(

7
5
0
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
3







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
4


ON STRONG HOMOGENEITY EXISTENCE FOR COFINALITY
LOGIC
SH750
SAHARON SHELAH
Abstract. Let C
=
Reg be a non-empty class (of regular cardinals). Then
the logic L(Q
cf
C
) has additional nice properties: it has the homogeneous model
existence property.
Date: December 23, 2009.
The author thanks Alice Leonhardt for the beautiful typing. The author would like to thank
the Israel Science Foundation for partial support of this research (Grants No. 451/99 and 710/07).
First version 1996. First Typed - 08/June/17.
1
(
7
5
0
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
3







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
4


2 SAHARON SHELAH
0. Introduction
We deal with logics gotten by strengthening of rst order logic by generalized
quantiers, in particular compact ones. We continue [Sh:199] (and [Sh:43])
A natural quantier is the conality quantier, Q
cf

(or Q
cf
C
), introduced in
[Sh:43] as the rst example of compact logic (stronger than rst order logic, of
course). Recall that the uncountably many xs quantier Q
card
1
, is
0
-compact
but not compact. Also note that L(Q
cf

) is a very nice logic, e.g. with a nice

axiomatization (in particular nitely many schemes) like the one of L(Q
card
1
) of
Keisler. By [Sh:199], e.g. for = 2
0
, its Beth closure is compact, giving the
rst compact logic with the Beth property (i.e. implicit denition implies explicit
denition).
Earlier there were indications that having the Beth property is rare for such logic,
see e.g. in Makowsky [Mak85]. A weaker version of the Beth property is the weak
Beth property dealing with implicit denition which always works; H. Friedman
claim that historically this was the question. Mekler-Shelah [MkSh:166] prove that
at least consistently, L(Q
card
1
) satises the weak Beth property. V a an anen in the
mid nineties motivated by the result of Mekler-Shelah [MkSh:166] asked whether
we can nd a parallel proof for L(Q
cf

) in ZFC.
A natural property for a logic L is
{0z.5}
Denition 0.1. A logic L has the (strong) homogeneous model existence property
when every theory T L(), (so has a model) has a strongly (L,
0
)-homogeneous
model M, so
M
= and M is a model of T and M satises: if a,

b
>
M realize
the same L()-type in M then there is an automorphism of M mapping a to

b.
This property was introduced in [Sh:199] being natural and also as it helps to
investigate the weak Beth property.
In 1 we prove that L(Q
cf
C
) has the strongly
0
-saturated model existence prop-
erty. The situation concerning the weak Beth property is not clear.
{0z.9}
Question 0.2. 1) Does the logic L(Q
cf
C
) have the weak Beth property?
2) Does the logic L(Q
cf
1
, Q
cf
2
) has the homogeneous model existence property?
The rst version of this work was done in 1996.
{0z.21}
Notation 0.3. 1) denotes a vocabulary, L a logic, L() the language for the
logic L and the vocabulary .
2) Let L be rst order logic, L(Q

) be rst order logic when we add the quantier

Q

.
3) For a model M and ultralter D on a cardinal , let M

/D be the ultrapower
and j
M,D
= j

M,D
be the canonical embedding of M into M

/D; of course, we can

replace by any set.
4) Let LST (theorem/argument) stand for L owenheim-Skolem-Tarski (on existence
of elementary submodels).
Concerning 0.1, more generally
{0z.23}
Denition 0.4. 1) M is strongly (L, )-saturated (in L = L we may write just )
when
(a) it is -saturated (i.e. every set of L(
M
)-formulas with < parameters from
M and < free variables which is nitely satisable in M is realized in M
(
7
5
0
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
3







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
4


ON STRONG HOMOGENEITY EXISTENCE FOR COFINALITY LOGIC SH750 3
(b) if < and a,

b

M realize the same L(
M
)-type in M, then some
automorphism of M maps a to

b.
2) M is a strongly sequence (L, )-homogeneous when clause (b) above holds.
3) M is sequence (, )-homogeneous when: L(
M
) and if < , a

