Dp-Minimality: Basic Facts and Examples

Abstract

We study the notion of dp-minimality, beginning by providing several essential facts about dp-minimality, establishing several equivalent definitions for dp-minimality, and comparing dp-minimality to other minimality notions. The majority of the rest of the paper is dedicated to examples. We establish via a simple proof that any weakly o-minimal theory is dp-minimal and then give an example of a weakly o-minimal group not obtained by adding traces of externally definable sets. Next we give an example of a divisible ordered Abelian group which is dp-minimal and not weakly o-minimal. Finally we establish that the field of p-adic numbers is dp-minimal.2 ALFRED DOLICH, JOHN GOODRICK, AND DAVID LIPPEL these facts are inherent in [14] but we isolate them here and provide straightforward proofs. Section 3 is a brief discussion of the relationship of dp-minimality to some other minimality notions. In Section 4 we focus weak on o-minimality-for which see [10]-and show that a weakly o-minimal theory is dp-minimal as well providing an example of a weakly o-minimal group which is not obtained by expanding on o-minimal structure by convex sets. Work in Section 3 as well as results from [9] indicate that a dp-minimal theory expanding that of divisible ordered Abelian groups has some similarity to a weakly o-minimal theory and we may naturally ask whether any such theory is weakly o-minimal. Section 5 provides a negative answer via an example arising form the valued field context. Our final section is dedicated to showing that the theory of the p-adic field is dp-minimal. basic facts on dp-minimalityWe develop several basics facts about dp-minimality. The vast majority of the material found below is inherent in Shelah's paper [14], but typically in the more general context of strong dependence. We provide proofs of these various facts for clarity and ease of exposition. Recall:Definition 2.1. Fix a structure M, An ICT pattern in M consists of a pair of formulae φ(x, y) and ψ(x, y); and sequences {a i : i ∈ ω} and {b i : i ∈ ω} from M so that for all i, j ∈ ω the following is consistent:Remark. Definition 2.1 should more formally be referred to as an ICT pattern of depth two but in this paper we only consider such ICT patterns and thus we omit this extra terminology.Definition 2.2. A theory T is said to be dp-minimal if in no model M |= T is there an ICT pattern.It is often very convenient to use the following definition and fact.Definition 2.3. We say two sequences {a i : i ∈ I} and {b j : j ∈ J} are mutually indiscernible if {a i : i ∈ I} is indiscernible over j∈J b j and {b j : j ∈ J} is indiscernible over i∈I a i . We call an ICT pattern mutually indiscernible if the witnessing sequences are mutually indiscernible. Fact 2.4. T is dp-minimal if and only if in no model M |= T is there a mutually indiscernible ICT pattern.Proof. This is a simple application of compactness and Ramsey's theorem.Before continuing we should mention another alternative characterization of dpminimality. To this end we have the following definition.

On a common generalization of Shelah's 2-rank, dp-rank, and o-minimal dimension

“…As k was arbitrary, by compactness, there exists an IRD-pattern of depth n + 1 and length ω in π(x). 2 We see now that there is an obvious relationship between dp-rank and op-dimension. Definition 1.24.…”

“…Theorem 1.14. Let OG be the theory (in the signature {< (2) , R (2) }) of ordered graphs; that is, OG asserts the following:…”

“…Many proofs in the literature establishing the existence of an ICT-pattern implicitly go through an IRD-pattern. For example, the proof Fact 2.7 of [2] first builds an IRD-pattern, then an ICT-pattern from it as in the proof of Proposition 1.25 above.…”

Stable groups and expansions of $(\mathbb Z,+,0)$

“…The focus on Presburger arithmetic in the previous question is not unnatural. Indeed, (Z, +, <, 0) is an ordered structure, and thus unstable, but is still well understood and very well behaved model theoretically (to be precise, its theory is NIP of dp-rank 1 [8]). Our first main result will show that, in fact, these model theoretic notions completely control the answer to Marker's question.…”

Generic trivializations of geometric theories

“…We shall refine our analysis in the setting of strongly dependent theories and compare the dp‐rank of T and . Basic facts about dp‐rank can be found in , more general information about strongly dependent theories can be found in . We only recall the basic definitions : Definition Let M be a sufficiently saturated model of a theory T .…”