Tuesday, October 16 |
07:30 - 09:00 |
Breakfast (Restaurant at your assigned hotel) |
09:00 - 09:50 |
Krzysztof Krupinski: Amenability and definability ↓ I will discuss some aspects of my recent paper (still in preparation) with Udi Hrushovski and Anand Pillay. Most of the main results are of the form "a version of amenability implies a version of G-compactness".
Among our main technical tools, of interest in its own right, is an elaboration on and strengthening of the Massicot-Wagner version of the stabilizer theorem, and also some extension results that we obtain for measure-like functions (which we call means and pre-means).
One of the main results is the following. Assume G is a 0-definable group normalized by G(M) (where M is a model), H is a 0-type-definable subgroup, and N is the normal subgroup of G generated by H. Then, if the type space SG/H(M) carries a G(M)-invariant, Borel probability measure, then G00M≤NG000M. We also obtain a similar result which answers various questions from my earlier paper with Anand Pillay, e.g. if G is an amenable topological group, then the (classical) Bohr compactification of G coincides with a certain "weak Bohr compactification". In other words, the conclusion says that certain connected components of G coincide: G00top=G000top.
Another main result says that each amenable theory is G-compact. In particular, we introduce the notion of an amenable theory in several equivalent ways, e.g. by saying that for each type p(ˉx)∈S(∅), the space Sp(\C):=q∈S(\C):p⊂q carries an Aut(\C)-invariant, Borel probability measure (where \C is a monster model).
There are several other developments in this paper, but during my talk, I will focus on one of the above. (Conference Room San Felipe) |
10:00 - 10:40 |
Jan Dobrowolski: Localized Lascar group ↓ The notion of the localized Lascar-Galois group GalL(p) of a type p appeared recently in the context of model-theoretic homology groups, and was also used by Krupinski, Newelski, and Simon in the context of topological dynamics. After a brief introduction of the context, we will discuss some basic properties of localized Lascar-Galois groups. Then, we will focus on the question about how far GalL(tp(acl(a))) can be from GalL(tp(a)). This is a joint work with B. Kim, A. Kolesnikov and J. Lee. (Conference Room San Felipe) |
10:40 - 11:10 |
Coffee Break (Conference Room San Felipe) |
11:40 - 12:20 |
Alex Kruckman: Interpolative Fusions ↓ Fix languages L_1 and L_2 with intersection L_\cap and union L_\cup. An L_\cup structure M is interpolative if whenever X_1 is an L_1-definable set and X_2 is an L_2-definable set, X_1 and X_2 intersect in M unless they are separated by L_\cap-definable sets. When T_1 is an L_1 theory and T_2 is an L_2 theory, we say that a theory T_\cup^* is the interpolative fusion of T_1 and T_2 if it axiomatizes the class of interpolative models of the union theory T_\cup. If T_1 and T_2 are model-complete, this is exactly the model companion of T_\cup. Interpolative fusions provide a unified framework for studying many examples of "generic constructions" in model theory. Some, like structures with generic predicates, or algebraically closed fields with several independent valuations, are explicitly interpolative fusions, while others, like structures with generic automorphisms (e.g. ACFA), or fields with generic operators (e.g. DCF), are bi-interpretable with interpolative fusions.
In joint work with Erik Walsberg and Minh Tran, we study two basic questions: (1) When does the interpolative fusion exist, and how can we axiomatize it? (2) How can we understand properties of the interpolative fusion T_\cup^* in terms of properties of the theories T_1, T_2, and T_\cap? In this talk, I will focus on the latter question. Under mild stability-theoretic assumptions on the base theory T_\cap, we show preservation of a weak form of quantifier-elimination. And using this, we show that the interpolative fusion of NSOP_1 theories is NSOP_1. I will also discuss sufficient conditions for the preservation of other properties of interest (e.g. stability, NIP, simplicity, and NTP_2). (Conference Room San Felipe) |
12:30 - 13:10 |
Byunghan Kim: NSOP_1 theories ↓ Let T be an NSOP1 theory. Recently I. Kaplan and N. Ramsey proved that in T, the so-called Kim-independence (ϕ(x,a0) Kim-divides over A if there is a Morley sequence ai such that {ϕ(x,ai)}i is inconsistent) satisfies nice properties over models such as extension, symmetry, and type-amalgamation.
In a joint work with J. Dobrowolski and N. Ramey we continue to show that in T with nonforking existence, Kim-independence also satisfies the properties over any sets, in particular, Kim’s lemma, and 3-amalgamation for Lascar types hold. Modeling theorem for trees in a joint paper with H. Kim and L. Scow plays a key role in showing Kim’s lemma.
If time permits I will talk about a result extending the non-finiteness (except 1) of the number of countable models of supersimple theories to the NSOP1 theory context. (Conference Room San Felipe) |
13:30 - 15:00 |
Lunch (Restaurant Hotel Hacienda Los Laureles) |
15:00 - 15:30 |
Christian d'Elbee: An algebraically closed field with a generic additive subgroup --- a new example of a an NSOP1 theory ↓ The theory of an algebraically closed field of fixed positive characteristic, expanded by a predicate for an additive subgroup, admits a model companion, which we call ACFG. In this talk, we investigate this example of a strictly NSOP1 theory, and describe some features such as forking and Kim-forking. This construction can be generalised to provide further interesting examples of NSOP1 theories, for example the theory of an algebraically closed field with a generic multiplicative subgroup. (Conference Room San Felipe) |
16:10 - 16:40 |
Hunter Chase: Equivalence query learning and the negation of the finite cover property ↓ There are multiple connections between model-theoretic notions of complexity and machine learning. NIP formulas correspond to PAC-learning by way of VC-dimension, and stable formulas correspond to online learning by way of Littlestone dimension, also known as Shelah's 2-rank.
We explore a similar connection between formulas without the finite cover property and equivalence query learning. In equivalence query learning, a learner attempts to identify a certain set from a set system by making hypotheses and receiving counterexamples. We use the notion of (strong) consistency dimension, an analogue of the the negation of the finite cover property for set systems. We show that finite (strong) consistency dimension and finite LIttlestone dimension characterize equivalence query learning, drawing on ideas from model theory. We also discuss the role of Littlestone dimension and strong consistency dimension in algorithms. (Conference Room San Felipe) |
16:40 - 17:10 |
Coffee Break (Conference Room San Felipe) |
18:00 - 18:50 |
Chris Laskowski: Retro-stability: The fine structure of classifiable theories ↓ We give (equivalent) friendlier definitions of classifiable
theories strengthen known results about how an independent triple of models
can be completed to a model. As well, we characterize when the isomorphism type of a weight one extension N/M is uniquely determined by the non-orthogonality class of the relevant regular type and discuss when N is prime over Ma for some finite a∈N. This is part of an ongoing project with Elisabeth Bouscaren, Bradd Hart, and Udi Hrushovski. (Conference Room San Felipe) |
19:00 - 21:00 |
Dinner (Restaurant Hotel Hacienda Los Laureles) |