M,

M and tp

( a, , M) = tp

b, , M) then for every c M for some d M we have

tp

bd), , M) = tp

( ac), M).
3A)
1
() is the set of formulas of the form ( x) = ( y)(x, y) where ( x, y) is
quantier free rst order formula in the vocabulary .
4) We may omit sequence.
{0z.26}
Denition 0.5. 1) The logic L has the strong -homogeneous existence property
when every theory T L(
1
) has a strongly (L, )-homogeneous model.
2) Similarly the strong -saturated existence property, etc.
(
7
5
0
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
3







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
4


4 SAHARON SHELAH
1. On strongly saturated models
We prove that any theory in L(Q
cf
C
) has strongly (L(Q
cf
C
), )-saturated model
when C / , Reg of course.
{2b.1}
Denition 1.1. Let 1, 2 and C be a class of regular cardinals such that
C ,= , Reg.
1) The quantier Q
cf()
C
is dened as follows:
syntactically: it bounds two variables, i.e. we can form (Q
cf()
C
x, y), with its set of
free variables being dened as FVar()x, y.
syntactically: M [= (Q
cf()
C
x, y)(x, y, a) i (a) + (b) holds where
(a) relevancy demand:
the case = 1: the formula (, ; a)
M
dene in M a linear order with no
last element called

M, a
on the non-empty set Dom(

M, a
) = b M :
M [= (y)((b, y; a)
The case = 2: similarly but

M, a
is a quasi linear order on its domain
(b) the actual demand:

M, a
has conality cf(

M, a
), (necessarily an innite
regular cardinal) which belongs to C.
{2b.1d}
Convention 1.2. 1) Writing Q
cf
C
we mean that this holds for Q
cf()
C
for = 1 and
for = 2.
2) Let -order mean order when = 1 and quasi order when = 2; but when we
are using Q
cf()
C
then order means -order.
{2b.2}
Denition 1.3. 1) As L(Q
cf
C
) : has a model does not depend on C
(and is compact, see [Sh:43]) we may use the formal quantier Q
cf
, so the syntex
is determined but not the semantics, i.e. the satisfaction relation [=. We shall
write M [=
C
or M [=
C
T for the interpretation of Q
cf
as Q
cf
C
, but also can say
T L(Q
cf
)() has model/is consistent.
2) If C is clear from the context, then Q
cf

stands for Q
cf
C
if = 1 and Q
cf
Reg\C
if
= 0.
{2b.4}
Convention 1.4. 1) T

is a complete (consistent has models) theory in L(Q

cf
)
which is closed under denitions i.e. every formula = ( x) is equivalent to a
predicate P

( x) so P

(T

), as in [?], i.e. T

( z)[( z) P

( z)].
2) Let T = T

(rst order logic), i.e. T = T

L(
T
), it is a complete rst order
theory.
3) C Reg, we let C
1
= C and C
0
= RegC, both non-empty.
{2b.6}
Theorem 1.5. Assume = cf(), =
<
2
|T|
++, , min, , ,=
= cf() and

= 0
= 1
Then there is a (T)-model M such that
(a) M [= T, |M| = and M is -saturated
(
7
5
0
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
3







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
4


ON STRONG HOMOGENEITY EXISTENCE FOR COFINALITY LOGIC SH750 5
(b) if ( z) = (Q
cf

)(x, y; z) then: M [= P
( x)
[ a] i (y, z; a) dene in M a
linear order with no last element and conality

(c) M is strongly
1
-saturated model of T

.
{2b.7}
Remark 1.6. 1) We can now change , , and |M| by LST. Almost till the end
instead 2
|T|
++ just [T[ ++ suce. The proof is broken to a series
of denitions and claims. The 2
|T|
is necessary for
0
-saturativity.
3) We can assume V satises GCH high enough and then use LST. So
+
= 2

below is not a real burden.

