2
$\begingroup$

Let ${\cal U}$ be some large saturated model and let ${\cal X}\subseteq{\cal U}$ be any set.

I would like to prove that the following are equivalent

  1. $f[{\cal X}]={\cal X}$ for every automorphism that fixes a model containing $A$

  2. $\big\{f[{\cal X}]\ :\ f\in\mathrm{Aut}({\cal U}/A)\big\}$ has small cardinality.

Edit. I accept @LevonHaykazyan's answer below though I was hoping in a more direct argument for 2$\Rightarrow$1. Morley/indiscernible/coheir sequences sound too much a sophisticated weaponry for such an innocent question.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ $X$ is a small set, right? $\endgroup$ – Alex Kruckman May 31 '17 at 19:46
  • $\begingroup$ $A$ is small, ${\cal X}$ has arbitrary size. $\endgroup$ – Escherica May 31 '17 at 19:56
  • $\begingroup$ Are you familiar with the notion of Lascar strong types? $\endgroup$ – Alex Kruckman May 31 '17 at 20:39
2
$\begingroup$

1 implies 2. Let $M$ be a model of cardinality $\kappa$ containing $A$. Since $\mathcal X$ is $M$-invariant there is a set $P \subseteq S(M)$ of types such that $\mathcal X = \bigcup_{p \in P} p(\mathcal U)$. This means that the number of such $\mathcal X$ is bounded by $2^{2^\kappa}$. Now assume that the number of $A$-conjugates of $\mathcal X$ is unbounded. I claim that all of them are $M$-invariant which would be a contradiction. Let $f \in Aut(\mathcal U/A)$. Then $\mathcal X$ is $f^{-1}(M)$-invariant (since $f^{-1}(M)$ is a model containing $A$) and so $f(\mathcal X)$ is $M$-invariant. Indeed if $g \in Aut(\mathcal U/M)$, then $f^{-1}gf \in Aut(\mathcal U/f^{-1}(M))$ and so $f^{-1}gf(X) = X$ implying $gf(X) = f(X)$.

2 implies 1. Let $(\mathcal X_\alpha : \alpha < \lambda)$ be the set of $A$-conjugates of $X$. Define an equivalence relation $E(x, y) \leftrightarrow \bigwedge_{\alpha < \lambda} (x \in \mathcal X_\alpha \leftrightarrow y \in \mathcal X_\alpha)$. Then $E$ is $A$-invariant and has boundedly many equivalence classes. Each equivalence class of such an $E$ is $M$-invariant for any model $M$ containing $A$ (see e.g. Proposition 5.1 of Pierre Simon's book). This then shows that $\mathcal X$ is $M$-invariant since it is a union of equivalence classes.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.