arxiv: v2 [math.lo] 5 Apr 2018

Transcription

1 The isomorphism relation of theories with S-DOP arxiv: v2 [math.lo] 5 Apr 2018 Miguel Moreno University of Helsinki Abstract We study the Borel-reducibility of isomorphism relations in the generalized Baire space κ κ. In the main result we show for inaccessible κ, that if T is a classifiable theory and T is superstable with S-DOP, then the isomorphism of models of T is Borel reducible to the isomorphism of models of T. In fact we show the consistency of the following: If T is a superstable theory with S-DOP, then the isomorphism of models of T is Σ 1 1 -complete. Acknowledgement This work was made under the supervision of Tapani Hyttinen. I want to express my gratitude to him for introducing me to the topic, his valuable advices and support during this work. This research was supported by the Doctoral Programme in Mathematics and Statistics (Domast). 1 Introduction One of the main motivations behind the study of the generalized descriptive set theory, is the connections with model theory. The complexity of a countable first-order theory can be measured using the Borel reducibility in the generalized Baire spaces: We say that T is more complex than T if the isomorphism relation among models of T with universe κ ( = T ) is Borel reducible to the isomorphism relation among models of T with universe κ. The classification of theories in Shelah s stability theory gives another notion of complexity. S. Friedman, Hyttinen, Kulikov and others have studied the connection between these two notions of complexity. The results reviewed in this introduction require further assumptions and the reader is referred to the original paper for the exact assumptions. In [FHK] it was shown that the following is consistent: if T is classifiable and T is not, then = T is not Borel reducible to = T. In [HM] it was shown, under heavy assumptions on κ, that if T is classifiable and T is stable unsuperstable with OCP, then = T is continuously reducible to = T, if in addition V = L, then = T is Σ 1 1-complete. In [LS] Laskowski and Shelah studied the λ-borel completeness of the relation (Mod λ (T),,ℵ0 ) when T is ω-stable with eni-dop or eni-deep (see below). Definition 1.1. For any relational language L with size at most λ, let L ± = L { R R L}, and let S λ L denote the set of L-structures M with universe L. Let L(λ) = {R(ᾱ) R L ±, ᾱ λ n, n = arity(r)} and endow S λ L with the topology generated by the subbasis where U R(ᾱ) = {M S λ L M = R(ᾱ)}. B = {U R(ᾱ) R(ᾱ) L(λ)} 1

2 Definition 1.2. Given a language L of size at most λ, a set K S λ L is λ-borel if, there is a λ-boolean combination ψ of L(λ)-sentences (i.e., a propositional L λ +,ℵ 0 -sentence of L(λ)) such that K = {M S λ L M = ψ} Given two relational languages L 1 and L 2 of size at most λ, a function f : S λ L 1 S λ L 2 is λ-borel if the inverse image of every open set is λ-borel. Definition 1.3. Suppose that L 1 and L 2 are two relational languages of size at most λ, and for l = 1, 2, K l is a λ-borel subset of S λ L l that is invariant under,ℵ0. We say that(k 1,,ℵ0 ) is λ-borel reducible to (K 2,,ℵ0 ), written (K 1,,ℵ0 ) B λ (K 2,,ℵ0 ) if there is a λ-borel function f : S λ L 1 S λ L 2 such that f(k 1 ) K 2, and for all M, N K 1 it holds that M,ℵ0 N if and only if f(m),ℵ0 f(n) Definition 1.4. K is λ-borel complete for,ℵ0 if(k,,ℵ0 ) is a maximum with respect to λ B. We call a theory T λ-borel complete for,ℵ0 if Mod λ (T), the class of models of T with universe λ, is λ-borel complete for,ℵ0. Laskowski and Shelah proved the following result, [LS] (Corollary 4.13 and 6.10). Lemma 1.5. If T is ω-stable with eni-dop or eni-deep, then T is λ-borel complete for,ℵ0 To understand this result in the context of the generalized descriptive set theory, we will have to introduce some notions first. Here and throughout the paper we assume that κ is an uncountable cardinal that satisfies κ <κ = κ, M will denote the monster model, and for every finite tuple a, we will denote a A length(a) by a A, unless something else is stated. The generalized Baire space is the set κ κ with the bounded topology. For every ζ κ <κ, the set [ζ] = {η κ κ ζ η} is a basic open set. The open sets are of the form X where X is a collection of basic open sets. The collection of Borel subsets of κ κ is the smallest set which contains the basic open sets and is closed under unions and intersections, both of length κ. A Borel set is any element of this collection. A function f : κ κ κ κ is Borel, if for every open set A κ κ the inverse image f 1 [A] is a Borel subset of κ κ. Let E 1 and E 2 be equivalence relations on κ κ. We say that E 1 is Borel reducible to E 2, if there is a Borel function f : κ κ κ κ that satisfies (x, y) E 1 ( f(x), f(y)) E 2. We call f a reduction of E 1 to E 2. This is denoted by E 1 B E 2 and if f is continuous, then we say that E 1 is continuously reducible to E 2 and this is denoted by E 1 c E 2. Let L be a given relation vocabulary of size κ, L = {R (n,m) n, m κ\{0}}, where R (n,m) is an n-ary relation. Fix a biection g : ω\{0} κ\{0} κ that satisfies that g ω\{0} ω\{0} is a biection between ω\{0} ω\{0} and ω, define P g(n,m) := R (n,m) and rewrite L = {P n n < κ}. Denote g 1 (α) by (g1 1 (α), g 1 2 (α)). When we describe a complete theory T in a vocabulary L L, we think of it as a complete L-theory extending T { x P n ( x) P n L\L}. We can code L-structures with domain κ as follows. Definition 1.6. Fix a biection π : κ <ω κ. For every η κ κ define the L-structure A η with domain κ as follows: For every relation P m, every tuple (a 1, a 2,..., a n ) in κ n satisfies (a 1, a 2,..., a n ) P A η m n = g 1 1 (m) and η(π(m, a 1, a 2,..., a n )) 1. 2

3 Notice that for every L-structure A there exists η κ κ with A = A η, this way of coding structures can be used to code structures in a countable language too. Since for all β < κ, the sets {η κ κ η(β) = 0} and {η κ κ η(β) > 0} are Borel, then for all R L ± and ᾱ κ arity(r) the set {η κ κ A η = R(ᾱ)} is Borel. Then by the definition of κ-borel and the definition of Borel, we conclude that: If K is a κ-borel subset of S κ L, then the set {η κκ M = A η, M K} is Borel. On the other hand by the definition of Borel, we know that for every basic open set [ζ], there is ϕ, a L κ,ℵ0 -sentence of L(κ), such that [ζ] = {η κ κ A η = ϕ}. Therefore, if K S κ L is such that {η κ κ M = A η, M K} is Borel, then there is ψ a L κ +,ℵ 0 -sentence of L(κ) such that {η κ κ M = A η, M K} = {η κ κ A η = ψ}. We conclude that K S κ L is κ-borel if and only if {η κ κ M = A η, M K} is Borel. Let us define the equivalence relation K,ℵ 0 κ κ κ κ for every K κ-borel subset of S κ L invariant under,ℵ0 by: (η, ξ) K,ℵ 0 if and only if A η,a ξ K and A η,ℵ0 A ξ, or A η,a ξ / K. If K = Mod κ (T), then we denote by T,ℵ 0 the equivalence relation K,ℵ 0. From the previous observation, we can restate Lemma 1.5 as follows: If T is ω-stable with eni-dop or eni-deep, then for every K κ-borel subset of S κ L invariant under,ℵ 0 it holds that K,ℵ 0 B T,ℵ 0. Let us use the isomorphism relation to make a last observation on the relations K,ℵ 0. Definition 1.7 (The isomorphism relation). Assume T is a complete first order theory in a countable vocabulary, L. We define = κ T as the relation {(η, ξ) κ κ κ κ (A η = T,A ξ = T,A η = Aξ ) or (A η = T,A ξ = T)}. We will omit the superscript κ in = κ T when it is clear from the context. For every complete first order theory T in a countable vocabulary there is an isomorphism relation associated with T, = κ T. Given a countable vocabulary L, define L by L = L {P} {R β β < κ}, where P is an unary relation R β is a binary relation for all β < κ. Let T be a complete first order theory in L, for every A Mod κ (T) construct an L-structure A such that: dom( A) = κ, A = P(α) if and only if there is β < κ such that α = 2β, A {2β β < κ} is isomorphic to A as an L structure, β < κ, R β (x, y) implies P(x) P(y), for every α < κ and every b with P(b), there is a unique tuple ā κ <κ with length(ā) = α and for all γ < α, P(a γ ), that satisfies: β < α, R β (b, c) c = a β. 3

