Hubbry Logo
Stable theoryStable theoryMain
Open search
Stable theory
Community hub
Stable theory
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Stable theory
Stable theory
Stable theory
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In the mathematical field of model theory, a theory is called stable if it satisfies certain combinatorial restrictions on its complexity. Stable theories are rooted in the proof of Morley's categoricity theorem and were extensively studied as part of Saharon Shelah's classification theory, which showed a dichotomy that either the models of a theory admit a nice classification or the models are too numerous to have any hope of a reasonable classification. A first step of this program was showing that if a theory is not stable then its models are too numerous to classify.

Stable theories were the predominant subject of pure model theory from the 1970s through the 1990s, so their study shaped modern model theory[1] and there is a rich framework and set of tools to analyze them. A major direction in model theory is "neostability theory," which tries to generalize the concepts of stability theory to broader contexts, such as simple and NIP theories.

Motivation and history

[edit]

A common goal in model theory is to study a first-order theory by analyzing the complexity of the Boolean algebras of (parameter) definable sets in its models. One can equivalently analyze the complexity of the Stone duals of these Boolean algebras, which are type spaces. Stability restricts the complexity of these type spaces by restricting their cardinalities. Since types represent the possible behaviors of elements in a theory's models, restricting the number of types restricts the complexity of these models.[2]

Stability theory has its roots in Michael Morley's 1965 proof of Łoś's conjecture on categorical theories. In this proof, the key notion was that of a totally transcendental theory, defined by restricting the topological complexity of the type spaces. However, Morley showed that (for countable theories) this topological restriction is equivalent to a cardinality restriction, a strong form of stability now called -stability, and he made significant use of this equivalence. In the course of generalizing Morley's categoricity theorem to uncountable theories, Frederick Rowbottom generalized -stability by introducing -stable theories for some cardinal , and finally Shelah introduced stable theories.[3]

Stability theory was much further developed in the course of Shelah's classification theory program. The main goal of this program was to show a dichotomy that either the models of a first-order theory can be nicely classified up to isomorphism using a tree of cardinal-invariants (generalizing, for example, the classification of vector spaces over a fixed field by their dimension), or are so complicated that no reasonable classification is possible.[4] Among the concrete results from this classification theory were theorems on the possible spectrum functions of a theory, counting the number of models of cardinality as a function of .[a] Shelah's approach was to identify a series of "dividing lines" for theories. A dividing line is a property of a theory such that both it and its negation have strong structural consequences; one should imply the models of the theory are chaotic, while the other should yield a positive structure theory. Stability was the first such dividing line in the classification theory program, and since its failure was shown to rule out any reasonable classification, all further work could assume the theory to be stable. Thus much of classification theory was concerned with analyzing stable theories and various subsets of stable theories given by further dividing lines, such as superstable theories.[3]

One of the key features of stable theories developed by Shelah is that they admit a general notion of independence called non-forking independence, generalizing linear independence from vector spaces and algebraic independence from field theory. Although non-forking independence makes sense in arbitrary theories, and remains a key tool beyond stable theories, it has particularly good geometric and combinatorial properties in stable theories. As with linear independence, this allows the definition of independent sets and of local dimensions as the cardinalities of maximal instances of these independent sets, which are well-defined under additional hypotheses. These local dimensions then give rise to the cardinal-invariants classifying models up to isomorphism.[4]

Definition and alternate characterizations

[edit]

Let T be a complete first-order theory.

For a given infinite cardinal , T is -stable if for every set A of cardinality in a model of T, the set S(A) of complete types over A also has cardinality . This is the smallest the cardinality of S(A) can be, while it can be as large as . For the case , it is common to say T is -stable rather than -stable.[5]

T is stable if it is -stable for some infinite cardinal .[6]

Restrictions on the cardinals for which a theory can simultaneously by -stable are described by the stability spectrum,[7] which singles out the even tamer subset of superstable theories.

A common alternate definition of stable theories is that they do not have the order property. A theory has the order property if there is a formula and two infinite sequences of tuples , in some model M such that defines an infinite half graph on , i.e. is true in M .[8] This is equivalent to there being a formula and an infinite sequence of tuples in some model M such that defines an infinite linear order on A, i.e. is true in M .[9][b][c]

There are numerous further characterizations of stability. As with Morley's totally transcendental theories, the cardinality restrictions of stability are equivalent to bounding the topological complexity of type spaces in terms of Cantor-Bendixson rank.[12] Another characterization is via the properties that non-forking independence has in stable theories, such as being symmetric. This characterizes stability in the sense that any theory with an abstract independence relation satisfying certain of these properties must be stable and the independence relation must be non-forking independence.[13]

Any of these definitions, except via an abstract independence relation, can instead be used to define what it means for a single formula to be stable in a given theory T. Then T can be defined to be stable if every formula is stable in T.[14] Localizing results to stable formulas allows these results to be applied to stable formulas in unstable theories, and this localization to single formulas is often useful even in the case of stable theories.[15]

Examples and non-examples

[edit]

For an unstable theory, consider the theory DLO of dense linear orders without endpoints. Then the atomic order relation has the order property. Alternatively, unrealized 1-types over a set A correspond to cuts (generalized Dedekind cuts, without the requirements that the two sets be non-empty and that the lower set have no greatest element) in the ordering of A,[16] and there exist dense orders of any cardinality with -many cuts.[17]

Another unstable theory is the theory of the Rado graph, where the atomic edge relation has the order property.[18]

For a stable theory, consider the theory of algebraically closed fields of characteristic p, allowing . Then if K is a model of , counting types over a set is equivalent to counting types over the field k generated by A in K. There is a (continuous) bijection from the space of n-types over k to the space of prime ideals in the polynomial ring . Since such ideals are finitely generated, there are only many, so is -stable for all infinite .[19]

Some further examples of stable theories are listed below.

Geometric stability theory

[edit]

Geometric stability theory is concerned with the fine analysis of local geometries in models and how their properties influence global structure. This line of results was later key in various applications of stability theory, for example to Diophantine geometry. It is usually taken to start in the late 1970s with Boris Zilber's analysis of totally categorical theories, eventually showing that they are not finitely axiomatizble. Every model of a totally categorical theory is controlled by (i.e. is prime and minimal over) a strongly minimal set, which carries a matroid structure[d] determined by (model-theoretic) algebraic closure that gives notions of independence and dimension. In this setting, geometric stability theory then asks the local question of what the possibilities are for the structure of the strongly minimal set, and the local-to-global question of how the strongly minimal set controls the whole model.[24]