{2b.8}
Denition 1.7. 0) Mod
T
is the class of models of T.
1)
(a) K = (M, N) : M N are from Mod
T

(b) K

=

M :

M = M
i
: i < ) satises M
i
Mod
T
and i < j M
i
M
j

(so K = K
2
)
(c) K

=

M K

: |M
i
| for i < , but then we (naturally) assume
<
+
(d) let

=
T
P

: < R
(x,y, z),
: (x, y, z) L(
T
), < , each
P

a unary predicate and each R

(x,y, z),
is an (g( z) + 1)-place predicate
and no incidental identication (so P

/ , etc.)
(e) for

M K

let m(

M) be the

-model M with
universe M

: <
M
T
= M

: <
P
M

= M

R
M
(x,y, z),
= c) a : (x, y, a) a linear order, a
g( z)
(P
M

) such that
M [= P
(Q
cf
0
x,y)(x,y, z)
[ a] and c Dom(

M, a
) and [b Dom(

M, a
) P
M

M, a
c
(f) let m
0
(

M) be the -model M

: < so m
0
(

M) = m(

M).
2) Assume (M

, N

) K for = 1, 2 let (M
1
, N
1
) (M
2
, N
2
) mean that clauses
(a),(b),(c) below hold and let (M
1
, N
1
)
K
(M
2
, N
2
) mean that in addition clause
(d) below holds, where:
(a) M
1
M
2
(b) M
2
N
1
= M
1
(c) N
1
N
2
(d) if M
1
[= P
(Q
cf
0
x,y)(x,y, z)
[ a], c N
1
, c Dom(

N1, a
) and in N
1
the element
c is

N
1
, a
-above all d Dom(

M
1
, a
), then in N
2
the element c is

N
2
, a
-
above all d Dom(

M
2
, a
).
3) For

M
1
,

M
2
K

let

M
1

M
2
means < < (M
1

, M
1

) (M
2

, M
2

);
similarly

M
1

M
2
means

M
1
,

M
2
K

and < < (M

1

, M
1

)
K
(M
2

, M
2

).
4) For

M K

, D an ultralter on we dene

N =

M

/D, j
M,D
= j

M,D
naturally:
N

= M

/D for < and j

M,D
= j
M

,D
: < , recalling 0.3.
1
as T

has elimination of quantiers, doing it for L(Q

cf
C
) or for L is the same
(
7
5
0
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
3







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
4


6 SAHARON SHELAH
{2b.10}
Fact 1.8. 0) For

M
1
,

M
2
K

we have
(a)

M
1

M
2
i m(M
1
) m(

M
2
)
(b) (m(

M

)P
M

)
T
= M

(c)

M
1

M
1
implies

M
1

M
2
.
1) (K

, ) and (K

,
K
) are partial orders.
2a) If

M
1

M
2
in K

and 0 < < then (

<
M
1

<
M
1

)
(

<
M
2

<
M
2

) moreover

i<1+
M
1
i
: 1 + )
K

i<1+
M
2
i
: 1 + )
where is if < and is + 1 if .
2b) If

M
i
: i < ) is a
K
-increasing sequence (of members of K

) and we dene

= M

: < ) by M

= M
i

: i < then i <

M
i

and the
sequence

M
i
: i ) is continuous in .
3) In part (2b), if in addition i <

M
i

N so

N K

then

M

N.
4) In part (2b), if <
+
and i <

M
i
K

then

M

.
5) If

M
K

N and Y

for < and |M

| +[Y

[ : < +[[ +[[

then there is

N

such that

M
K

N and < Y

.
6) Assume

M
i
K
(i)

for i <
i
<
+
, (i) : i < ) is a non-decreasing sequence
of ordinals and i < j <

M
i

K
(i)
,

M
j
(i) and we dene () = (i) :
i < ,

M

= M

: < ()) where M

= M
i

: < satises < (i) then

K
()

and i <

M
i

K
(i)

