≅Mθ with f↾M=idM?
Answer # 2: AECs with set theoretic assumptions
If K is categorical in λ>LS(K) and has NMM.
- (Shelah-Villaveces, 1999) attempt uses GCH and diamond.
- GCH implies density of amalgamation bases
- Limit models are amalgamation bases and dense
- Categoricity implies no long splitting chains (Boney-Grossberg-V-Vasey, 2017).
- No long splitting chains implies uniqueness of limit models.
37
Different cofinalities - Categorical Settings
Uniqueness question: Under what non-trivial conditions can we conclude that if Mα is a (μ,α)-limit model over M and Mθ is a (μ,θ)-limit model over M, then there exists f:Mα≅Mθ with f↾M=idM?
Answer # 2: AECs with set theoretic assumptions
If K is categorical in λ>LS(K) and has NMM.
- (Shelah-Villaveces, 1999) attempt uses GCH and diamond.
- GCH implies density of amalgamation bases
- Limit models are amalgamation bases and dense
- Categoricity implies no long splitting chains (Boney-Grossberg-V-Vasey, 2017).
- No long splitting chains implies uniqueness of limit models.
37
Different cofinalities - Categorical Settings
Uniqueness question: Under what non-trivial conditions can we conclude that if Mα is a (μ,α)-limit model over M and Mθ is a (μ,θ)-limit model over M, then there exists f:Mα≅Mθ with f↾M=idM?
Answer # 2: AECs with set theoretic assumptions
If K is categorical in λ>LS(K) and has NMM.
- (Shelah-Villaveces, 1999) attempt uses GCH and diamond.
- GCH implies density of amalgamation bases
- Limit models are amalgamation bases and dense (V 2006)
- Categoricity implies no long splitting chains (Boney-Grossberg-V-Vasey, 2017).
- No long splitting chains implies uniqueness of limit models.
37
Different cofinalities - Categorical Settings
Uniqueness question: Under what non-trivial conditions can we conclude that if Mα is a (μ,α)-limit model over M and Mθ is a (μ,θ)-limit model over M, then there exists f:Mα≅Mθ with f↾M=idM?
Answer # 2: AECs with set theoretic assumptions
If K is categorical in λ>LS(K) and has NMM.
- (Shelah-Villaveces, 1999) attempt uses GCH and diamond.
- GCH implies density of amalgamation bases
- Limit models are amalgamation bases and dense (V 2006)
- Categoricity implies no long splitting chains (Boney-Grossberg-V-Vasey, 2017).
- No long splitting chains implies uniqueness of limit models.
37
Different cofinalities - Categorical Settings
Uniqueness question: Under what non-trivial conditions can we conclude that if Mα is a (μ,α)-limit model over M and Mθ is a (μ,θ)-limit model over M, then there exists f:Mα≅Mθ with f↾M=idM?
Answer # 2: AECs with set theoretic assumptions
If K is categorical in λ>LS(K) and has NMM.
- (Shelah-Villaveces, 1999) attempt uses GCH and diamond.
- GCH implies density of amalgamation bases
- Limit models are amalgamation bases and dense (V 2006)
- Categoricity implies no long splitting chains (Boney-Grossberg-V-Vasey, 2017).
- No long splitting chains implies uniqueness of limit models (and μ-symmetry.) (V, 2006, 2013, 2016)
37
Different cofinalities - Categorical Settings
Answer #3: AECs with no set theoretic assumptions
If K is categorical in λ sufficiently large and K satisfies AP and JEP, then K has uniqueness of limit models of cardinality μ for μ≥LS(K). (Vasey-V, 2017)
Uniqueness question: Under what non-trivial conditions can we conclude that if Mα is a (μ,α)-limit model over M and Mθ is a (μ,θ)-limit model over M, then there exists f:Mα≅Mθ with f↾M=idM?
38
Different cofinalities - Categorical Settings
Superstable Settings
If K is μ-superstable and satisfies AP, JEP, NMM and is tame and stable in a proper class of cardinals (Grossberg-Vasey, 2017)
If K is μ-superstable and satisfies AP, JEP, NMM and satisfies μ-symmetry (V., 2016).
Answer # 4: in Superstable Settings:
Uniqueness question: Under what non-trivial conditions can we conclude that if Mα is a (μ,α)-limit model over M and Mθ is a (μ,θ)-limit model over M, then there exists f:Mα≅Mθ with f↾M=idM?
38
Focusing on Superstability
If K is μ- and μ+-superstable and satisfies AP, JEP, NMM
μ+-symmetry
(Vasey-V., 2017)
μ-symmetry
Uniqueness of limit models of cardinality μ+
Union of increasing chain of μ+-saturated models is saturated
Uniqueness of limit models of cardinality μ
(V., 2016b)
(V., 2016b)
(V., 2016b)
(V., 2016a)
(V., 2016a)

39
circa 2007
Abstract Elementary Classes
Classification Theory for
Tame
Categorical in high enough cardinality
Stable
Superstable
40
Tame Abstract Elementary Classes
Classification Theory for
Tame
Categorical in high enough cardinality
Stable
Superstable

40
circa 2007
Superstability in Tame AECs
41
Suppose K satisfies the AP, JEP, and NMM and is tame. If K is stable in unboundedly many cardinals, then TFAE:
- For λ high enough, K has uniqueness of limit models of cardinality λ.