The second question is answered by Zilber's Ladder Theorem, showing every model of a totally categorical theory is built up by a finite sequence of something like "definable fiber bundles" over the strongly minimal set.[25] For the first question, Zilber's Trichotomy Conjecture was that the geometry of a strongly minimal set must be either like that of a set with no structure, or the set must essentially carry the structure of a vector space, or the structure of an algebraically closed field, with the first two cases called locally modular.[26] This conjecture illustrates two central themes. First, that (local) modularity serves to divide combinatorial or linear behavior from nonlinear, geometric complexity as in algebraic geometry.[27] Second, that complicated combinatorial geometry necessarily comes from algebraic objects;[28] this is akin to the classical problem of finding a coordinate ring for an abstract projective plane defined by incidences, and further examples are the group configuration theorems showing certain combinatorial dependencies among elements must arise from multiplication in a definable group.[29] By developing analogues of parts of algebraic geometry in strongly minimal sets, such as intersection theory, Zilber proved a weak form of the Trichotomy Conjecture for uncountably categorical theories.[30] Although Ehud Hrushovski developed the Hrushovski construction to disprove the full conjecture, it was later proved with additional hypotheses in the setting of "Zariski geometries".[31]

Notions from Shelah's classification program, such as regular types, forking, and orthogonality, allowed these ideas to be carried to greater generality, especially in superstable theories. Here, sets defined by regular types play the role of strongly minimal sets, with their local geometry determined by forking dependence rather than algebraic dependence. In place of the single strongly minimal set controlling models of a totally categorical theory, there may be many such local geometries defined by regular types, and orthogonality describes when these types have no interaction.[32]

Applications

[edit]

While stable theories are fundamental in model theory, this section lists applications of stable theories to other areas of mathematics. This list does not aim for completeness, but rather a sense of breadth.

  • Since the theory of differentially closed fields of characteristic 0 is -stable, there are many applications of stability theory in differential algebra. For example, the existence and uniqueness of the differential closure of such a field (an analogue of the algebraic closure) were proved by Lenore Blum and Shelah respectively, using general results on prime models in -stable theories.[33]
  • In online machine learning, the Littlestone dimension of a concept class is a complexity measure characterizing learnability, analogous to the VC-dimension in PAC learning. Bounding the Littlestone dimension of a concept class is equivalent to a combinatorial characterization of stability involving binary trees.[36] This equivlanece has been used, for example, to prove that online learnability of a concept class is equivalent to differentially private PAC learnability.[37]
  • In functional analysis, Jean-Louis Krivine and Bernard Maurey defined a notion of stability for Banach spaces, equivalent to stating that no quantifier-free formula has the order property (in continuous logic, rather than first-order logic). They then showed that every stable Banach space admits an almost-isometric embedding of ℓp for some .[38] This is part of a broader interplay between functional analysis and stability in continuous logic; for example, early results of Alexander Grothendieck in functional analysis can be interpreted as equivalent to fundamental results of stability theory.[39]
  • A countable (possibly finite) structure is ultrahomogeneous if every finite partial automorphism extends to an automorphism of the full structure. Gregory Cherlin and Alistair Lachlan provided a general classification theory for stable ultrahomogeneous structures, including all finite ones. In particular, their results show that for any fixed finite relational language, the finite homogeneous structures fall into finitely many infinite families with members parametrized by numerical invariants and finitely many sporadic examples. Furthermore, every sporadic example becomes part of an infinite family in some richer language, and new sporadic examples always appear in suitably richer languages.[40]

Generalizations

[edit]

For about twenty years after its introduction, stability was the main subject of pure model theory.[43] A central direction of modern pure model theory, sometimes called "neostability" or "classification theory,"[e]consists of generalizing the concepts and techniques developed for stable theories to broader classes of theories, and this has fed into many of the more recent applications of model theory.[44]

Two notable examples of such broader classes are simple and NIP theories. These are orthogonal generalizations of stable theories, since a theory is both simple and NIP if and only if it is stable.[43] Roughly, NIP theories keep the good combinatorial behavior from stable theories, while simple theories keep the good geometric behavior of non-forking independence.[45] In particular, simple theories can be characterized by non-forking independence being symmetric,[46] while NIP can be characterized by bounding the number of types realized over either finite[47] or infinite[48] sets.

Another direction of generalization is to recapitulate classification theory beyond the setting of complete first-order theories, such as in abstract elementary classes.[49]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Stable theory

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Stable theory is a fundamental notion in , the branch of concerned with the interpretation of logical formulas in mathematical structures. A complete TT in a countable LL is stable if it does not have the order property, meaning there do not exist sequences (ai)i<ω(a_i)_{i<\omega} and (bj)j<ω(b_j)_{j<\omega} in a model of TT such that the formula ϕ(x;y)\phi(x;y) satisfies ⊨ϕ(ai,bj)\models \phi(a_i, b_j) if and only if i≤ji \leq j; equivalently, TT is stable if for every set AA of parameters, the cardinality of the space of complete types S(A)S(A) over AA satisfies ∣S(A)∣≤∣A∣+2∣L∣|S(A)| \leq |A| + 2^{|L|}. The development of stability theory originated in Michael Morley's 1965 resolution of the Löś conjecture, which proved that a countable first-order theory categorical in one uncountable power κ\kappa (meaning all models of cardinality κ\kappa are isomorphic) is categorical in every uncountable power, and such theories admit a finite rank function and are totally transcendental—a strict subclass of stable theories characterized by having at most ℵ0\aleph_0 types over any countable set. Saharon Shelah, building on this in his 1969 paper, introduced the broader framework of stable theories as part of a classification program, showing that stability provides bounds on the spectrum function I(T,κ)I(T, \kappa), which counts the number of non-isomorphic models of cardinality κ\kappa, and distinguishes stable theories from unstable ones by their controlled growth of types. Stable theories are notable for their "tame" combinatorial behavior, lacking pathological orderings and admitting a pregeometry via the non-forking independence relation, which parallels linear independence in vector spaces and allows for a dimension theory on definable sets. Key examples include the theory of algebraically closed fields (ACF), which is ω\omega-stable and models correspond to fields of specified transcendence degree, and the theory of the free group on two generators, which is stable but admits infinite descending chains of forking. Further subclasses like superstable and simple theories extend these ideas. Applications span algebraic geometry (e.g., o-minimal structures), differential algebra (e.g., solutions to Painlevé equations in differentially closed fields), and geometric group theory (e.g., definable subgroups in free groups), where stability tools classify definable sets and independence relations.

Historical Context

Origins and Motivation

Stable theory arose as a response to the challenges in classifying first-order theories based on their model-theoretic complexity, particularly following Michael Morley's 1965 categoricity theorem, which demonstrated that a complete first-order theory categorical in one uncountable cardinality is categorical in all uncountable cardinalities, thereby highlighting the need to identify "well-behaved" theories with controlled structural properties. This result inspired efforts to delineate classes of theories where isomorphism types of models could be systematically understood, contrasting with the wild variability observed in more complex theories. In the late 1960s, Saharon Shelah initiated work on dividing lines within model theory to stratify theories by their complexity, focusing on the growth of types—complete consistent sets of formulas—as a measure of tameness, with stability emerging as a pivotal threshold where type spaces remain manageable rather than exploding in size. Shelah's approach sought to extend insights from Morley's theorem by quantifying how formulas behave over finite or infinite sets, aiming to separate theories amenable to classification from those exhibiting pathological growth. A key unstable phenomenon identified early on was the order property, where a formula can encode an arbitrary linear order on an infinite set, leading to unbounded proliferation of types and rendering models difficult to classify, as seen in structures like dense linear orders without endpoints. This property underscored the motivations for stability, as it exemplified how certain theories evade structural control, prompting the development of criteria to exclude such behaviors. Shelah's seminal 1969 paper formalized stability as a condition limiting type growth to the cardinality of the parameter set, directly motivated by the shortcomings of prior classification attempts for unstable theories, including those with order-like properties that defied isomorphism control. By introducing stability alongside related notions like the finite cover property, this work established a foundational dividing line, enabling deeper analysis of model-theoretic hierarchies while building on the geometric and combinatorial insights from Morley's era.