4 for every α < κ and every tuple ā κ κ with length(ā) = α and for all γ < α, P(a γ ), there is a unique element of A, bā, that satisfies: β < α, R β (bā, c) P(b a ) and c = a β. Let K be the smallest subset of S κ L that contains { A A K} and is invariant under,ℵ0. Shelah s Theorem XIII.1.4 in [She] implies the following: if T is a classifiable theory, then any two models that are L,κ -equivalent are isomorphic. In other words, if T is a classifiable theory in L, we get that (η, ξ),κ T if and only if (η, ξ) = T. Now, (η, ξ) = T clearly implies A η,ℵ0 A ξ ; conversely A η,ℵ0 A ξ implies A η,κ A ξ, so A η,ℵ0 A ξ implies (η, ξ) = T. We conclude that the map f : κ κ κ κ given by if A η = T, then f(η) is a code for A η (i.e. A f(η) = A η ), if A η = T, then f(η) a code for B, where B is a fix L-structure not in K. is a reduction from = T to K,ℵ0. In [FHK] (Theorem 69) it was proved that if T is classifiable and not shallow, then = T is 1 1 and not Borel. Therefore, if T is classifiable and not shallow, then K,ℵ0 is not Borel. In conclusion, for many K κ-borel subset of S κ L invariant under,ℵ 0, the relation K,ℵ 0 is not Borel. Notice that all the relations of the form K,ℵ 0 are 1 1, this is due to the fact that,ℵ 0 is characterized by the Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé game of length ω which is a determined game. From now on L will be a countable relational vocabulary, L = {P n n < ω}, the L-structures with domain κ will be coded as in Definition 1.6, and every theory is a theory in L. In this paper we study the complexity of classifiable theories with respect to theories with S-DOP (see below). Under heavy assumptions on κ, we show that if T is classifiable and T is superstable with S-DOP, then = T is continuously reducible to = T. We will work with the µ-club relation to obtain this result. For every regular cardinal µ < κ, we say that a set A κ is a µ-club if it is unbounded and closed under µ-limits. Definition 1.8. We say that f, g κ κ are Eµ-club κ equivalent ( f Eκ µ-club g) if the set {α < κ f(α) = g(α)} contains a µ-club. The following lemma is proved in [HM] (Theorem 2.8) and compares the complexities of the isomorphism relation of classifiable theories with the µ-club relations. We will use this lemma in the proof of the main result. Lemma 1.9. Assume T is a classifiable theory and µ < κ a regular cardinal, then = T is continuously reducible to E κ µ-club. 2 Preliminaries 2.1 Coloured Trees Coloured trees have been very useful in the past to reduce E κ µ-club to = T for certain µ < κ and T nonclassifiable, examples of this can be found in [FHK], [HM] and [HK]. The trees in [FHK], [HM] and [HK] are trees of height ω+ 2, in this section we will present a variation of these trees that has height λ+2 for λ an uncountable cardinal. For a tree t, for every x t we denote by ht(x) the height of x, the order type of {y t y < x}. Define t α = {x t ht(x) = α} and t <α = β<α t β, denote by x α the unique y t such that y t α and 4

5 y x. If x, y t and {z t z < x} = {z t z < y}, then we say that x and y are -related, x y, and we denote by [x] the equivalence class of x for. An α, β-tree is a tree t with the following properties: [x] < α for every x t. All the branches have order type less than β in t. t has a unique root. If x, y t, x and y has no immediate predecessors and x y, then x = y. Definition 2.1. Let λ be an uncountable cardinal. A coloured tree is a pair (t, c), where t is a κ +, (λ+2)-tree and c is a map c : t λ κ\{0}. Two coloured trees (t, c) and (t, c ) are isomorphic, if there is a trees isomorphism f : t t such that for every x t λ, c(x) = c ( f(x)). Denote the set of all coloured trees by CT λ. Let CT λ CT λ be the set of coloured trees, in which every element with height less than λ, has infinitely many immediate successors, and every maximal branch has order type λ+1. We are going to work only with elements of CT λ, every time we mention a coloured tree, we mean an element of CT λ. We can see every coloured tree as a downward closed subset of κ λ. Definition 2.2. Let (t, c) be a coloured tree, suppose (I α ) α<κ is a collection of subsets of t that satisfies: for each α < κ, I α is a downward closed subset of t. α<κ I α = t. if α < β < κ, then I α I β. if γ is a limit ordinal, then I γ = α<γ I α. for each α < κ the cardinality of I α is less than κ. We call (I α ) α<κ a filtration of t. Order the set λ κ κ κ κ lexicographically, (α 1, α 2, α 3, α 4, α 5 ) > (β 1, β 2, β 3, β 4, β 5 ) if for some 1 k 5, α k > β k and for every i < k, α i = β i. Order the set (λ κ κ κ κ) λ as a tree by inclusion. Define the tree (I f, d f ) as, I f the set of all strictly increasing functions from some θ λ to κ and for each η with domain λ, d f (η) = f(sup(rang(η))). For every pair of ordinals α and β, α < β < κ and i < λ define R(α, β, i) = i< λ {η : [i, ) [α, β) η strictly increasing}. Definition 2.3. Assume κ is an inaccessible cardinal. If α < β < κ and α, β, γ = 0, let {Pγ α,β γ < κ} be an enumeration of all downward closed subtrees of R(α, β, i) for all i, in such a way that each possible coloured tree appears cofinally often in the enumeration. And the tree P 0,0 0 is (I f, d f ). 5

6 This enumeration is possible because κ is inaccessible; there are at most i<λp(r(α, β, i)) λ κ = κ downward closed coloured subtrees, and at most κ κ <κ = κ coloured trees. Denote by Q(Pγ α,β ) the unique ordinal number i such that P α,β R(α, β, i). Definition 2.4. Assume κ is an inaccessible cardinal. Define for each f κ κ the coloured tree (J f, c f ) by the following construction. For every f κ κ define J f = (J f, c f ) as the tree of all η : s λ κ 4, where s λ, ordered by extension, and such that the following conditions hold for all i, < s: Denote by η i, 1 i 5, the functions from s to κ that satisfies, η(n) = (η 1 (n), η 2 (n), η 3 (n), η 4 (n), η 5 (n)). 1. η n J f for all n < s. 2. η is strictly increasing with respect to the lexicographical order on λ κ η 1 (i) η 1 (i+ 1) η 1 (i) η 1 (i) = 0 implies η 2 (i) = η 3 (i) = η 4 (i) = η 2 (i) η 3 (i) implies η 2 (i) = η 1 (i) < η 1 (i+ 1) implies η 2 (i+1) η 3 (i)+η 4 (i). 7. For every limit ordinal α, η k (α) = sup β<α {η k (β)} for k {1, 2}. 8. η 1 (i) = η 1 () implies η k (i) = η k () for k {2, 3, 4}. 9. If for some k < λ, [i, ) = η1 1 {k}, then Note that 7 implies Q(P η 2(i),η 3 (i) η 4 (i) ) = i. 10. If s = λ, then either η 5 [i, ) P η 2(i),η 3 (i). η 4 (i) (a) there exists an ordinal number m such that for every k < m η 1 (k) < η 1 (m), for every k m η 1 (k) = η 1 (m), and the color of η is determined by P η 2(m),η 3 (m) : η 4 (m) where c is the colouring function of P η 2(m),η 3 (m). η 4 (m) c f (η) = c(η 5 [m, λ)) γ Or (b) there is no such ordinal m and then c f (η) = f(sup(rang(η 5 ))). The following lemma is a variation of Lemma 4.7 of [HM]. In [HM] Lemma 4.7 refers to trees of height ω+ 2 and the relation Eω-club κ, nevertheless the proof is the same in both cases. Lemma 2.5. Assume κ is an inaccessible cardinal, then for every f, g κ κ the following holds f E κ λ-club g J f = J g 6