(i).
7) If

M

N for = 1, 2 and [a m(

M
1
) a m(

M
2
)] then

M
1

M
2
.
8) Parts (2)-(7) holds also when we replace
K
by .
Proof. Check.
1.8
{2b.12}
Fact 1.9. 1) If (M
0
, M
1
) K
2

and (M
0
, M

1
) K
2

then there are M

2
, f such that
(a) M

1
M
2
K

(b) f is an elementary embedding of M

1
into M
2
(c) fM
0
= id
M0
(d) (M
0
, M

1
)
K2
(f(M
1
), M
2
).
2) If

M K

, x = x

: < ) and is a set of rst order formulas from L(

+

) in
the variables x with parameters from the model m(

M) nitely satisable in m(M)
such that <

<
P

(x

) , then there is

N K

such that

M
K

N and
is realized in m(

N).
3) If is a type over m
0
(

M) of cardinality
2
< cf() then it is included in some

as in part (2).
4) If

M K

, D an ultralter on and M

= (M

/D for < then

(a)

M

= M

: < ) K

(b) j

M,D
:= j

,D
: < is a
K
-embedding of

M into

M

, i.e.
2
also if cf() = 1, i.e. is a successor ordinal
(
7
5
0
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
3







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
4


ON STRONG HOMOGENEITY EXISTENCE FOR COFINALITY LOGIC SH750 7
(b)

,D
(M

) : < ) =

M

K
M

: < ), so
(c) for many Y [M

: < ]

we have j

M,D
(

M)
K
M

Y : < )
K

; see 1.8(5), 1.12(3).

Proof. 1) See [Sh:199, 4]; just let D be a regular ultralter on |M
1
| +[[, let
g an elementary embedding of M
1
into (M
0
)

/D extending j = j

M0,D
, necessarily
exists.
Lastly, let M
2
(M

1
)

/D include j

M1,D
(M

1
) g(M
1
) be of cardinality . Iden-
tifying M

1
with j

1
,D
(M

1
) (M

1
)

/D we are done.
2) Similarly.
3) Trivial.
4) Should be clear.
1.9
{2b.14}
Denition 1.10. K
ec

is the class of

M K

such that: if

M
K

N K

, then
m(

M)
1
m(

N), i.e. () below and K
ec,

= K
ec

where
() if a
1
, . . . , a
n
m(

M), b
1
, . . . , b
k
m(

N), L(
+

) is quantier free and

m(

N) [= [a
1
, . . . , a
n
, b
1
, . . . , b
k
] then for some b

1
, . . . , b

k


<
M

we have m(

M) [=
[a
1
, . . . , a
n
, b

1
, . . . , b

k
].
{2b.16}
Claim 1.11. 1) K
ec,

is dense in K

when [
T
[ +[[ of course.
2) K
ec,

is closed under union of increasing chains of length <

+
.
3) In Denition 1.10, if [[ +[
T
[ and

M K

then without loss of generality

N K

.
Proof. 1) Given

M
0
K

we try to choose

M

by induction on <
+
such that

M

: ) is
K
-increasing continuous and = + 1 m(

M

)
1
m(M

). For = 0 the sequence is given, for limit use 1.8(2), for = + 1 if we

cannot choose then by 1.8(5) we get

M

K
ec,

is as required. But if we succeed

to choose

M

: <
+
) we get contradiction by Fodor lemma.
2) Think on the denitions.
3) By LST.
1.11
{2b.17}
Claim 1.12. 1) If

M,

N K

and

M
1

N and

N K
ec

then

M K
ec

.
2) If

N K
ec,

, Y m
0
(

N) and = [
T
[ + [[ + [Y [ then there is

M K
ec,

such that

M
K

N and Y m
0
(

M).
3) Assume

M

and

M
0

M
1
and

M
0

M
2
. If

M
0
K
ec,

,

M
0

M
2
or m(

M
0
)
1
m(

M
2
), then we can nd (

N, f
2
) such that:

M
1

N K

, moreover

N K
ec,

and f
2
is a
K
-embedding of

M
2
into

N over

M
0
.
Proof. 1) By part (3).
2) By part (1) and the LST argument.
3) By the denition of