Key Developments and Figures

The foundations of stable theory were laid by Michael Morley's 1965 proof of the categoricity theorem, which demonstrated that a first-order theory in a countable language categorical in one uncountable cardinality is categorical in all uncountable cardinalities, providing early insights into the structural rigidity of certain theories that later became central to stability concepts. Saharon Shelah emerged as the primary architect of stable theory in the late 1960s and 1970s, introducing forking independence in 1971 as a generalization of linear and algebraic independence, enabling a robust framework for analyzing dependence in models. Shelah further developed the stability hierarchy during this decade, classifying theories based on their order properties and leading to a trichotomy distinguishing stable, strictly stable, and unstable behaviors, which refined the spectrum of model counts. His seminal 1978 book Classification Theory and the Number of Nonisomorphic Models formalized these ideas, establishing tools like the stability spectrum and resolving Morley's conjecture on model counts for stable theories. In the 1980s, Shelah resolved the main gap conjecture through his work culminating in Classification Theory II (1990), proving that for countable theories, the number of models in cardinality λ\lambda is either bounded by ∣λ∣<ℵ0|\lambda|^{<\aleph_0} (classifiable) or 2∣λ∣2^{|\lambda|} (non-classifiable), with the dividing line tied to superstability and dimension-like properties. Concurrently, Boris Zilber posed his 1984 trichotomy conjecture for strongly minimal sets, predicting they must be either trivial, a vector space over a division ring, or interpretable in an algebraically closed field, influencing geometric aspects of stability. Ehud Hrushovski's constructions in the late 1980s, notably his 1993 paper introducing a new strongly minimal set with non-classical geometry, refuted Zilber's conjecture and opened avenues for exotic stable structures via combinatorial methods. Key figures include Shelah, whose over 800 publications form the bedrock of the field, with ongoing influence through refinements in abstract elementary classes. John T. Baldwin contributed essential expositions and applications, particularly in his 1988 book Fundamentals of Stability Theory, making the hierarchy accessible and extending it to broader contexts. Hrushovski advanced geometric constructions, while Zilber's conjectures drove progress in categoricity and trichotomy. By the 1990s, the core framework of stable theory had stabilized, with Shelah's classification tools fully established. In the years following, as of 2020, developments have focused on refinements in higher-dimensional stability and integrations with o-minimal structures, though the foundational hierarchy remains unchanged. Recent work up to 2025 continues to explore tame abstract elementary classes building on stable frameworks, without altering core concepts.

Core Concepts

Definition of Stability

In model theory, a complete theory TT is a consistent set of sentences in a first-order language LL such that for every LL-sentence ϕ\phi, either T⊢ϕT \vdash \phi or T⊢¬ϕT \vdash \neg \phi. Models of TT are LL-structures satisfying all sentences in TT. Given a model M⊨TM \models T and a subset A⊆MA \subseteq M, a (complete) type p(x)p(\mathbf{x}) over AA is a maximal consistent set of L(A)L(A)-formulas with free variables x\mathbf{x} (a finite tuple), meaning that p(x)p(\mathbf{x}) cannot be properly extended to a larger consistent set of such formulas. The collection of all complete types over AA in nn variables is denoted Sn(A)S_n(A), and S(A)=⋃nSn(A)S(A) = \bigcup_n S_n(A) denotes all complete types over AA; the cardinality ∣S(A)∣|S(A)| quantifies the diversity of realizations consistent with parameters from AA. A theory TT is stable if there exists an infinite cardinal κ\kappa such that for every set AA (in some model of TT) with ∣A∣≤κ|A| \leq \kappa, we have ∣S(A)∣≤κ|S(A)| \leq \kappa. This condition ensures that the cardinality of the type space over parameter sets does not grow faster than the size of the parameters themselves in a certain initial range of cardinals, preventing an "explosion" of types that characterizes unstable theories. Equivalently, TT is stable if and only if ∣S(A)∣≤2∣A∣|S(A)| \leq 2^{|A|} for all sets AA, though the original formulation emphasizes the existence of such a stabilizing cardinal κ>∣T∣\kappa > |T|. Several important variants of stability refine this notion by imposing additional restrictions on type behavior. A stable theory TT is totally transcendental if every type in S(A)S(A) has finite Morley rank, a rank function measuring the "dimension" of definable sets analogous to transcendence degree in algebraically closed fields; this finite-character property implies that types can be isolated by finitely many formulas. TT is superstable if it is stable and, for every ordinal α\alpha, the UU-rank (an alternative dimension measuring non-forking independence) of types is bounded above α\alpha, equivalently meaning there are no infinite descending chains of forking extensions over finite parameter sets. Finally, TT is ω\omega-stable if it is stable and ∣S(A)∣≤ℵ0|S(A)| \leq \aleph_0 for every countable set AA, ensuring only countably many types over countable parameters; countable ω\omega-stable theories are precisely the countable totally transcendental theories. If UU extends TT (i.e., U⊇TU \supseteq T in the same ) and TT is unstable, then UU is unstable, since any order property in TT persists in models of UU. Moreover, every stable theory TT admits an expansion T′T' of the (typically by adding predicates or functions defining types) in which T′T' has , meaning every formula is equivalent to a quantifier-free one modulo T′T'. These facts facilitate the study of models by reducing complexity in expansions while preserving core invariants.