7 Remark 2.6. For each α < κ define J α f as J α f = {η J f rang(η) λ (β) 4 for some β < α}. Notice that (J α f ) α<κ is a filtration of J f and it has the following properties: 1. sup(rang(η 4 )) sup(rang(η 3 )) = sup(rang(η 5 )) = sup(rang(η 2 )). 2. When η k J α f holds for every k λ, sup(rang(η 5 )) α. If in addition η / J α f, then sup(rang(η 5)) = α. From now on κ will be an inaccessible cardinal. Let us take a look at the sets rang( f) and rang(c f ), more specifically at the set {α < κ f(α) rang(c f )}. Remark 2.7. Assume f κ κ and let J f be the respective coloured tree obtained by Definition 2.4. If η J f satisfies Definition 2.4 item 10 (b), then clearly exists α < κ such that c f (η) = f(α). It is possible that not for every α < κ, there is η J α+1 f such that c f (η) = f(α). Nevertheless the set C = {α < κ ξ such that ξ 1 ω = id+1, ξ 1 [ω, λ) = id [ω, λ) and c f (ξ) = f(α)} is an λ-club. C is unbounded: J α+1 f For every β < κ we can construct the function η J f by β 0 = β, η 1 ω = id+1, η 1 [ω, λ) = id [ω, λ), η 2 (i) = β i, η 3 (i) = β i + 1, η 4 (i) = γ i and η 5 = η 2, where γ i is the least ordinal such that P β iβ i +1 γ i = {ξ : [i, i + 1) [β i, β i + 1)}, β i+1 = β i + 1+γ i and β i = <i β for i a limit ordinal; since κ is inaccessible, η J ( i<λβ i )+1 f and i<λ β i C. C is λ-closed: Let {α i } i<λ be a succession of elements of C, for every i < ω let ξ i be an element of J f such that ξ1 i ω = id+1, ξi 1 [ω, λ) = id and rang(ξi 5 ) = α i, define n 0 = 0 and for every i < λ, n i+1 as the least ordinal number bigger than n i such that α i < ξ2 i+1 (n i+1 ). The function ξ define by ξ [n i, n i+1 ) = ξ i [n i, n i+1 ) is an element of J ( i<λα i )+1 f such that ξ 1 ω = id+1, ξ 1 [ω, λ) = id and rang(ξ 5 ) = i<λ α i, therefore f( i<λ α i ) = c f (ξ) and i<λ α i C. 2.2 Strong DOP Now, we will recall the dimensional order property and the strong dimensional order property. We will also give some important properties that will be useful in the fourth section, in that section we construct models of theories with the strong dimensional property. In [She] Shelah gives an axiomatic approach for an isolation notion, F, and defines the notions F-constructible, F-atomic, F-primary, F-prime and F-saturated. Definition 2.8. Denote by Fθ a a = p and stp(a, B) p. the set of pairs (p, B) with B < θ, such that for some A B and a, p S(A), In [She] (Definition II 4.2 (2), and Definition V 1.1 (2) and (4)) the notions of stationarization of a type, and orthogonal types were defined as follows. Definition 2.9. We call p a stationarization of q if q is stationary and p parallel to q or q is complete over some A, and for some c realizing q, p is parallel to stp(c, A). A stationarization of q over A is any stationarization p S(A) of q. Definition If p(x 1 ), q(x 2 ) are complete types over A, p an m-type, q an n-type, we call p weakly orthogonal to q if and only if p(x 1 ) q(x 2 ) is complete over A. 7

8 2. Let p 1 be complete or stationary and p 2 be complete or stationary. Then p 1 is orthogonal to p 2, p 1 p 2, if for every A, dom(p 1 ) dom(p 2 ) A, A the universe of a F a ω-saturated model, and any stationarizations q l of p l, l = 1, 2 over A; q 1 is weakly orthogonal to q The type p is orthogonal to the set A, p A, if p is orthogonal to every complete type over A. The following Lemma can be found in [She] (Lemma V 1.1 (2)) and it gives us a equivalence to weakly orthogonality. Lemma If p 1 = tp(a 1, A), and p 2 = tp(a 2, A), then p 1 is weakly orthogonal to p 2 if and only if tp(a 1, A) tp(a 1, A a 2 ) tp(a 2, A) tp(a 2, A a 1 ). Notice that for p 1, p 2 S(A) stationary types the following holds. If p 1 = tp(a 1, A), and p 2 = tp(a 2, A), then by Lemma 2.11 p 1 is weakly orthogonal to p 2 if and only if a 1 A a 2. On the other hand, if A B, p S(A) is stationary, and q S(B) is a stationarization of p, then q is the non-forking extension of p. Therefore, let p 1, p 2 S(A) be stationary. p 1 is orthogonal to p 2 if for all a 1, a 2, and B A the following holds: If a 1 = p 1, a 2 = p 2, a 1 A B and a 2 A B, then a 1 B a 2. By Definition 2.10 item 3, p S(B) is orthogonal to A if p is orthogonal to every q S(A). By Definition 2.9 and since the strong types are stationary, p S(B) is orthogonal to A B if for all a and q S(A) such that tp(a, B) is stationary, a = q and a A B, p tp(a, B). We conclude that a stationary type p S(B) is orthogonal to A if for all a, b and D A the following holds: If tp(b, B) is stationary, a = p, b A B, b B D and a B D, then a D b. Fact Let B, D M, M a F a ω-saturated model over B D, and p S(M). If p is orthogonal to D and p does not fork over B D, then for every a = p B D the following holds: a B D M implies tp(a, M) D. Proof. Notice that since M is a model, then every complete type over M is stationary. Let p S(M) and B, D M such that p is orthogonal to D and p does not fork over B D. Suppose, towards a contradiction, that there is a such that a = p B D, a B D M and tp(a, M) D. Therefore, there are N and c, D N, such that a M N, c D M N, and a N c. Let b be such that b = p, there is f Aut(M, D B) such that f(a) = b. Denote by N the image f(n). Choose b such that b B D M N and stp(b, B D) = stp(b, B D). We know that a B D M and a M N, then by transitivity we get a B D M N. Therefore a B D N, since f Aut(M, D B) we conclude that b B D N. Since stp(b, B D) = stp(b, B D) and b B D N we conclude that tp(b, N B) = tp(b, N B), there is h Aut(M, N B) such that h(b) = b. On the other hand, by the way we chose b, we know that b B D M. Since stp(b, B D) = stp(b, B D) and b B D M, then tp(b, M) = tp(b, M) = p. We conclude that there is F Aut(M, B D) such that F(a) = b and tp(b, M) D. Denote by c the image F(c). Choose c such that tp(c, N B b ) = tp(c, N B b ) and c N B b M. Since b B N M, then by transitivity we get c b N B M, so c N B M. On the other hand c D M N, so c D B N, since F Aut(M, B D), we get c D B N. By the way chose c we know that tp(c, N B) = tp(c, N B), therefore c D B N and by transitivity we get c D M N. We conclude that c M N and c D M, since b M N and tp(b, M) D, we get b N c. By the way we chose c we know that tp(c, N b ) = tp(c, N b ), so b N c. Since F Aut(M, B D), we conclude that a N c, a contradiction. Corollary A type p S(B C) is orthogonal to C, if for every Fω a -primary model, M, over B C there exists a non-forking extension of p, q S(M), orthogonal to C. Proof. The proof follows by Definition 2.10 item 2, Fact 2.12 and the fact that every F a ω-primary model over B C is F a ω-primitive. 8