M
0
K
ec,

in both cases we can assume

M
0

M
2
. Let
a = a

: < ) list the elements of m(

M
2
) and let = tp
qf
( a, , m(

M
2
)) =
(x
0
, . . . , x
n1
,

b) : L(
+

) is quantier free,

b m(

M
0
) and m(

M
2
) [=
[a
0
, . . . , a
n1
,

b]; note that P

(x

))
t(,)
when < , < and t(, ) is
the truth value of a

M
2

.
(
7
5
0
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
3







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
4


8 SAHARON SHELAH
Now let D be a regular ultralter on = |m(

M
2
)| and use 1.9(2),(3). This is
ne to get (f
2
,

N) with

N K

and by 1.8(5) without loss of generality

N K

and by 1.11(1) without loss of generality

N K
ec,

.
1.12
{2b.18}
Claim 1.13. 1) (K
ec,

,
K

) has the JEP.

2) Suppose

M
1
,

M
2
K

, , f is an elementary embedding of

<
M
1

into

<
M
2

such that f(M

) : < )
K
M
2

: < ), equivalently f is an
embedding of m(

M
1
) into m(

M
2
B) (so if = 0 then f = and there is no
demand).
Then we can nd

M
3
, f
+
such that:
(a)

M
2

M
3
K

(b) f f
+
(c) f
+
is an elementary embedding of

<
M
1

into

<
M
3

(d) f
+
(M
1

)) : < )
K
M
3

: < ).
Proof. 1) A special case of part (2) recalling 1.11(1).
2) By induction on .
= 0: nothing to do.
= : nothing to do.
= 1: so = 0 which is trivial or = , a case done above.
successor: by the induction hypothesis and transitive nature of conclusion replac-
ing

M
2
without loss of generality = 1, then use 1.9(1).
limit: By successive uses of induction hypothesis using 1.8(2b).
1.13
{2b.19}
Conclusion 1.14. (K
ec

,
K
), or formally k = (K
k
,
k
) dened by K
k
:= m(

M) :

M K
ec

, m(

M
1
)
k
m(

M
2
) m(M
1
) m(

M
2
), is an a.e.c. with amalgama-
tion, the JEP and LST(k) [
T
[ +[[ +
0
.
Proof. By the above, on a.e.c. see [Sh:h, Ch.I], i.e. [Sh:88r] and history there.

1.14
{2b.20}
Fact 1.15. Assume =
<
> [
T
[ +
0
+[[. Then there is

M such that
(a)

M K
ec

is universal for (K
ec

,
K
) in cardinality
(b) m(

M) is model homogeneous for (K
ec

,
K
) of cardinality
(c) m(

M) is sequence (
1
(
+

), )-homogeneous, see 0.4(3).

Proof. Clause (a) + (b) are straight by 1.12 + 1.13(1), or use 1.14 and see [Sh:h,
Ch.I,2] = [Sh:88r, 2]. Now clause (c) follows: just think.
1.15
{2b.22}
Fact 1.16. Assume

M K

, + 1 < , 0, 1 and M

[= P
(Q
cf

x,y)(x,y, z)
[ a]
then there are

N, c such that

M
K

N K

and:
()
1
if = 1 then c Dom(

, a
) and c is

N, a
-above d Dom(

M, a
) for
any [, )
()
2
if = 0 then c Dom(

N
+1
, a
) and is

N
+1
, a
-above any
d Dom(

, a
).
(
7
5
0
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
3







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
4


ON STRONG HOMOGENEITY EXISTENCE FOR COFINALITY LOGIC SH750 9
Proof. First assume = 1, without loss of generality = 0 as we can let

N =

M.
By 1.13(2) without loss of generality = 2. Now this is obvious by [Sh:43],
[Sh:199]; in details by [Sh:43] there is a
+
-saturated model M