Alternate Characterizations

One key semantic characterization of stability in equates a complete theory TT with the absence of the order property. The order property for a ϕ(x;y)\phi(x; y) holds if there exist sequences {an∣n<ω}\{a_n \mid n < \omega\} and {bn∣n<ω}\{b_n \mid n < \omega\} in a model of TT such that ⊨ϕ(ai,bj)\models \phi(a_i, b_j) if and only if i<ji < j, thereby defining an infinite linear order on a definable set. Shelah proved that TT is stable if and only if no in the language of TT has the order property. This equivalence bridges the combinatorial notion of bounded type numbers with structural restrictions on definable sets. To see one direction, suppose ϕ(x;y)\phi(x; y) has the order property; then, over parameters {bn∣n<ω}\{b_n \mid n < \omega\}, one can construct 2ℵ02^{\aleph_0} distinct types in Sx({bn∣n<ω})S_x(\{b_n \mid n < \omega\}) by specifying, for each binary sequence, the set of bnb_n satisfying ϕ(x;bn)\phi(x; b_n), yielding at least continuum many types and thus . The converse follows from showing that if some witnesses (unbounded types over finite parameter sets), then one can extract sequences realizing an infinite order via consistent extensions of types that distinguish parameters in a linear fashion. A syntactic counterpart to this semantic view lies in the forking partial order on types, where for stable theories, there are no infinite descending chains of forking extensions over increasing sets. Moreover, types exhibit bounded multiplicity, meaning that the number of pairwise inconsistent non-forking extensions of a type to a larger set is finite. This Noetherian-like property on type spaces ensures that the complexity of realizations is controlled, preventing the proliferation of types that marks instability. Shelah established this by defining a rank function on and types such that a is unstable precisely when its associated types admit unbounded ranks, leading to infinite chains. Shelah further characterized stability through the notion of weight for types, where the weight of a type p∈Sx(A)p \in S_x(A) is the supremum of the cardinalities of finite independent families of realizations of pp over extensions of AA. A theory TT is stable if and only if every complete type has finite weight, reflecting a duality with dimension-like invariants that bound the "independence" structure within stable settings. This perspective integrates with broader classification efforts, emphasizing how finite weight precludes infinite forking chains or independent splittings. Finally, stability admits a in terms of dimensions for : TT is if and only if, for every formula ϕ(x;y)\phi(x; y), the dimension is finite, meaning there is no infinite family of pairwise ϕ\phi-independent elements (where prevents mutual definable dependencies via ϕ\phi). This captures the absence of infinite independent families that would witness through explosive type growth, aligning with the order property's failure to produce such structures.

Illustrative Examples

Canonical Stable Theories

One paradigmatic example of a stable theory is the theory of algebraically closed fields of characteristic pp, denoted ACFp_p, where pp is a prime or 00. This theory is not only stable but also superstable and ω\omega-stable, meaning it has a well-behaved of types with finite Morley rank ω\omega. In ACFp_p, complete types over a subfield KK correspond to algebraic varieties over KK, providing an algebraic interpretation of the theory's stability that aligns with geometric structures. Models of ACFp_p are determined by their characteristic and cardinality, with dimension measured by transcendence degree over the prime field. Another canonical stable theory is that of differentially closed fields of characteristic zero, DCF0_0, which admits in the language of rings augmented by a derivation δ\delta. Stability in DCF0_0 follows from its model completeness and the Noetherian property of prime differential ideals, ensuring finitely many types over finite parameter sets; moreover, it is ω\omega-stable with Morley rank ω\omega. Types in DCF0_0 over a differential subfield correspond to solutions of differential equations, modeling systems where is replaced by differential closure. This theory captures the model-theoretic essence of , with saturation corresponding to differentially saturated extensions. The theory of algebraically closed valued fields, ACVF, extends ACF by incorporating a non-trivial valuation, and it is stable in the including the valuation ring and its . ACVF admits after adding divisibility predicates on the value group, and its stability reflects the interplay between the (algebraically closed) and the divisible value group. Types in ACVF correspond to semi-algebraic sets in the valued setting, useful in p-adic , where models are classified by the characteristic of the and value group. in ACVF combines transcendence degree in the with rank in the value group. These theories—ACFp_p, DCF0_0, and ACVF—share the property of eliminating imaginaries, meaning every definable on tuples is the kernel of a definable map to another sort, which simplifies the study of types and forking. in these contexts is often captured by transcendence degree over parameter sets, providing a uniform measure of analogous to . A non-trivial yet simple stable example is the theory of infinite-dimensional vector spaces over a fixed DD, which is with trivial geometry: all non-algebraic types have 1, and the theory has in the language of modules. This illustrates stability's algebraic flavor without the geometric richness of field theories, where forking corresponds to linear dependence.

Prominent Unstable Theories

The theory of dense linear orders without endpoints (DLO), exemplified by Q\mathbb{Q} under <<, serves as a fundamental example of an unstable theory. It possesses the order property via the \phi(x,y) \equiv [x < y](/page/X&Y), which allows encoding of arbitrary finite linear orders: for any nn, there exist sequences a1,…,ana_1, \dots, a_n and b1,…,bnb_1, \dots, b_n such that ϕ(ai,bj)\phi(a_i, b_j) holds i<ji < j. This leads to uncontrolled growth in the type space, where the number of 1-types over a AA equals ∣A∣+2|A| + 2, but over an infinite set AA reaches 2∣A∣2^{|A|}, corresponding to the Dedekind cuts determined by AA. The theory of the (or countable ), denoted TRGT_{RG}, provides another key illustration of . The edge relation E(x,y)E(x,y) exhibits the independence property (IP), as for any finite nn and subset s⊆ns \subseteq n, there exist parameters realizing arbitrary patterns where E(as,bi)E(a_s, b_i) holds precisely for i∈si \in s. This enables encoding of arbitrary bipartite graphs, rendering the theory unstable. Although TRGT_{RG} lacks the strict order property () and is thus simple, its instability manifests through infinite independent families of edges, contributing to non-trivial dividing lines in classification. Peano arithmetic (PA) exemplifies instability in a foundational arithmetic context. The natural order << on natural numbers induces the order property, particularly through formulas defining arithmetic progressions, allowing sequences where ϕ(ai,bj)\phi(a_i, b_j) captures i<ji < j via additive structure. This encoding of external linear orders underscores PA's instability, with the theory admitting 2ℵ02^{\aleph_0} non-isomorphic countable models. The theory of real closed fields (RCF), such as the reals R\mathbb{R} with ++, ×\times, and <<, is unstable owing to the order property inherent in its linear ordering, despite being o-minimal and thus NIP. The formula x<yx < y witnesses this, enabling the realization of arbitrary orders. Over a parameter set AA, the 1-types correspond to semi-algebraic sets defined relative to AA, leading to exponential growth in type cardinality beyond stability bounds. Instability in these theories frequently stems from mechanisms encoding external linear orders (as in , PA, and RCF) or arbitrary graphs (as in the ), contrasting sharply with the bounded complexity of stable theories.