- For λ high enough, K is λ-superstable.
- For λ high enough, the union of a chain of λ-saturated models in λ saturated.
- There is a θ so that for λ high enough, K is (λ,θ)-solvable.
- For λ high enough, there is κ=κλ≤λ so that there is a good λ-frame on Kλκ−sat.
- For λ high enough, K has a superlimit model of cardinality λ.
See (Boney-Vasey, 2017) for an exposition.
Limit Models without Superstabilty
Let K be an AEC with AP, JEP, and NMM. M∈Kλ is λ-saturated iff M is a (λ,λ)-limit model (Grossberg-Vasey, 2017).
For K an AEC with AP, JEP, and NMM. If K is μ-stable, has weak continuity of μ-splitting, and satisfies μ-symmetry, then there is a κ which for αl (l=1,2) of cofinality >κ, then (μ,α1) limit models are isomorphic to (μ,α2)-limit models. (Boney-V., nd)
Let K be the class of torsion free Abelian groups with the pure subgroup relation. If G∈K is a (λ,α)-limit model, then
- for cf(α) uncountable, G≅(⨁λQ)⨁Πpprime(⨁λZ(p))
-
for cf(α) countable, G is not algebraically compact
(Mazari-Armida, 2018).
42
Can we develop a similar classification for non-first order theories?
Yes!
43
Classification of Tame AECs
eventually
categorical
superstable
stable
Algebraically Closed Fields of characteristic 0 satisfying Schanuel's Conjecture (Zilber, 2005)
43
Classification of Tame AECs
eventually
categorical
superstable
stable
Algebraically Closed Fields of characteristic 0 satisfying Schanuel's Conjecture (Zilber, 2005)
Absolutely pure R-modules for R local artinian (Mazari-Armida, 202x)
43
Classification of Tame AECs
eventually
categorical
superstable
stable
Abelian groups with the subgroup relation (Mazari-Armida, 2018)
Algebraically Closed Fields of characteristic 0 satisfying Schanuel's Conjecture (Zilber, 2005)
Absolutely pure R-modules for R local artinian (Mazari-Armida, 202x)
43
Classification of Tame AECs
eventually
categorical
superstable
stable
Abelian groups with the subgroup relation (Mazari-Armida, 2018)
Left R-modules for R is left Noetherian (Mazari-Armida, 2020)
Algebraically Closed Fields of characteristic 0 satisfying Schanuel's Conjecture (Zilber, 2005)
Absolutely pure R-modules for R local artinian (Mazari-Armida, 202x)
43
Classification of Tame AECs
eventually
categorical
superstable
stable
Abelian groups with the subgroup relation (Mazari-Armida, 2018)
Left R-modules for R is left Noetherian (Mazari-Armida, 2020)
Flat left R-modules with pure embeddings where R is left perfect (Mazari-Armida, 2021)
Algebraically Closed Fields of characteristic 0 satisfying Schanuel's Conjecture (Zilber, 2005)
Absolutely pure R-modules for R local artinian (Mazari-Armida, 202x)
43
Classification of Tame AECs
eventually
categorical
superstable
stable
Abelian groups with the subgroup relation (Mazari-Armida, 2018)
Left R-modules for R is left Noetherian (Mazari-Armida, 2020)
Flat left R-modules with pure embeddings where R is left perfect (Mazari-Armida, 2021)
Torsion free Abelian groups with the pure subgroup relation (Mazari-Armida, 2018)
Algebraically Closed Fields of characteristic 0 satisfying Schanuel's Conjecture (Zilber, 2005)
Absolutely pure R-modules for R local artinian (Mazari-Armida, 202x)
43
Classification of Tame AECs
eventually
categorical
superstable
stable
Abelian groups with the subgroup relation (Mazari-Armida, 2018)
Left R-modules for R is left Noetherian (Mazari-Armida, 2020)
Flat left R-modules with pure embeddings where R is left perfect (Mazari-Armida, 2021)
Torsion free Abelian groups with the pure subgroup relation (Mazari-Armida, 2018)
Algebraically Closed Fields of characteristic 0 satisfying Schanuel's Conjecture (Zilber, 2005)
Absolutely pure R-modules for R local artinian (Mazari-Armida, 202x)
43
20 Years of Tameness - March 2022
By Monica VanDieren
20 Years of Tameness - March 2022
In the 1970s Saharon Shelah initiated a program to develop classification theory for non-elementary classes, eventually settling on the setting of abstract elementary classes. For over three decades, most progress that was made required additional set theoretic axioms and was (co)-authored by Shelah. In 2001, Rami Grossberg and I introduced the model theoretic concept of tameness which opened the door for stability results in abstract elementary classes in ZFC. During the following 20 years, tameness along with limit models have been used by several mathematicians to prove categoricity theorems and to develop non-first order analogs to forking calculus and stability theory, solving a very large number of problems posed by Shelah in ZFC. Recently, Marcos Mazari-Armida found applications to Abelian group theory and ring theory. In this presentation I will highlight some of the more surprising results involving tameness and limit models from the past 20 years.
- 415