We study generalized amalgamation properties in simple theories. We formulate a notion of generalized amalgamation in such a way so that the properties are preserved when we pass from T to Teq or Theq; we provide several equivalent ways of formulating the notion of generalized amalgamation.We define two distinct hierarchies of simple theories characterized by their amalgamation properties; examples are given to show the difference between the hierarchies.

§1. Introduction. In this report we wish to describe recent work on a class of first order theories first introduced by Shelah in [32], the simple theories. Major progress was made in the first author's doctoral thesis [17]. We will give a survey of this, as well as further works by the authors and others.The class of simple theories includes stable theories, but also many more, such as the theory of the random graph. Moreover, many of the theories of particular (...) algebraic structures which have been studied recently turn out to be simple. The interest is basically that a large amount of the machinery of stability theory, invented by Shelah, is valid in the broader class of simple theories. Stable theories will be defined formally in the next section. An exhaustive study of them is carried out in [33]. Without trying to read Shelah's mind, we feel comfortable in saying that the importance of stability for Shelah lay partly in the fact that an unstable theory T has 2λ many models in any cardinal λ ≥ ω1 + |T|. (shrink)

For each k 1, let Γk be the countable universal homogeneous k-hypergraph. In this paper, we shall classify the closed permutation groups G such that Aut G Sym. In particular, we shall show that there exist only finitely many such groups G for each k 1. We shall also show that each of the associated reducts of Γk is homogeneous with respect to a finite relational language.

The main topic of this paper is the investigation of generalized amalgamation properties for simple theories. That is, we are trying to answer the question of when a simple theory has the property of n-dimensional amalgamation, where two-dimensional amalgamation is the Independence Theorem for simple theories. We develop the notions of strong n-simplicity and n-simplicity for 1≤n≤ω, where both “1-simple” and “strongly 1-simple” are the same as “simple”. For strong n-simplicity, we present examples of simple unstable theories in each subclass (...) and prove a characteristic property of strong n-simplicity in terms of strong n-dividing, a strengthening of the dependence relation called dividing in simple theories. We prove a strong three-dimensional amalgamation property for strongly 2-simple theories, and, under an additional assumption, a strong -dimensional amalgamation property for strongly n-simple theories. In the last section of the paper we comment on why strong n-simplicity is called strong. (shrink)

In this paper, we study the notions related to tree property 1 , or, equivalently, SOP2. Among others, we supply a type-counting criterion for TP1 and show the equivalence of TP1 and k- TP1. Then we introduce the notions of weak k- TP1 for k≥2, and also supply type-counting criteria for those. We do not know whether weak k- TP1 implies TP1, but at least we prove that each weak k- TP1 implies SOP1. Our generalization of the tree-indiscernibility results in (...) Džamonja and Shelah [5] is crucially used throughout the paper. (shrink)

We show that in a stable first-order theory, the failure of higher dimensional type amalgamation can always be witnessed by algebraic structures that we call n-ary polygroupoids. This generalizes a result of Hrushovski in [16] that failures of 4-amalgamation are witnessed by definable groupoids. The n-ary polygroupoids are definable in a mild expansion of the language.

We study model theoretic tree properties and their associated cardinal invariants. In particular, we obtain a quantitative refinement of Shelah’s theorem for countable theories, show that [Formula: see text] is always witnessed by a formula in a single variable and that weak [Formula: see text] is equivalent to [Formula: see text]. Besides, we give a characterization of [Formula: see text] via a version of independent amalgamation of types and apply this criterion to verify that some examples in the literature are (...) indeed [Formula: see text]. (shrink)