Theoretical Properties

Type Spaces and Dimensions

In stable theories, the space of complete nn-types over a set AA, denoted Sn(A)S^n(A), is a compact equipped with the topology induced by , where the basic open sets are of the form {p∈Sn(A):ϕ(x)∈p}\{p \in S^n(A) : \phi(\mathbf{x}) \in p\} for formulas ϕ(x)\phi(\mathbf{x}) in the with parameters from AA. Stability imposes strong bounds on the of these spaces: for any model MM of κ≥2∣L∣\kappa \geq 2^{|L|}, where LL is the , ∣Sn(M)∣≤κ|S^n(M)| \leq \kappa, ensuring controlled growth of types compared to unstable theories. More precisely, for a stable formula ϕ(x,y)\phi(\mathbf{x},\mathbf{y}), the space Sϕ(A)S_\phi(A) satisfies ∣Sϕ(A)∣≤∣A∣+ℵ0|S_\phi(A)| \leq |A| + \aleph_0 whenever ∣A∣|A| is infinite, reflecting the absence of order-like or tree-like behaviors that would cause exponential proliferation. To measure the complexity of types and definable sets in stable theories, several rank functions have been developed, beginning with Shelah's rank, an ordinal-valued invariant that captures multiplicative structure. Shelah's rank, often denoted D(ϕ,k)D(\phi, k) for a ϕ\phi and k≥2k \geq 2, is defined inductively: D(ϕ,k)≥0D(\phi, k) \geq 0 if ϕ\phi is consistent, D(ϕ,k)≥βD(\phi, k) \geq \beta for limit β\beta if D(ϕ,k)≥αD(\phi, k) \geq \alpha for all α<β\alpha < \beta, and D(ϕ,k)≥α+1D(\phi, k) \geq \alpha + 1 if there exists a kk-inconsistent family of formulas ψi(x,yi)\psi_i(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}_i) (i<ki < k) such that D(ϕ∧ψi,k)≥αD(\phi \land \psi_i, k) \geq \alpha for each ii. This rank is multiplicative in the sense that for independent extensions, it behaves additively under certain conditions, and in stable theories, every ϕ\phi has finite Shelah rank D(ϕ,k)<ωD(\phi, k) < \omega. For types, the rank extends naturally, providing a notion of "dimension" that vanishes precisely when the type is algebraic. A refinement suited to superstability is the U-rank (or Shelah's U-degree), which assigns to each complete type p∈S(A)p \in S(A) an ordinal U(p)≤ωU(p) \leq \omega measuring the "depth" of non-forking extensions. Specifically, U(p)≥0U(p) \geq 0 if pp is consistent, U(p)≥λU(p) \geq \lambda for limit λ\lambda if U(p)≥αU(p) \geq \alpha for all α<λ\alpha < \lambda, and U(p)≥α+1U(p) \geq \alpha + 1 if there exists B⊇AB \supseteq A with ∣B∣≤∣T∣+ℵ0|B| \leq |T| + \aleph_0 such that pp has 2∣B∣2^{|B|} many pairwise inconsistent non-forking extensions q∈S(B)q \in S(B) each with U(q)≥αU(q) \geq \alpha. In superstable theories, every type has finite U-rank U(p)<ωU(p) < \omega, and this finiteness characterizes superstability among stable theories; moreover, U-rank coincides with the Lascar U-rank SU(p)SU(p) in stable settings, preserving the same value under non-forking extensions. Dimension theory in stable theories further refines these ranks through the Cantor-Bendixson (CB) rank, particularly in the ω\omega-stable case, where type spaces admit a complete analysis akin to scattered spaces. The CB-rank of a closed subset X⊆Sn(A)X \subseteq S^n(A), denoted CB(X)CB(X), is the least ordinal α\alpha such that XX is contained in the α\alpha-th derivative X(α)X^{(\alpha)} of isolated points, defined inductively: CB(p)=0CB(p) = 0 if pp is isolated, CB(p)≥α+1CB(p) \geq \alpha + 1 if pp is in the closure of points of CB-rank at least α\alpha, and CB(p)≥lim⁡βηCB(p) \geq \lim \beta_\eta if CB(p)≥βηCB(p) \geq \beta_\eta for all η\eta. In ω\omega-stable theories, CBCB-rank coincides with Morley rank and is finite for all types, enabling a decomposition of Sn(A)S^n(A) into finitely many isolated points and lower-rank components. Complementing this, multiplicity addresses type duplication: for a type p∈S(A)p \in S(A), the multiplicity Mlt(p)Mlt(p) is the number of distinct global non-forking extensions of pp to S(C)S(\mathfrak{C}), where C\mathfrak{C} is a monster model, bounded by 2∣T∣2^{|T|} in stable theories and quantifying how many "parallel" realizations pp admits without forking. A fundamental theorem in stable theories asserts that every complete type pp has finite Shelah rank rk(p)<ωrk(p) < \omega, ensuring no infinite descending chains of extensions and allowing decomposition of pp into irreducible components via the CB-derivative process in the ω\omega-stable case, where pp splits into finitely many maximal-rank stationary types. This finiteness extends to U-rank in superstable theories, where rk(p)≤ωrk(p) \leq \omega bounds the ordinal but remains finite in practice for all types. For independent types, ranks exhibit additivity: if {pi:i∈I}\{p_i : i \in I\} (∣I∣<ω|I| < \omega) are pairwise non-forking over AA and mutually independent (i.e., tp(ai/A∪{aj:j<i})tp(a_i / A \cup \{a_j : j < i\}) does not fork over AA), then rk(⋃i∈Ipi/A)=∑i∈Irk(pi/A),rk\left( \bigcup_{i \in I} p_i / A \right) = \sum_{i \in I} rk(p_i / A), preserving the total dimension under disjoint realizations.

Independence and Forking

In stable theories, the notion of forking provides a fundamental mechanism for analyzing the behavior of formulas and types, distinguishing them from unstable settings. A formula ϕ(x;a)\phi(x; a) divides over a set AA if there exists a finite k<ωk < \omega and an AA-indiscernible sequence (ai:i<ω)(a_i : i < \omega) with a0=aa_0 = a such that the set {ϕ(x;ai):i<ω}\{\phi(x; a_i) : i < \omega\} is kk-inconsistent, meaning no more than k−1k-1 of these formulas can be simultaneously satisfied. This condition captures situations where extending parameters from AA leads to inconsistent realizations in a controlled way, and stability ensures that no formula divides over arbitrarily large finite subsets of AA. Forking generalizes dividing: a formula ϕ(x;a)\phi(x; a) forks over AA if it implies a finite disjunction of dividing formulas over AA, and a complete type p(x)p(x) over a set containing AA forks over AA if it entails such a forking formula. In stable theories, forking and dividing coincide for types, providing a uniform tool for studying extensions. Independence in stable theories is defined via non-forking extensions, forming a well-behaved relation. For sets BB and CC with A⊆B∩CA \subseteq B \cap C, we say B⊥ACB \perp_A C if for every finite tuple b∈Bb \in B, the type tp(b/A∪C)\mathrm{tp}(b / A \cup C) does not fork over AA. For types p∈S(B/A)p \in S(B/A) and q∈S(C/A)q \in S(C/A), p⊥Aqp \perp_A q if, for realizations bˉ\bar{b} of pp and cˉ\bar{c} of qq, tp(bˉcˉ/A)\mathrm{tp}(\bar{b} \bar{c} / A) does not fork over AA. This relation is symmetric in stable theories: if pp forks over A∪{c}A \cup \{c\} but not over AA, then tp(c/A∪dom(p))\mathrm{tp}(c / A \cup \mathrm{dom}(p)) forks over AA. Non-forking independence satisfies existence (every type over a model has a non-forking extension to any larger set), monotonicity (if B⊥ACB \perp_A C and B′⊆BB' \subseteq B, C′⊆CC' \subseteq C, then B′⊥AC′B' \perp_A C'), and transitivity (if B⊥ACB \perp_A C and C⊥ADC \perp_A D, then B⊥ADB \perp_A D). In strongly minimal sets, these properties imply the uniqueness of generic types, where non-forking extensions correspond to realizations preserving the generic character. A key application of non-forking is its local character, which bounds the of . In stable theories, for any type p∈S(B)p \in S(B) and set C⊇AC \supseteq A with ∣C∣≤∣A∣+∣T∣+ℵ0|C| \leq |A| + |T| + \aleph_0, there exists A0⊆CA_0 \subseteq C with ∣A0∣≤∣T∣+ℵ0|A_0| \leq |T| + \aleph_0 such that pp does not fork over A0A_0. This locality underpins the classification of types by their non-forking behavior, relating briefly to type ranks that measure forking depth without delving into dimensional aspects.