of T such that
M
1
M

and M

[=
C
T

whenever, e.g.
++
C

+
/ C

. Let
i
(x, y, a

i
) :
i < list (x, y, a

) : L(
T
), M
0
[= P
(Q
cfx,y
0
)(x,y; z)
[ a

], and for each i < let

c
i,
, <
+
) be
i
M, a

i
-increasing and conal. For <
+
let f

be an elementary
embedding of M
1
into M

over M
0
such that:
() if c Dom(
i
M, a

i
) is a
i
M, a

i
-upper bound of Dom(
i
M0, a

i
) then c
i,

i
M, a

i
c.
Let c

be a

M, a
-upper bound of Dom(

M0, a
). Choose N
0
M

of cardi-
nality be such that M
0
c

N
0
and choose <
+
large enough such that:
() if i < and d N
0
is a
i
M, ai
-upper bound of Dom(
i
Mi, ai
) then d
i
M, ai
c
i,
.
Let N
1
M

be of cardinality be such that N

0
f

(M
1
) N
1
. Renaming, f

is
the identity and (N
0
, N
1
) is as required.
Second, assume = 0 is even easier (again without loss of generality rst,
= + 2 and second = 0, = 2 and use N
0
= M
0
, N
1
satises M
1
N
1
and
|N
1
| = and N
1
realizes the relevant upper).
1.16
{2b.24}
Conclusion 1.17. In 1.15 the model M

= m(

M

) =

<
M

satises
(a) if M

[= P
(Q
cf
1
x,y)
[ a] then the order

, a
has conality
(b) if is a limit ordinal and M

[= P
(Q
cf
0
x,y)
[ a] then the linear order

, a
has conality cf()
(c) M

is cf()-saturated
(d) if
+
C and cf() RegC then M

is a model of T

.
{2b.26}
Claim 1.18. Assume

M K
ec

. If and a,

b

(M

0
) realize the same type
(equivalently q.f. type) in M
0
then they realize the same
1
-type in m(

M).
Proof. We choose (N

, f

, g

, h

) by induction on < such that:

(a) N

is a model of T
(b) N

is increasing continuous with

(c) f

, g

are
K
1+
-embedding of

M(1 +) into N

: < 1 +) K
1+
(d) f
0
( a) = g
0
(

b)
(e) if < then f

, g

.
For = 0 this speaks just on Mod
T
.
For successor use 1.9.
For limit as in the successor case, recalling we translated it to the successor
case (by 1.8(2a)).
Having carried the induction f = f

: < and g = g

: < are

K
-embedding of

M into

N = N

: < ). By 1.11(1) there is

N

K
ec

which
is
K
-above

N. Now as

M K
ec

, the
1
-type of a in m(

M) is equal to the
(
7
5
0
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
3







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
4


10 SAHARON SHELAH

1
-type of f( a) in m(

N

), and the
1
-type of

b in m(

M) is equal to the
1
-type of
f( a) in m(

N

). But f( a) = f
0
( a) = g
0
(

b) = g(

b), so we have gotten the promised

equality of
1
-types.
1.18
{2b.27}
Observation 1.19. 1) If

M K
ec

and < then

M

:=

M[, ) = M
+
:
< ) belongs to K
ec

.
2) If

M K

, < and

M[, )
K
,

then for some

N K

we have

M
K

N and

N[, ) =

N

.
Proof. 1) If not, then there is

N

such that

M

but m(

M

)
1
m(

N

). Dene

N = N

: < ) by: N

is M

if < and is N

if [, ).
Easily

M
K

N K

but m(

M)
1
m(

N), contradiction to the assumption

M K
ec

.
2) The proof is included in the proof of part (1).
1.19
{2b.28}
Claim 1.20. In 1.15 for each < we have
(a) M

+
: < ) is homogeneous universal for K

(b) if = , i.e. + = then there is an isomorphism from

M

onto
M

+
: < ), in fact, we can determine f( a) =

b if a

(M

0
),

(M

) and tp( a, , M

) = tp(

b, , M

).
Proof. Chase arrows as usual recalling 1.19.
1.20
Proof. Proof of Theorem 1.5:
Without loss of generality there is such that 2

=
+
(why? let >
be regular, work in V
Levy(
+
,2

)
and use absoluteness argument, or choose set A of
ordinals such that T() L[A] hence T, T

L[A] and regular large enough such

that L[A] [= 2

=
+
, work in L[A] a little more; and for the desired conclusion
(there is a model of cardinality such that ...) it makes no dierence). Let =
and let

