2
$\begingroup$

Let $T$ be a first-order theory which eliminates imaginaries, and let $A$ be an algebraically closed set in a model of $T$. Let $Gal_L(T[A])$ be the Lascar group of the theory $T[A]$, which is $T$ with constants added for $A$. Is $Gal_L(T[A])$ trivial? I would think not, but I don't know a counterexample.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

There are several notions of strong type in model theory. $a$ and $b$ have the same:

  • Lascar strong type over $A$, if they are equivalent under every bounded $A$-invariant equivalence relation.
  • Kim-Pillay strong type (aka compact strong type) over $A$, if they are equivalent under every bounded $A$-type-definable equivalence relation.
  • Shelah strong type (aka just strong type) over $A$, if they are equivalent under every finite $A$-definable equivalence relation.

Same Lascar strong type $\implies$ same Kim-Pillay strong type $\implies$ same Shelah strong type $\implies$ same type.

To say that $Gal_L(T[A])$ is trivial is to say that Lascar strong types over $A$ coincide with types over $A$. This is always true if $A$ is a model.

If $A$ is just $acl^{eq}$-closed, Shelah strong types over $A$ coincide with types over $A$. So you're looking for examples of theories in which Lascar strong types and Shelah strong types differ.

The easiest example is the circle of diameter $1$, equipped with binary relations $(R_n)_{n\geq 1}$ such that $R_n(a,b)$ if and only if $d(a,b)<1/n$. The type-definable equivalence relation $\{R_n(x,y)\mid n\geq 1\}$ is bounded but not finite (it has $2^{\aleph_0}$ classes).

In that example, Shelah strong type $\neq$ Kim-Pillay strong type. There are also lots of examples of theories in which Kim-Pillay strong type $\neq$ Lascar strong type, see this paper for example. On the other hand, a theory is called $G$-compact if Kim-Pillay strong type $=$ Lascar strong type.

By the way, in every stable theory, every supersimple theory, every o-minimal theory, and every C-minimal theory, Lascar strong type $=$ Shelah strong type. Simple theories are always $G$-compact, but the question of whether Kim-Pillay strong type = Shelah strong type in general simple theories is open.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.