Geometric Aspects

Strongly Minimal Structures

In model theory, a formula ϕ(x)\phi(x) in the language of a theory TT is strongly minimal if, for every model M⊨TM \models T and every parameter formula ψ(x,aˉ)\psi(x, \bar{a}) with aˉ∈M\bar{a} \in M, the intersection ϕ(M)∩ψ(M,aˉ)\phi(M) \cap \psi(M, \bar{a}) is either finite or cofinite in ϕ(M)\phi(M). This property ensures that strongly minimal formulas define "atoms" in the geometric structure of stable theories, where subsets are indivisible beyond finite perturbations. Strongly minimal sets exhibit key properties that align them with stability. Specifically, any theory admitting a strongly minimal is , as the order property is precluded by the finite-cofinite of definable . Moreover, strongly minimal sets support a natural pregeometry defined by : for a AA, cl(A)={b∣tp(b/A) is algebraic}\mathrm{cl}(A) = \{ b \mid \mathrm{tp}(b/A) \text{ is algebraic} \}, where a type is algebraic if its realizations over AA form a . This closure operator satisfies the exchange principle, yielding a dimension-like invariant that captures linear dependence in the . Zilber's trichotomy provides a framework for strongly minimal structures, positing that they are either algebraic, akin to algebraically closed fields (where the pregeometry mimics field dependence); geometric, resembling affine spaces over a (with modular dependence relations); or "new," featuring non-classical geometries beyond these familiar cases. This trichotomy, originally conjectured in the , was partially resolved by counterexamples showing the existence of the third category, highlighting the richness of stable geometries. Representative examples illustrate these categories. Affine spaces over a fixed exemplify the geometric case, where points are independent unless linearly dependent, and the pregeometry coincides with . Hrushovski's constructions yield "new" strongly minimal sets with exotic pregeometries that violate classical modularity while remaining stable.

Pregeometries and Matroids

In , a pregeometry consists of a set SS together with a closure operator cl:P(S)→P(S)\mathrm{cl}: \mathcal{P}(S) \to \mathcal{P}(S) that satisfies three axioms: monotonicity, finite character, and exchange. Monotonicity holds if A⊆BA \subseteq B implies cl(A)⊆cl(B)\mathrm{cl}(A) \subseteq \mathrm{cl}(B); finite character requires that x∈cl(A)x \in \mathrm{cl}(A) x∈cl(F)x \in \mathrm{cl}(F) for some finite F⊆AF \subseteq A; and exchange states that if a∈cl(A∪{b})∖cl(A)a \in \mathrm{cl}(A \cup \{b\}) \setminus \mathrm{cl}(A), then b∈cl(A∪{a})b \in \mathrm{cl}(A \cup \{a\}). These properties ensure that the closure behaves analogously to in vector spaces, providing a combinatorial framework for dependence relations. In stable theories, the algebraic closure operator acl\mathrm{acl} restricted to a strongly minimal set DD induces a pregeometry (D,cl)(D, \mathrm{cl}), where cl(A)=acl(A)∩D\mathrm{cl}(A) = \mathrm{acl}(A) \cap D for A⊆DA \subseteq D. The dimension of a subset A⊆DA \subseteq D is then defined as dim⁡(A)=min⁡{∣B∣:B⊆A, cl(B)=cl(A)},\dim(A) = \min \{ |B| : B \subseteq A, \ \mathrm{cl}(B) = \mathrm{cl}(A) \}, representing the size of a minimal basis for AA, with all bases having equal cardinality. This dimension function captures the "linear" independence inherent in stable structures, generalizing classical notions from algebra. The pregeometry arising from stable theories can be abstracted to a , with the rank function rk(X)=dim⁡(X)\mathrm{rk}(X) = \dim(X) for X⊆DX \subseteq D. Independent sets are precisely those XX satisfying rk(X)=∣X∣\mathrm{rk}(X) = |X|, and the matroid is loopless, as rk({x})=1\mathrm{rk}(\{x\}) = 1 for x∉cl(∅)x \notin \mathrm{cl}(\emptyset). Every stable theory's imaginaries admit such a pregeometry via the in the expanded theory of imaginaries. Hrushovski's fusion technique constructs exotic stable geometries by amalgamating finitely generated substructures, yielding strongly minimal sets with tailored pregeometric properties. These constructions, developed in the early and refined in subsequent works, produce non-modular pregeometries that deviate from classical examples. Modular pregeometries satisfy dim⁡(A∪B)+dim⁡(A∩B)=dim⁡(A)+dim⁡(B)\dim(A \cup B) + \dim(A \cap B) = \dim(A) + \dim(B) for all A,B⊆DA, B \subseteq D, whereas Hrushovski's ab initio methods generate non-modular variants, highlighting the flexibility of theories in realizing diverse combinatorial geometries.

Applications

In Algebraic Geometry

Stable theory plays a pivotal role in by providing tools to analyze definable sets and structures in fields like algebraically closed fields (ACF), which are , and their expansions. For instance, stability classifies pseudo-algebraically closed (PAC) fields, showing that PAC fields in characteristic zero are precisely the algebraically closed ones, leveraging the geometric stability properties to bound and extension degrees. This classification arises from the fact that stability imposes strong control on the of definable subsets, preventing the infinite chains of extensions characteristic of non-algebraically closed PAC structures. The stability of ACF has profound implications for transcendence conjectures like Ax-Schanuel, where the ensures that expansions by transcendental functions, such as exponentials or periods, often inherit o-minimality, leading to effective bounds on algebraic points. Specifically, in ACF, stability implies o-minimality in certain expansions, such as those adding real parts or angular components, which facilitates Pila-Zannier type estimates used in proving special cases of Ax-Schanuel for Shimura varieties. Furthermore, Hrushovski's work in the utilized geometry to prove the geometric Zilber-Pink conjecture for subvarieties of semi-abelian varieties over algebraically closed fields of any characteristic, employing predimension arguments from geometric stability to control intersections with special subvarieties. In stable theories, definable groups exhibit the "few subgroups" (fsg) property, meaning they have only finitely many subgroups of bounded index up to conjugation, which stems from the absence of the strict order property and controls the structure of spaces. This property has direct applications to the Mordell-Lang conjecture in semi-abelian varieties, where Hrushovski proved the function field case using the fsg of the stable group structure on the variety, reducing the problem to counting torsion points via stable independence. The fsg condition ensures that definable subgroups are "rigid," allowing algebraic geometers to resolve problems in positive characteristic where classical methods fail. The Hrushovski-Pillay framework develops model-theoretic by interpreting varieties as imaginaries in structures, where types correspond to geometric points and domination captures relations. This approach unifies classical with , enabling proofs of tameness in non-archimedean settings. In particular, domination in the theory of algebraically closed valued fields (ACVF) provides a model-theoretic analogue of Berkovich spaces, where stably dominated types over the value group and describe the rigid , allowing transfers of definable functions between algebraic and analytic categories. Recent developments up to 2025 connect formulas to motivic integration, where types in valued field expansions yield change-of-variables formulas invariant under birational transformations, facilitating computations of motivic measures on arc spaces in mixed characteristic. This integration uses the part of ACVF to define pro-definable measures that align with Berkovich integrals, resolving uniformity issues in p-adic motivic zeta functions.