9 In [She] (X.2 Definition 2.1) Shelah defines the dimensional order property, DOP, as follows. Definition A theory T has the dimensional order property (DOP) if there are Fκ(T) a -saturated models (M i ) i<3, M 0 M 1 M 2, M 1 M0 M 2, and the Fκ(T) a -prime model over M 1 M 2 is not Fκ(T) a -minimal over M 1 M 2. In [She] he also proves the following important lemma (X.2 Lemma 2.2). Lemma Let M 0 M 1 M 2 be Fκ(T) a -saturated models, M 1 M0 Fκ(T) a -saturated. Then the following conditions are equivalent: M 2, M F a κ(t) -atomic over M 1 M 2 and 1. M is not F a κ(t) -minimal over M 1 M There is an infinite indiscernible I M over M 1 M There is a type p S(M) orthogonal to M 1 and to M 2, p not algebraic. 4. There is an infinite I M indiscernible over M 1 M 2 such that Av(I, M) is orthogonal to M 1 and to M 2. The rest of the results in this section will be stated and proved for the case of the Fω a isolation. Many of those results can be easily generalized to Fκ(T) a by making small changes on the proof. From now on we will work only with superstable theories. We know that for every superstable theory T, κ(t) = ω. The following lemma is very important at the moment to understand Definition 2.20, below. The proof of Lemma 2.15 made by Shelah in [She] (X.2 Lemma 2.2) also works as a proof for the following lemma. Lemma Let M 0 M 1 M 2 be Fω a -saturated models, M 1 M0 M 2, M 3 Fω a -atomic over M 1 M 2 and Fω-saturated. a Then the following conditions are equivalent: 1. There is a non-algebraic type p S(M 3 ) orthogonal to M 1 and to M 2, that does not fork over M 1 M There is an infinite indiscernible I M 3 over M 1 M 2 that is independent over M 1 M There is an infinite I M 3 indiscernible over M 1 M 2 and independent over M 1 M 2, such that Av(I, M 3 ) is orthogonal to M 1 and to M 2. The following Lemma is proved in [HS] (Theorem 2.1). Lemma Let M 0 M 1, M 2 be Fω a -saturated models, such that M 1 M0 M 2. Let M 3 be an Fω a -prime model over M 1 M 2 and let I M 3 be an indiscernible over M 1 M 2 such that Av(I, M 3 ) is orthogonal to M 1 and to M 2. If (B i ) i<3 are sets such that: B 0 M0 M 1 M 2. B 1 M1 B 0 B 2 M 2. B 2 M2 B 0 B 1 M 1. Then tp(i, M 1 M 2 ) tp(i, M 1 M 2 i<3 B i ). The following lemma shows that, if M 1, M 2, and M 3 are models that satisfy Definition 2.14, then we can find models M 1, M 2, and M 3 that extend M 1, M 2, and M 3 respectively and satisfy Definition

10 Lemma Let M 0 M 1 M 2 be Fω a -saturated models, such that M 1 M0 M 2 and M 3, the Fω a -prime model over M 1 M 2, is not Fω-minimal a over M 1 M 2. If (M i ) i<3 are Fω a -saturated models that satisfy: i < 3, M i M i. i < 3, M i M i M 3. M 1 M 0 M 2. Then M 3 the Fa ω-prime model over M 1 M 2 is not Fa ω-minimal over M 1 M 2. Proof. By Lemma 2.15 there is an infinite indiscernible sequence I = (a i ) i<ω in M 3 over M 1 M 2. Since M 3 is F a ω-atomic over M 1 M 2, then for all n < ω there exists A n M 1 M 2, such that A n < κ(t) and stp((a i ) i n, A n ) tp((a i ) i n, M 1 M 2 ). Since M 1 M 0 M 2 and M 0 M 0 M 3, the assumptions of Lemma 2.17 hold for B i = M i. Therefore tp(i, M 1 M 2 ) tp(i, M 1 M 2 ), so I is indiscernible over M 1 M 2, stp((a i) i n, A n ) tp((a i ) i n, M 1 M 2 ), and stp(a n, A n {a i } i<n ) tp(a n, M 1 M 2 {a i} i<n ). We conclude that M 1 M 2 I is constructible over M 1 M 2. Let M 3 be the Fa ω-prime model over M 1 M 2 with construction (b i, B i ) i<γ, such that b i = a i and B i = A i {a } <i, for i < ω. Since I is indiscernible over M 1 M 2 and I M 3, by Lemma 2.15, we conclude that M 3 is not Fa ω- minimal over M 1 M 2. Remark Notice that in the previous lemma it was proved that I is indiscernible over M 1 M 2, by Lemma 2.15, we also obtain that Av(I, M 3 ) is orthogonal to M 1 and to M 2. Also, it was proved that for every a n I there exists A n M 1 M 2, such that stp(a n, A n {a i } i<n ) tp(a n, M 1 M 2 {a i} i<n ). Therefore a n An {a i } i<n M 1 M 2, so a n M1 M 2 {a i } i<n M 1 M 2. We conclude that if I is independent over M 1 M 2, then a n M 1 M 2 {a i} i<n and I is independent over M 1 M 2. Definition We say that a superstable theory T has the strong dimensional order property (S-DOP) if the following holds: There are Fω a -saturated models (M i) i<3, M 0 M 1 M 2, such that M 1 M0 M 2, and for every M 3 Fω a -prime model over M 1 M 2, there is a non-algebraic type p S(M 3 ) orthogonal to M 1 and to M 2, such that it does not fork over M 1 M 2. In [HrSo] Hrushovski and Sokolvić proved that the theory of differentially closed fields of characteristic zero (DCF) has eni-dop, so it has DOP. The reader can find an outline of this proof in [Mar07]. We will show that the models used in [Mar07] also testify that the theory of differentially closed fields has S-DOP. We will focus on the proof of the S-DOP property: There are F a ω -saturated models (M i) i<3, M 0 M 1 M 2, such that M 1 M0 M 2, and for every M 3 F a ω -prime model over M 1 M 2, there is a non-algebraic type p S(M 3 ) orthogonal to M 1 and to M 2, such that it does not fork over M 1 M 2. For more on DCF (proofs, definitions, references, etc) can be found in [Mar]. Definition A differential field is a field K with a derivation map δ : K K wit the properties: δ(a+b) = δ(a)+δ(b) 10

