15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      An axiomatic approach to free amalgamation

      Preprint

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We use axioms of abstract ternary relations to define the notion of a free amalgamation theory. This notion encompasses many prominent examples of countable structures in relational languages, in which the class of algebraically closed substructures is closed under free amalgamation. We show that any free amalgamation theory is NSOP4, with weak elimination of imaginaries, and use this to show that several classes of well-known homogeneous structures give new examples of (non-simple) rosy theories without the strict order property. We then prove the equivalence of simplicity and NTP2 for free amalgamation theories. As a corollary, we show that any simple free amalgamation theory, with elimination of hyperimaginaries, is 1-based. In the case of modular free amalgamation theories, we also show that simplicity coincides with NSOP3. Finally, we consider a special class of Fra\"{i}ss\'{e} limits, and prove a combinatorial characterization of simplicity, which provides new context for the fact that the generic \(K_n\)-free graphs are SOP3, while the high arity generic \(K^r_n\)-free \(r\)-hypergraphs are simple.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          2015-05-04
          2015-10-01
          Article
          1505.00762
          899fdfea-4b4d-4909-bf99-f0414a374e83

          http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/

          History
          Custom metadata
          22 pages; substantial changes, including strengthening of the main definitions, several new results, and corrections of errors in the first version
          math.LO

          Logic & Foundation
          Logic & Foundation

          Comments

          Comment on this article