In , stable theories provide tools for analyzing discrete structures with controlled complexity, particularly through their connection to the Vapnik–Chervonenkis (VC) dimension. A key result is that every formula in a stable theory defines a with finite VC dimension, meaning no larger than a bound depending on the formula can be shattered by the family. This boundedness implies uniform convergence rates in empirical processes, as the growth of the shatter function is polynomial, facilitating probabilistic approximations in random structures. For graphs, a k-stable graph—where the edge relation satisfies a stability condition of order k—exhibits bounded VC dimension, leading to structural theorems like the Erdős–Hajnal property, which guarantees large homogeneous subgraphs. Hrushovski constructions exemplify stable theories in pseudofinite settings, building relational structures with a single relation that are pseudofinite yet , often via predimension functions to control dimensionality. These models, such as the generic structure for a satisfying universal axioms for acyclicity and tree occurrences, are decidable and pseudofinite, enabling combinatorial applications like coding dense linear orders while preserving stability. In additive , stability yields regularity lemmas adapted to graphs and relations, decomposing large graphs or of groups into and unstable parts with bounded complexity. For instance, the regularity lemma partitions edges to isolate unstable components, improving bounds in . Recent applications extend to random structures, including a version of : for a A⊆ZA \subseteq \mathbb{Z}, positive upper Banach is equivalent to containing arbitrarily long finite arithmetic progressions, leveraging the stability of the relation. In functional analysis, stable theories inspire classifications of Banach spaces via logical stability. Stable Banach spaces, introduced by Krivine and Maurey, are those where the unit ball's theory is stable, leading to isomorphic embeddings of ℓp\ell_p (for p≥1p \geq 1) or c0c_0 in infinite-dimensional cases. Weakly stable variants, where iterated limits on weakly compact sets are exchangeable, refine this by connecting to model-theoretic exchange principles. For operator algebras, stability ensures that theories of C*-algebras or tracial von Neumann algebras are stable, allowing non-forking extensions of types over models to construct Morley sequences and prove isomorphisms of ultrapowers under the continuum hypothesis. Non-forking independence here preserves countable saturation, facilitating the study of separable structures in ultrapowers. Links to arise through the Littlestone dimension, which characterizes learnability and equates to finite VC dimension for theories. In settings, the Littlestone dimension bounds the complexity of hypothesis classes defined by formulas, ensuring algorithms achieve low regret in classification by exploiting non-forking paths in type spaces. formulas thus yield VC classes suitable for uniform learnability, with finite implying PAC-learnability under constraints.

Extensions and Generalizations

Simple and NIP Theories

Simple theories provide a weakening of stability in , generalizing the notion by focusing on controlled dividing behavior rather than the stricter conditions of forking . Specifically, a complete TT is simple if, for every finite of variables xx and any set AA in a model of TT, every 11-type over AA has a bounded dividing chain length, meaning there is no infinite sequence of formulas dividing over AA without repetition in a certain sense. This replaces the non-forking calculus of stable theories with a more flexible framework that still captures many structural properties. Introduced by Byunghan Kim, simplicity allows for the study of unstable theories exhibiting stability-like phenomena, such as symmetric relations. Notably, stable theories are precisely the simple theories that are also . The no independence property (NIP), also known as dependence or not the independence property, is another key weakening of stability, defined combinatorially in terms of Vapnik-Chervonenkis (VC) dimension. A formula ϕ(x;y)\phi(x;y) has the independence property (IP) if it shatters arbitrarily large finite sets, meaning for any finite set S⊆{0,1}nS \subseteq \{0,1\}^n, there exist parameters b1,…,bnb_1, \dots, b_n such that ϕ(Si;bj)\phi(S_i; b_j) holds exactly when the ii-th coordinate of the ii-th element of SS is 1, for all subsets; a theory TT has NIP if no formula has IP, equivalently if every formula has finite VC-dimension. Stable theories are always NIP, since stability bounds the number of types and prevents shattering, but the converse fails: for instance, o-minimal structures, such as the theory of real closed fields, are NIP due to their definable sets being finite unions of intervals, yet unstable because the order relation exhibits the order property. Another example is the theory of algebraically closed valued fields (ACVF), where the value group introduces order but the overall structure avoids IP through tameness in the residue field and value group interactions. Examples illustrate the distinctions: for NIP but not stable, the slopes in valued fields—referring to the ordered value group in theories like ACVF—encode linear orders without shattering large sets, as the valuation's multiplicativity limits combinatorial independence. For simple but unstable theories, the theory of the random provides a instance; this model companion of bipartite graphs with random edges between two infinite sides admits a symmetric independence relation but is unstable due to having the independence property. A central result in simplicity theory is that simple theories admit Kim's independence relation, defined via non-dividing in the of invariant types, which generalizes the non-forking of stable theories. In a simple theory, Kim- satisfies , transitivity, extension, local character, and the over models, allowing independent amalgamation of types. Kim and Pillay established that in simple theories, dividing and forking coincide, enabling this relation to serve as a robust notion of even in unstable settings. Theories are further classified using dividing lines, combinatorial properties that delineate tameness levels beyond stability. Simplicity corresponds to the absence of the strict order property (SOP), while broader classes like NSOP1_1 (no strong order property 1) capture theories without certain tree-like inconsistencies in types. These lines provide a hierarchy: stable ⊂\subset simple ⊂\subset NSOP1⊂_1 \subset NTP2_2, with NIP orthogonal but intersecting, allowing classification of many natural theories. Recent developments in the 2020s have focused on NSOP1_1 theories as a bridge to stable-like behavior, showing that under the existence axiom, Kim-independence exhibits monotonicity and base monotonicity, facilitating applications in invariant types and forking calculus extensions. For instance, in 2024, results on stable Kim-forking in NSOP1 theories extended monotonicity properties of independence. This work, building on Kim's foundations, highlights how NSOP1_1 structures, including some expansions of o-minimal theories, inherit partial stability properties without full simplicity.

