We study structures equipped with generic predicates and/or automorphisms, and show that in many cases we obtain simple theories. We also show that a bounded PAC field is simple. 1998 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

The weak non-finite cover property (wnfcp) was introduced in [1] in connection with "axiomatizability" of lovely pairs of models of a simple theory. We find a combinatorial condition on a simple theory equivalent to the wnfcp, yielding a direct proof that the non-finite cover property implies the wnfcp, and that the wnfcp is preserved under reducts. We also study the question whether the wnfcp is preserved when passing from a simple theory T to the theory TP of lovely pairs of (...) models of T (true in the stable case). While the question remains open, we show, among other things, that if (for a T with the wnfcp) TP is low, then TP has the wnfcp. To study this question, we describe "double lovely pairs", and, along the way, we develop the notion of a "lovely n-tuple" of models of a simple theory, which is an analogue of the notion of a beautiful tuple of models of stable theories [2]. (shrink)

We continue the study of the connection between the “geometric” properties of SU -rank 1 structures and the properties of “generic” pairs of such structures, started in [8]. In particular, we show that the SU-rank of the theory of generic pairs of models of an SU -rank 1 theory T can only take values 1 , 2 or ω, generalizing the corresponding results for a strongly minimal T in [3]. We also use pairs to derive the implication from pseudolinearity to (...) linearity for ω -categorical SU -rank 1 structures, established in [7], from the conjecture that an ω -categorical supersimple theory has finite SU -rank, and find a condition on generic pairs, equivalent to pseudolinearity in the general case. (shrink)

We introduce the notion of a lovely pair of models of a simple theory T, generalizing Poizat's “belles paires” of models of a stable theory and the third author's “generic pairs” of models of an SU-rank 1 theory. We characterize when a saturated model of the theory TP of lovely pairs is a lovely pair , finding an analog of the nonfinite cover property for simple theories. We show that, under these hypotheses, TP is also simple, and we study forking (...) and canonical bases in TP. We also prove that assuming only that T is low, the existentially universal models of the universal part of a natural expansion TP+ of TP, are lovely pairs, and “simple Robinson universal domains”. (shrink)

§1. Introduction. By and large, definitions of a differentiable structure on a set involve two ingredients, topology and algebra. However, in some cases, partial information on one or both of these is sufficient. A very simple example is that of the field ℝ where algebra alone determines the ordering and hence the topology of the field:In the case of the field ℂ, the algebraic structure is insufficient to determine the Euclidean topology; another topology, Zariski, is associated with the ield but (...) this will be too coarse to give a diferentiable structure.A celebrated example of how partial algebraic and topological data determines a differentiable structure is Hilbert's 5th problem and its solution by Montgomery-Zippin and Gleason.The main result which we discuss here is of a similar flavor: we recover an algebraic and later differentiable structure from a topological data. We begin with a linearly ordered set ⟨M, <⟩, equipped with the order topology, and its cartesian products with the product topologies. We then consider the collection of definable subsets of Mn, n = 1, 2, …, in some first order expansion ℳ of ⟨M, <⟩. (shrink)

We develop a new notion of independence (þ-independence, read "thorn"-independence) that arises from a family of ranks suggested by Scanlon (þ-ranks). We prove that in a large class of theories (including simple theories and o-minimal theories) this notion has many of the properties needed for an adequate geometric structure. We prove that þ-independence agrees with the usual independence notions in stable, supersimple and o-minimal theories. Furthermore, we give some evidence that the equivalence between forking and þ-forking in simple theories might (...) be closely related to one of the main open conjectures in simplicity theory, the stable forking conjecture. In particular, we prove that in any simple theory where the stable forking conjecture holds. þ-independence and forking independence agree. (shrink)

Let D be a strongly minimal set in the language L, and $D' \supset D$ an elementary extension with infinite dimension over D. Add to L a unary predicate symbol D and let T' be the theory of the structure (D', D), where D interprets the predicate D. It is known that T' is ω-stable. We prove Theorem A. If D is not locally modular, then T' has Morley rank ω. We say that a strongly minimal set D is pseudoprojective (...) if it is nontrivial and there is a $k < \omega$ such that, for all a, b ∈ D and closed $X \subset D, a \in \mathrm{cl}(Xb) \Rightarrow$ there is a $Y \subset X$ with a ∈ cl(Yb) and |Y| ≤ k. Using Theorem A, we prove Theorem B. If a strongly minimal set D is pseudoprojective, then D is locally projective. The following result of Hrushovski's (proved in $\S4$ ) plays a part in the proof of Theorem B. Theorem C. Suppose that D is strongly minimal, and there is some proper elementary extension D1 of D such that the theory of the pair (D1, D) is ω1-categorical. Then D is locally modular. (shrink)

Let TP be the theory obtained by adding a generic predicate to an o-minimal theory T. We prove that if T admits elimination of imaginaries, then TP also admits elimination of imaginaries.

For a supersimple SU-rank 1 theory T we introduce the notion of a generic elementary pair of models of T . We show that the theory T* of all generic T-pairs is complete and supersimple. In the strongly minimal case, T* coincides with the theory of infinite dimensional pairs, which was used in 1184–1194) to study the geometric properties of T. In our SU-rank 1 setting, we use T* for the same purpose. In particular, we obtain a characterization of linearity (...) for SU-rank 1 structures by giving several equivalent conditions on T*, find a “weak” version of local modularity which is equivalent to linearity, show that linearity coincides with 1-basedness, and use the generic pairs to “recover” projective geometries over division rings from non-trivial linear SU-rank 1 structures. (shrink)

§1. Introduction. By and large, definitions of a differentiable structure on a set involve two ingredients, topology and algebra. However, in some cases, partial information on one or both of these is sufficient. A very simple example is that of the field ℝ where algebra alone determines the ordering and hence the topology of the field:In the case of the field ℂ, the algebraic structure is insufficient to determine the Euclidean topology; another topology, Zariski, is associated with the ield but (...) this will be too coarse to give a diferentiable structure.A celebrated example of how partial algebraic and topological data determines a differentiable structure is Hilbert's 5th problem and its solution by Montgomery-Zippin and Gleason.The main result which we discuss here is of a similar flavor: we recover an algebraic and later differentiable structure from a topological data. We begin with a linearly ordered set ⟨M, <⟩, equipped with the order topology, and its cartesian products with the product topologies. We then consider the collection of definable subsets of Mn, n = 1, 2, …, in some first order expansion ℳ of ⟨M, <⟩. (shrink)