11 δ(ab) = aδ(b)+bδ(a) We call δ(a) the derivative of a and we denote by δ n (a) the nth derivative of a. For a differential field K we denote by K{x 1, x 2,..., x n } the ring K[x 1, x 2,..., x n, δ(x 1 ), δ(x 2 ),..., δ(x n ), δ 2 (x 1 ), δ 2 (x 2 ),..., δ 2 (x n ),...] The derivation map δ is extended in K{x 1, x 2,..., x n } by δ(δ m (x i )) = δ m+1 (x i ). We call K{x 1, x 2,..., x n } the ring of differential polynomials over K. Definition We say that a diferential field K is differentially closed if for any differential field L K and f 1, f 2,..., f n K{x 1, x 2,..., x n } the system f 1 (x 1, x 2,..., x n ) = f 2 (x 1, x 2,..., x n ) = f n (x 1, x 2,..., x n ) = 0 has solution in L, then it has solution in K. Let K be a saturated model of DFC, k K and a K n, we denote by k a the differentially closed subfield generated by k(a). If A K and for all n, every nonzero f k{x 1, x 2,..., x n }, and all a 1, a 2,..., a n A it holds that f(a 1, a 2,..., a n ) = 0, then we say that A is δ-independent over k. Let us denote by (E) the -invariant of the elliptic curve E. Theorem Let A be an algebraic closed field of characteristic zero. For all a A there is an elliptic curve E definable over A with (E) = a. E = E 1 if and only if (E) = (E). For a K, let E(a) be the elliptic curve defined over K with -invariant a, let E(a) be the δ-closure of the torsion points and p a S(a) be the generic type of E(a). For all k K denote by k di f the differential closure of k in K. Theorem 2.24 (Hrushovski, Sokolvić). Suppose K 0 is a differentially closed field with characteristic zero, {a, b} is δ-independent over K 0, K 1 = K 0 a di f, K 2 = K 0 b di f, K = K 0 a, b di f, and p the non-forking extension of p a+b in K. Then K 1 K0 K 2, p K 1, and p K 2. Corollary DFC has the S-DOP. Proof. Let a, b, K 1, K 2, and p be as in Theorem By Theorem 2.24 it is enough to show that p does not fork over K 1 K 2. By the way p was defined, we know that p does not fork over a+b, therefore p does not fork over {a, b}. Since {a, b} is δ-independent over K 0, K 1 = K 0 a di f, and K 2 = K 0 b di f, we conclude that p does not fork over K 1 K 2. 3 Construction of Models In this section we will use coloured trees to construct models of a superstable theory with S-DOP. To do this, we will need some basic results first and fix some notation. We will study only the superstable theories with S-DOP. Instead of write Fω-constructible, a Fω-atomic, a Fω-saturated a and Fω-saturated a we will write a-constructible, a-atomic, a-primary, a-prime and a-saturated. From now on T will be a superstable theory with S-DOP. Because of the definition of S-DOP, we know that there are a-saturated models (M i ) i<3, M 0 M 1 M 2, such that M 1 M0 M 2, and for every M 3 a-prime model over M 1 M 2, there is a non-algebraic type p S(M 3 ) orthogonal to M 1 and to M 2 that does not fork over M 1 M 2. So p M 1 M 2 is orthogonal 11

12 to M 1 and to M 2. By Lemma 2.16, we know that there is an infinite I M 3 indiscernible over M 1 M 2 that is independent over M 1 M 2, such that Av(I, M 3 ) = p. For this independent sequence I, it holds that Av(I, M 1 M 2 ) is orthogonal to M 1 and to M 2. We will denote by λ(t) the least cardinal such that T is λ-stable. Since T is superstable, then λ(t) 2 ω, we will denote by λ the cardinal (2 ω ) +. Definition 3.1. Let us define the dimension of an indiscernible I over A in M by: dim(i, A, M) = min{ J : J is equivalent to I and J is a maximal indiscernible over A in M}. If for all J as above dim(i, A, M) = J, then we say that the dimension is true. The following results are important to study a-primary models and indiscernible sets. The proof of these results can be found in [She] (Lemma III 3.9 and Theorem IV 4.9). Lemma 3.2. If I is a maximal indiscernible set over A in M, then I +κ(t) = dim(i, A, M)+κ(T), and if dim(i, A, M) κ(t), then the dimension is true. Theorem 3.3. If M is a-primary model over A, and I M is an infinite indiscernible set over A, then dim(i, A, M) = ω. For any indiscernible sequence I = {a i i < γ}, we will denote by I α the sequence I = {a i i < α}. Now for every f κ κ we will use the the tree J f given in Definition 2.4, to construct the model A f. Since T has the S-DOP, by Lemma 2.16 and Lemma 2.17 there are a-saturated models A,B,C of cardinality 2 ω and an indiscernible sequence I over B C of size κ that is independent over B C such that 1. A B C, B A C. 2. Av(I,B C) is orthogonal to B and to C. 3. If (B i ) i<3 are sets such that: (a) B 0 A B C. (b) B 1 B B0 B 2 C. (c) B 2 C B0 B 1 B. Then, tp(i,b C) tp(i,b C i<3 B i ). For every ξ (J f ) <λ and every η (J f ) λ ((J f ) <λ and (J f ) λ are given by the definition of t α at the beginning of the section Preliminaries), let B ξ =A B, A B ξ, and C η =A C, A C η, such that the models (B ξ ) ξ (Jf ) <λ and (C η ) η (Jf ) λ satisfy the following: B ξ A {Bζ,C θ ζ (J f ) <λ θ (J f ) λ ζ = ξ}. C η A {Bζ,C θ ζ (J f ) <λ θ (J f ) λ θ = η}. Notice that all ξ, η J f, ξ (J f ) <λ and η (J f ) λ, satisfy B ξ C η A {Bζ,C θ ζ (J f ) <λ θ (J f ) λ ζ = ξ θ = η}. For all η (J f ) λ and every ξ < η denote by H η and H ξ the isomorphisms H η : C C η, and H ξ : B B ξ, such that H η A = H ξ A = id. 12

13 Fact 3.4. Let H ξη : C B C η B ξ, be defined by H ξη C = H η and H ξη B = H ξ, H ξη is an elementary map. Proof. By the way the models C η and B ξ were chosen, we know that B ξ A C η. Since H η is elementary, there is F and automorphism of the monster model that extends H η, so F 1 (B ξ ) A C. Since B and B ξ are isomorphic, then tp(b,a) = tp(b ξ,a). On the other hand F is an automorphism, we conclude that tp(b,a) = tp(f 1 (B ξ ),A). Since F (B ξ ) A C, B A C, and tp(b,a) is stationary, we conclude that tp(b,c) = tp(f 1 (B ξ ),C). Therefore tp((b C), ) = tp(b ξ C η, ). Let F ξη be an automorphism of the monster model that extends H ξη and denote the sequence I by {w α α < κ}. For all η (J f ) λ and every ξ < η, let I ξη = {b α α < c f (η)} be an indiscernible sequence over B ξ C η of size c f (η), that is independent over B ξ C η, that satisfies: tp(i ξη,b ξ C η ) = tp(f ξη (I c f (η)),b ξ C η ). I ξη Bξ C η {Bζ,C θ ζ (J f ) <λ θ (J f ) λ } {I ζθ ζ = ξ θ = η}. Therefore, there is an elementary embedding G : B ξ C η F ξη (I c f (η)) B ξ C η I ξη given by G B ξ C η = id and G(F ξη (I c f (η))) = I ξη. So the map H ξη : B C I c f (η) B ξ C η I ξη given by H ξη = G F ξη is elementary. Remark 3.5. B ξ, C η, and I ξη satisfy the following: 1. Av(I ξη,b ξ C η ) is orthogonal to B ξ and to C η. 2. If (B i ) i<3 are sets such that: (a) B 0 A B ξ C η. (b) B 1 Bξ B 0 B 2 C η. (c) B 2 Cη B 0 B 1 B ξ. Then, tp(i ξη,b ξ C η ) tp(i ξη,b ξ C η i<3 B i ). 3. I ξη Bξ C η {Bζ,C θ ζ (J f ) <λ θ (J f ) λ } {I ζθ ζ = ξ θ = η}. Definition 3.6. Let Γ f be the set {B ξ,c η, I ξη ξ (J f ) <λ η (J f ) λ ξ < η} and let A f be the a-primary model over Γ f. Let Γ α f be the set {B ξ,c η, I ξη ξ, η J α f ξ < η}, where J α f = {η J f rang(η) λ (β) 4 for some β < α} (as in Remark 2.6). Fact 3.7. If α is such that α λ < f(α), sup({c f (η)} η J α f ) < α, then Γ α+1 f = f(α). Proof. Since Γ α f = {B ξ,c η, I ξη ξ (J α f ) <λ η (J α f ) λ ξ < η}, we know that Γ α+1 f J α+1 f sup({c f (η)} η (J α+1 f ) λ ). Since J α+1 max( f(α), sup({c f (η)} η J α+1\j f α f c f (η), otherwise rang(η 5 ) < α and η J α f f α λ < f(α) and sup({c f (η)} η J α f ) < α < f(α), we get Γ α+1 f )). But every η J α+1 f \J α f with domain λ has rang(η 1 ) = λ and f(α) =. We conclude Γα+1 f = f(α). 13