Abstract Elementary Classes

Abstract elementary classes (AECs) provide a of elementary classes to broader contexts in , where the class KK consists of structures over a fixed closed under isomorphisms, equipped with a strong substructure relation ≤K\leq_K that captures notions like elementary embedding but without full . Key axioms ensure closure under unions of ≤K\leq_K-increasing chains and intersections, as well as the existence of Löwenheim-Skolem-Tarski numbers LS(K)\mathrm{LS}(K) allowing models in every sufficiently large cardinality. Amalgamation, the ability to amalgamate models over a common substructure, and the joint embedding property (), allowing any two models to embed into a common extension, are often assumed or derived in specific cardinals to enable results. Stability in AECs is characterized by tameness, where Galois types over models are determined by small parameter sets, and the absence of the order property, preventing infinite chains of incomparable types or definable linear orders on infinite sets. Shelah's classification theory for stable AECs establishes that such classes have Hanf numbers, cardinal thresholds beyond which the theory of models is determined by smaller cardinals, facilitating structural analysis. Categoricity transfer theorems show that if an AEC is categorical in one cardinal λ\lambda and satisfies mild set-theoretic assumptions like 2λ=2λ+2^\lambda = 2^{\lambda^+}, then it is categorical in all larger cardinals. A fundamental result states that a stable AEC with amalgamation is categorical in all sufficiently large cardinals if and only if it has no Vaughtian pairs, pairs of non-isomorphic models of the same cardinality with the same Galois types over the empty set. Examples include the class of modules over a fixed ring, which forms a stable AEC with amalgamation, and Hrushovski's beautiful pairs, constructed pairs of models that exhibit stability and categoricity while extending first-order theories. Coherence in stable AECs ensures that non-forking extensions of types are consistent across models, supporting a forking-like independence relation. Superstability in an AEC, a stronger form where the number of types over models of cardinality λ\lambda is at most λ\lambda, implies the existence of good λ\lambda-frameworks, which include saturated or superlimit models and enable uniqueness of limit models. Recent developments up to 2025 have extended Baldwin-Lachlan theorems on categoricity transfer to tame stable AECs, filling gaps in higher-cardinal behavior through works by Grossberg and Vasey in the 2010s and 2020s, including results on uniqueness of limit models and Galois-stability without full superstability.

References

  1. https://shelah.logic.at/files/95216/1.pdf
  2. https://www.ub.edu/modeltheory/documentos/stability.pdf
  3. https://www.ams.org/journals/tran/1965-114-02/S0002-9947-1965-0175782-0/S0002-9947-1965-0175782-0.pdf
  4. https://www.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~krajicek/vddries-stable.pdf
  5. https://academicweb.nd.edu/~apillay/pdf/preprints/chicago-stability-freegroup-final-handout.pdf
  6. https://dmistari.pmf.uns.ac.rs/nsac2013/slides/pillay.pdf
  7. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/theo.12238
  8. https://shelah.logic.at/files/95505/10.pdf
  9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2273127
  10. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-symbolic-logic/article/s-shelah-classification-theory-and-the-number-of-nonisomorphic-models-studies-in-logic-and-the-foundations-of-mathematics-vol-92-northholland-publishing-company-amsterdam-new-york-and-oxford-1978-xvi-544-pp/0C9657B0BC2B789EFB19078A6945A875
  11. https://shop.elsevier.com/books/classification-theory/shelah/978-0-444-70260-9
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0168007293901719
  13. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02787611
  14. https://academicweb.nd.edu/~apillay/pdf/lecturenotes.stability.pdf
  15. http://math.uchicago.edu/~may/REU2012/REUPapers/Siddiqi.pdf
  16. https://terrytao.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/w-stable-theories1.pdf
  17. https://www.math.ucla.edu/~chernikov/teaching/StabilityTheory285D/StabilityNotes.pdf
  18. https://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~rmoosa/wstabilitymDCF0.pdf
  19. https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0511310
  20. http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~marker/math512-f18/valued_fields_4.pdf
  21. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.03539
  22. https://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2010/REUPapers/Binder.pdf
  23. http://www.normalesup.org/~simon/Berkeley14.pdf
  24. https://akruckman.faculty.wesleyan.edu/files/2019/07/stabilityspectrum.pdf
  25. https://projecteuclid.org/journals/notre-dame-journal-of-formal-logic/volume-28/issue-2/Cantor-Bendixson-spectra-of-omega-stable-theories/10.1305/ndjfl/1093636943.pdf
  26. https://shelah.logic.at/files/94869/1007.pdf
  27. https://home.mathematik.uni-freiburg.de/khani/strongly-minimal-teaching.pdf
  28. https://projecteuclid.org/ebooks/lecture-notes-in-logic/Logic-Colloquium-95--Proceedings-of-the-Annual-European-Summer/chapter/Strongly-Minimal-Sets-and-Geometry/lnl/1235415907.pdf
  29. https://projecteuclid.org/ebooks/lecture-notes-in-logic/Logic-Colloquium-95--Proceedings-of-the-Annual-European-Summer/chapter/Zilbers-Trichotomy-and-o-minimal-Structures/lnl/1235415910.pdf
  30. https://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/bays/hram/hrushovski-abInitio.pdf
  31. https://www.ub.edu/modeltheory/documentos/pregeometries.pdf
  32. https://www.ub.edu/modeltheory/pelefthe/preg.pdf
  33. https://www.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~kyodo/kokyuroku/contents/pdf/1515-6.pdf
  34. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-540-68521-0
  35. https://web.math.wisc.edu/logic/talks/240502-Fu.pdf
  36. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.04692
  37. https://math.uchicago.edu/~mem/978-revised.pdf
  38. https://homepages.math.uic.edu/~gconant/Math/CoWa.pdf
  39. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02769461
  40. https://dshermanmath.github.io/base/papers/2012g-stable-th-BH.pdf
  41. https://www.cs.tau.ac.il/~nogaa/PDFS/adp.pdf
  42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168007297000195
  43. https://math.berkeley.edu/~scanlon/papers/O-min-midrasha.pdf
  44. https://www.normalesup.org/~simon/NIP_guide.pdf
  45. https://projecteuclid.org/journals/notre-dame-journal-of-formal-logic/volume-54/issue-1/Reducts-of-the-Random-Bipartite-Graph/10.1215/00294527-1731371.pdf
  46. https://logic.or.kr/data/attachment/20170111_Ramsey.pdf
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000187081300337X
  48. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-symbolic-logic/article/on-rank-not-only-in-nsop1-theories/15E0693A4933ED8B3F495EC4BD439E41
  49. https://shelah.logic.at/files/221770/h-v2.pdf
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168007212001558
  51. https://www.math.cmu.edu/~rami/GVV_6-20-15-no-vp.pdf
  52. https://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3428
  53. https://www.math.cmu.edu/~rami/onesucc.pdf
  54. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/malq.202200075
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.