14 Lemma 3.8. For every ξ (J f ) <λ, η (J f )λ, ξ < η, let p ξη be the type Av(I ξη ω, I ξη ω B ξ C η ). If c f (η) > ω, then dim(p ξη,a f ) = c f (η). Proof. Denote by S the set I ξη ω B ξ C η, so p ξη = Av(I ξη ω, S). Suppose, towards a contradiction, that dim(p ξη,a f ) = c f (η). Since I ξη A f, then dim(p ξη,a f ) > c f (η). Therefore, there is an independent sequence I = {a i i < c f (η) + } over S such that I A f and a I, a = p ξη. Claim I ξη ω I is indiscernible over B ξ C η. Proof. We will show by induction on α, that I ξη ω {a i i α} is indiscernible over B ξ C η. Case α = 0. Since a 0 = p ξη, then tp(a 0, S) = Av(I ξ,η ω, S) and I ξη ω {a 0 } is indiscernible over B ξ C η. Suppose α is an ordinal such that for every β < α, I ξη ω {a i i β} is indiscernible over B ξ C η. Therefore, I ξη ω {a i i < α} is indiscernible over B ξ C η. By the way I was chosen, we know that a α S {a i i < α} and a α = p ξη. Since I ξη ω {a i i < α} is indiscernible over B ξ C η, then Av(I ξη ω, S {a i i < α}) = Av(I ξη ω {a i i < α}, S {a i i < α}), therefore Av(I ξη ω {a i i < α}, S {a i i < α}) does not fork over S. Since Av(I ξη ω {a i i < α}, S {a i i < α}) is stationary, we conclude that tp(a α, S {a i i < α}) = Av(I ξ,η ω {a i i < α}, S {a i i < α}) and I ξ,η ω {a i i α} is indiscernible over B ξ C η. In particular I ξη ω I is indiscernible, and I ξη is equivalent to I. Claim tp(i ξη,b ξ C η ) tp(i ξη, Γ f \I ξη ) and I ξη is indiscernible over Γ f \I ξη. Proof. Define: B 0 = {B r C p r = ξ p = η} {I rp r = ξ p = η} B 1 = {B r C p r = ξ p = η} {I rp p = η} B 2 = {B r C p r = ξ p = η} {I rp r = ξ} Notice that by the way we chose the sequences I xy, for every r < p it holds that I rp Br C p {Bζ,C θ ζ, θ J f } {I ζθ ζ = r θ = p}. Let J be a finite subset of {I rp r = ξ p = η}, J = {I i i < m}, then I 0 {B r C p r =ξ p =η} B ξ C η and by transitivity I 1 {B r C p r =ξ p =η} I 0 B ξ C η, I 0 I 1 {B r C p r =ξ p =η} B ξ C η. In general, if n < m 1 is such that {I i i n} {B r C p r =ξ p =η} B ξ C η, 14

15 then since I n+1 {B r C p r =ξ p =η} {I i i n} B ξ C η we conclude by transitivity that {I i i n+1} {B r C p r =ξ p =η} B ξ C η. We conclude J {Br C p r =ξ p =η} B ξ C η. Because of the finite character we get that {Irp r = ξ p = η} {B r C p r =ξ p =η} B ξ C η. By the way we chose the models B x and C y, we know that by transitivity we conclude B 0 A B ξ C η. Notice that for every p = η, ξ < p we have B ξ C η A {Br C p r = ξ p = η}, I ξ p Bξ C p {Bζ,C θ ζ, θ J f } {I ζθ ζ = ξ θ = p} so I ξ p Bξ B 0 C η {I ζθ ζ = ξ θ = p}. From this we can conclude, in a similar way as before, that for every finite J {I ξ p p = η} it holds that J Bξ B 0 C η {I ζθ ζ = ξ}. Because of the finite character we get that {Iξ p p = η} Bξ B 0 C η {I ζθ ζ = ξ}. Since {B r C p r = ξ p = η} B 0 and {I rp r = ξ p = η} B 0, then we conclude Using a similar argument, it can be proved that To summary, the following holds: B 0 A B ξ C η, B 1 Bξ B 0 C η B 2, B 2 Cη B 0 B ξ B 1, B 1 Bξ B 0 C η B 2. B 2 Cη B 0 B ξ B 1. by Remark 3.5 item 2, we can conclude that tp(i ξη,b ξ C η ) tp(i ξη, Γ f \I ξη ) and since I ξη is indiscernible over B ξ C η, then I ξη is indiscernible over Γ f \I ξη. 15

16 By Claim we know that tp(i,b ξ C η ) = tp(i ξη,b ξ C η ), therefore by Claim tp(i,b ξ C η ) tp(i ξη, Γ f \I ξη ). We conclude that tp(i,b ξ C η ) tp(i, Γ f \I ξη ) and since I is indiscernible over B ξ C η, then I is indiscernible over Γ f \I ξη. Claim There are I, I I such that I = c f (η) + and I (Γ f \I ξη ) I I ξη. Proof. Let us denote the elements of I ξη by b i, I ξη = {b i i < c f (η)}. Since T is superstable, we know that for every α < c f (η) there is a finite B α I {b i i < α} such that b α (Γ f \I ξη ) B α I {b i i < α}. Define I = ( α<c f (η) B α ) I and I = I\I, notice that I c f (η), so I = c f (η) +. Because of the finite character, to prove that I (Γ f \I ξη ) I I ξη, it is enough to prove that I (Γ f \I ξη ) I {b i i < α} holds for every α < c f (η). Let us prove this by induction on α > 0. Case: α = 1. By the way B 0 was chosen, we know that b 0 (Γ f \I ξη ) B 0 I, and this implies I (Γ f \I ξη ) I b 0. Case: α = β+1. Suppose β is such that I (Γ f \I ξη ) I {b i i < β} holds. By the way B β was chosen, we know that b β (Γ f \I ξη ) B β I {b i i < β} and B β I {b i i < β}. Therefore b β (Γ f \I ξη ) I {b i i<β} I and by the induction hypothesis and transitivity, we conclude that {b i i β} (Γ f \I ξη ) I I. So I (Γ f \I ξη ) I {b i i < α}. Case: α is a limit ordinal. Suppose α is a limit ordinal such that I (Γ f \I ξη ) I {b i i < β} holds for every β < α. Therefore, for every finite A {b i i < α} we know that I (Γ f \I ξη ) I A. Because of the finite character, we conclude that I (Γ f \I ξη ) I {b i i < α}. Claim I is is indiscernible over Γ f I, in particular I is is indiscernible over Γ f. Proof. Let {c 0, c 1,..., c n } and {c 0, c 1,..., c n} be disoint subsets of I with n elements, such that i = implies c i = c and c i = c. We will prove that the following holds for every m n tp({c 0,..., c m 1, c m, c m+1, c n }, Γ f I ) = tp({c 0,..., c m 1, c m, c m+1,..., c n }, Γ f I ). By Claim 3.8.3, we know that{c 0, c 1,..., c n } {c 0, c 1,..., c n} (Γ f \I ξη ) I I ξη, so c m (Γ f \I ξη ) I {c 0,...,c m 1,c m+1,...,c n } I ξη and c m (Γ f \I ξη ) I {c 0,...,c m 1,c m+1,...,c n } I ξη. Since {c m, c m} I {c 0,..., c m 1, c m+1,..., c n } is indiscernible over (Γ f \I ξη ), and {c 0, c 1,..., c n } {c 0, c 1,..., c n} =, then and c m = Av(I {c 0,..., c m 1, c m+1,..., c n },(Γ f \I ξη ) I {c 0,..., c m 1, c m+1,..., c n }) c m = Av(I {c 0,..., c m 1, c m+1,..., c n },(Γ f \I ξη ) I {c 0,..., c m 1, c m+1,..., c n }). We know that the type Av(I {c 0,..., c m 1, c m+1,..., c n },(Γ f \I ξη ) I {c 0,..., c m 1, c m+1,..., c n }) is stationary, we conclude that tp(c m, Γ f I {c 0,..., c m 1, c m+1,..., c n }) = tp(c m, Γ f I {c 0,..., c m 1, c m+1,..., c n }) 16

17 and as we wanted. Since tp({c 0,..., c m 1, c m, c m+1,..., c n }, Γ f I ) = tp({c 0,..., c m 1, c m, c m+1,..., c n }, Γ f I ) tp({c 0,..., c m 1, c m, c m+1,..., c n }, Γ f I ) = tp({c 0,..., c m 1, c m, c m+1,..., c n }, Γ f I ) holds for every m n, we conclude that tp({c 0,..., c n }, Γ f I ) = tp({c 0,..., c n}, Γ f I ). To finish the proof, let {c 0, c 1,..., c n } and {c 0, c 1,..., c n} be subsets of I with n elements, such that i = implies c i = c and c i = c. Since I is infinite, then there is {c 0, c 1,..., c n} I such that {c 0, c 1,..., c n} ({c 0, c 1,..., c n } {c 0, c 1,..., c n}) =. Therefore tp({c 0,..., c n }, Γ f I ) = tp({c 0,..., c n}, Γ f I ) = tp({c 0,..., c n}, Γ f I ), we conclude that I is is indiscernible over Γ f I. Let J A f be a maximal indiscernible set over Γ f such that I J. By Lemma 3.2 J +κ(t) = dim(j, Γ f,a f )+ κ(t). Since T is superstable, κ(t) < ω < J and we conclude that κ(t) < dim(j, Γ f,a f )+ κ(t). Therefore κ(t) < dim(j, Γ f,a f ) and by Lemma 3.2 the dimension is true, dim(j, Γ f,a f ) = J. So dim(j, Γ f,a f ) > ω a contradiction with Theorem 3.3. One of the key lemmas for the proof of the main results (Theorem 3.15) is Lemma 3.11 (below). To prove this lemma, we will need the following lemma about a-saturated models and the definition of a nice subsets of Γ f. Lemma 3.9. IfN is an a-saturated model, then for every finite C and a, there is b N such that stp(b, C N) = stp(a, C N) and b C N C. Proof. Since N, there is a sequence (b i ) i<ω N that satisfies that for all i < ω, stp(b i,n C) = stp(a,n C) and b i N C C. On the other hand T is superstable, so there is i < ω such that i b N C <i b C. Therefore b i N C <i b C holds for some i < ω, by transitivity we conclude that there is i < ω such that b i N C C. Now we define the nice subsets of Γ f. These subsets have a couple of properties, that will be useful when we study the model A f. Definition We say X Γ f is nice if the following holds. 1. If X I ξη =, then B ξ,c η X. 2. If B ξ X =, then B ξ X. 3. If C η X =, then C η X. 4. If ξ < η and B ξ,c η X, then X I ξη is infinite. The argument for the next Lemma is a variation of the argument used of [HS] in the fourth section. 17

18 Lemma Let Z be a nice subset of Γ f and d Γ f \Z. Then for all B finite subset of Z there is f Saut(M, B) such that f(d) Z. Proof. Since d is finite, the sets{i ξη Γ f d I ξη = }, {B ξ Γ f d B ξ = }, and{c η Γ f d C η = } are finite. Denote by Y I, Y B and Y C the sets {I ξη Γ f d I ξη = }, {B ξ Γ f d B ξ = } and {C η Γ f d C η = } respectively. Notice that since Z is nice and d Γ f \Z, then for all ξ (J f ) <λ, d B ξ = implies I ξη / Z for all η (J f ) λ, ξ < η. The same holds for all η (J f ) λ, d C η = implies that I ξη / Z for all ξ (J f ) <λ, ξ < η. Therefore, there exists d Γ f \Z such that d d and {I ξη Γ f d I ξη = } is non-empty. Without loss of generality we can assume that Y I =. Notice, that if ξ (J f ) <λ and η (J f ) λ, ξ < η, are such that I ξη d = and B ξ Z, then there is d Γ f \Z such that d d and B ξ d =. Without loss of generality we can assume that for all I ξη Y I either B ξ Z or B ξ d =. Using the same argument, without loss of generality we can assume that for all I ξη Y I either C η Z or C η d =. From the previous discussion we can conclude that we only have the following cases for the sets Y I, Y C, and Y B : 1. Y I =, Y B = Y C =, and I ξη Y I (B ξ,c η Z). 2. Y I, Y C =, Y B =, and I ξη Y I (B ξ Z). 3. Y I, Y B =, Y C =, and I ξη Y I (C η Z). 4. Y I, Y C, Y B =. It is clear that the cases 1, 2, and 3 follow from the case 4. We will show only the proof of the cases 1 and 4. Case 1. In this case we will prove something stronger. By induction on Y I we will show that there is f Saut(M, {B ζ,c θ ζ (J f ) <λ θ (J f ) λ } {I ζθ I ζθ / Y I } B) such that f(d) Z. If Y I = 1: Let us denote by I ξη the only element of Y I. Since B ξ,c η Z, then Z I ξη = I ξη is infinite and I ξη = I ξη. Let I = I ξη B by the way we chose the models B x,c y and the sequences I xy, we know that I ξη Bξ C η Γ f \I ξη, so I ξη \I Bξ C η I Γ f\i ξη. By Claim 3.8.2, I ξη is indiscernible over Γ f \I ξη, so there is d I ξη \I such that stp(d,b ξ C η I ) = stp(d,b ξ C η I ). Therefore, we know that d Bξ C η I I (Γ f \I ξη ) and d Bξ C η I I (Γ f \I ξη ). Since B I (Γ f \I ξη ), we conclude that d and d have the same strong type over {B ζ,c θ ζ (J f ) <λ θ (J f ) λ } {I ζθ I ζθ / Y I } B and there is f Saut(M, {B ζ,c θ ζ (J f ) <λ θ (J f ) λ } {I ζθ I ζθ / Y I } B) such that f(d) = d, so f(d) Z. Successor case. Let us suppose that if Y I = n, then there is f Saut(M, {B ζ,c θ ζ (J f ) <λ θ (J f ) λ } {I ζθ I ζθ / Y I } B)) such that f(d) Z. 18

19 Let Y I be such that Y I = n + 1. Let ξ (J f ) <λ and η (J f ) λ be such that I ξη Y I, and let d 0 = d I ξη. By the case Y I = 1, there is g 0 Saut(M, {B ζ,c θ ζ (J f ) <λ θ (J f ) λ } {I ζθ ζ = ξ θ = η} B) such that g 0 (d 0 ) Z. Since Y I \{I ξη } = n, by the induction hypothesis there is g 1 Saut(M, {B ζ,c θ ζ (J f ) <λ θ (J f ) λ } {I ζθ I ζθ / Y I } B I ξη ) such that g 1 (d\d 0 ) Z. We conclude that f = g 1 g 0 satisfies f(d) Z and f Saut(M, {B ζ,c θ ζ (J f ) <λ θ (J f ) λ } {Iζθ I ζθ / Y I } B). Case 4. Claim For all B ξ Γ f and C η Γ f, ξ < η, there are x η C η and y ξ B ξ, both finite, that satisfy I ξη xη y ξ B ξ C η. Proof. Let I ξη = (r ) < Iξη, by the finite character, it is enough to show that there are x η C η and y ξ B ξ, both finite, such that for every k < I ξη it holds (r ) k xη y ξ B ξ C η. We will prove this by induction on k. Since T is superstable there are x η C η and y ξ B ξ, both finite, such that r 0 xη y ξ B ξ C η. Since I ξη is indiscernible over B ξ C η, it holds that r xη y ξ B ξ C η, for every < I ξη. Fix x η and y ξ such that r xη y ξ B ξ C η, for all < I ξη. Suppose k is such that for every θ < k, (r ) θ xη y ξ B ξ C η, so by the finite character we conclude (r ) <k xη y ξ B ξ C η. Since I ξη is independent over B ξ C η, it holds that r k Bξ C η (r ) <k. By the way x η and y ξ were chosen, we know that r k xη y ξ B ξ C η, then by transitivity r k xη y ξ (r ) <k B ξ C η. By transitivity we conclude that (r ) k xη y ξ B ξ C η. By the way we chose the models B x,c y and the sequences I xy, we know that I ξη Bξ C η Γ f \I ξη. Because of the previous claim there are x η C η and y ξ B ξ, both finite, such that I ξη xη y ξ Γ f \I ξη. Without loss of generality, we can assume that x η d C η and y ξ B ξ B holds for all η < ξ that satisfy B ξ / Y B, C η Y C, and I ξη Y I. Therefore I ξη (B Bξ ) (d C η ) Γ f\i ξη holds for all η < ξ that satisfy B ξ / Y B, C η Y C, and I ξη Y I. Without loss of generality, we can assume that y ξ d B ξ and x η C η B holds for all η < ξ that satisfy B ξ Y B, C η / Y C, and I ξη Y I. Therefore I ξη (B Cη ) (d B ξ ) Γ f \I ξη holds for all η < ξ that satisfy B ξ Y B, C η / Y C, and I ξη Y I. Without loss of generality, we can assume that y ξ B ξ B and x η C η B holds for all η < ξ that satisfy B ξ / Y B, C η / Y C, and I ξη Y I. Therefore I ξη B (Cη B ξ ) Γ f\i ξη holds for all η < ξ that satisfy B ξ / Y B, C η / Y C, and I ξη Y I. Since T is superstable, we know there is a finite D A such that B D A. Without loss of generality we can assume D B A, so B B A A. Let us define Y I = {I ξη Y I B ξ,c η Z}, and let e = d Y I. By Case 1, we know that there is g Saut(M, {B ζ,c θ ζ (J f ) <λ θ (J f ) λ } {I ζθ I ζθ / Y I } B) such that g(e) Z. Let B = B g(e) and d = d\e. Since I ξη B (Cη B ξ ) Γ f\i ξη holds for all I ξη Y I, we know by transitivity that e B Γ f \ Y I. Since B B A A, we conclude that e B B A A. Because of g Saut(M, {B ζ,c θ ζ (J f ) <λ θ (J f ) λ } {I ζθ I ζθ / Y I } B), and B A = B A, we conclude that B B A A (1) Notice that B C η = B C η, B B ξ = B B ξ, d C η = d C η, and d B ξ = d B ξ hold for all η and ξ. Therefore: 19

20 I ξη (B B ξ ) (d C η ) Γ f\i ξη holds for all η < ξ that satisfy B ξ / Y B, C η Y C, and I ξη Y I I ξη (B C η ) (d B ξ ) Γ f \I ξη holds for all η < ξ that satisfy B ξ Y B, C η / Y C, and I ξη Y I Define d 0 = d ( Y C Y B {I ξη B ξ Y B Cη Y C }). Since d is finite, we know there are a finite number of independent sequences I ξη Y I that satisfy d I ξη = and I ξη d 0 =. Let {I i } 1 i<m be an enumeration of these independent sequences such that there is n, 1 n < m, that satisfy: if I i = I ξη and i n, then C η Y C. if I i = I ξη and n < i, then B ξ Y B. Denote by d i the tuples d I i for all 1 i < m. For every 1 i < m, there exist ξ (J f ) λ and η (J f ) λ such that I i = I ξη, let us denote by B i and C i the models B ξ and C η, respectively. Notice that i = does not implies B i = B or C i = C. By the way we chose the modelsb x,c y and the sequences I xy, we know that I ξη Bξ C η Γ f \I ξη holds for all ξ < η, η (J f ) λ. Let us denote by Q the set {I ξη B ξ Y B Cη Y C }. Since Q is finite, by transitivity we concluded that Q Y C Y B Γ f \Q. Since Y C is finite and C η A {Cy, I xy y = η} {B x B x Γ f } holds for every η (J f ) λ, we conclude by transitivity that Y C A {Cy, I xy C y / Y C } {B x x (J f ) <λ }. Therefore Y C Y B {Cy, I xy C y / Y C } {B x x (J f ) <λ } and by transitivity we conclude that Q YC YB {Cy, I xy C y / Y C } {B x x (J f ) <λ }. By a similar argument, we conclude that Y B A {Bx, I xy B x / Y B } {C y y (J f ) λ }. Denote by W the set {I xy C y / Y C B x / Y B } {B x B x / Y B } {C y C y / Y C }, by transitivity we conclude that Q YC Y B A W. Since ( Y C Y B ) Z = and Z is nice (I ξη Z = implies B ξ,c η Z), then Z W and by the definition of d 0 we know that d 0 Q, we get d 0 A Z. By (1) and transitivity we conclude that d 0 B A B. By Lemma 3.9, there is d 0 A such that Stp(d 0, B A) = Stp(d 0, B A) and d 0 B A B. We conclude that Stp(d 0, B ) = Stp(d 0, B ), and there is f 0 Saut(M, B ) such that f 0 (d 0 ) = d 0. We know that I ξη (B B ξ ) (d C η ) Γ f\i ξη holds for all η < ξ that satisfy B ξ / Y B, C η Y C, and I ξη Y I. Since d C η d 0 Γ f \I ξη holds for all C η Y C, then I ξη (B B ξ ) d 0 Γ f \I ξη holds for all η < ξ that satisfy B ξ / Y B, C η Y C, and I ξη Y I. We know that I ξη (B C η ) (d B ξ ) Γ f\i ξη holds for all η < ξ that satisfy B ξ Y B, C η / Y C, and I ξη Y I. Since d B ξ d 0 Γ f \I ξη, holds for all B ξ Y B, then I ξη (B C η ) d 0 Γ f \I ξη holds for all η < ξ that satisfy B ξ Y B, C η / Y C, and I ξη Y I. Claim There are automorphisms of the monster model( f i ) 0<i<m and( f i ) 0 i<m that satisfy the following: For every 0 < i < m, f i = f i f i 1. For every 0 < i n there is d i B i such that f i Saut(M, B (d ) <i) and f i ( f i 1(d i )) = d i. For every n < i < m there is d i C i such that f i Saut(M, B (d ) <i) and f i ( f i 1(d i )) = d i. 20