M

K
ec,

be as in 1.15 for :=
+
and let M

= M

: < .
Now
()
1
M

is a model of T

by the
+
-interpretation.
[Why? By 1.17.]
()
2
M

is -saturated.
[Why? Clearly M

is -saturated for each < . As is regular and M

: < )
is increasing with union M

, also M

is -saturated.]
()
3
M

is strongly
0
-saturated and even strongly -saturated, see Denition
0.4(1).
[Why? Let < and a,

b

(M

) realize the same q.f.-type (equivalently the rst

order type) in M

. As < for some < we have a,

b

(M

). Now by 1.20
we know that M

+
: < )

= M

: < ), and by 1.18 the sequences a,

b
realize the same
1
-type in m(M

+
: < )) hence by clause (c) of 1.15 there
is an automorphism of it mapping a to

b. So is also an automorphism of M

mapping a to

b as required.]
Lastly, we have to go back to models of cardinality =
<
+ +2
|T|
, this
is done by the LST argument recalling 1.17.
(
7
5
0
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
3







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
4


ON STRONG HOMOGENEITY EXISTENCE FOR COFINALITY LOGIC SH750 11
More fully, rst let

M

: < ) be
K

-increasing continuous sequence with

union

M

. For < and a,

b

(M

) let f
a,

b
be an automorphism of M

mapping
a to

b. Now the set of < satisfying

below is a club of hence if cf() =

then M = M

: < is as required except of being of cardinality , where

(a) if < , < and a,

b

(M

: < ) realize the same

1
-type
in

M

then M

: < is closed under f

a,

b
and under f
1
a,

b
(b) the witnesses for the conality work, i.e.

1
if < , a
>
(M

), M

[= P
(Q
cf
0
y,z)(y,z, x)
[ a] then for some <
we have a M

and for every (, ) there is c = c

, a,
M

+1
which is a

+1
, a
-upper bound of Dom(

, a
), hence this holds for
any

[, )

2
if < , a
>
(M

) and M

[= P
(Q
cf
1
y,z)(y,z, x)
[ a] then for arbitrarily
large < we have a M

and there is c = c
, a
M
+1

which is a
(

M
+1

, a
)-upper bound of Dom(

, a
) for every [, ).
By a similar use of the LST argument we get a model of T

of cardinal .
1.5
Remark 1.21. If you do not like the use of (set theoretic absoluteness) you may do
the following. Use 1.22 below, which is legitimate as
(a) the class (K
ec

,
K
) is an a.e.c. with LST number [T[ +
0
and amalga-
mation, so 1.22(1) apply
(b) using
1
-types, it falls under [Sh:3] more exactly [Sh:54], so 1.22(3) apply
(c) we can dene K
ec()

by induction on
= 0: K

= 1: K
ec

= n + 1: K
ec(n+1)

=

M K
ec(n)

: if

M N K
ec(n)

then m(M)
n+1
m(

N)
= : K
ec()

= K
ec(n)

: n < .
On K
ec()

apply 1.22(2).
{2b.35}
Remark 1.22. 1) Assume k = (K
k
,
k
) is a a.e.c. with > LST(k) and =
<
. For
any M K

there is a strongly model -homogeneous N K

which
k
-extend
M, which means: if M K
k
has cardinality < and f
1
, f
2
are
k
-embedding of
M into N then for some automorphism g of N we have f
2
= g f
1
.
2) Let D be a good nite diagram as in [Sh:3] and let K
D
be as below in part (3) for
= L(). If =
<
[D[ and M K
D
has cardinality then there is N K
D
of cardinality which -extend M and is strongly (D, )-homogenous, i.e.
(a) if < , a,

b

N realizes the same type then some automorphism f of N
maps a to

b
(b) D = tp( a, , N) : a
>
N.
3) Assume L(), not necessarily closed under negation, D is a set of -
types, K
D
is the class of -models such that a
>
M tp

( a, , M) D and
M
D
N i M N are from K
D
and a
>
M tp

( a, , M) = tp

( a, , N).
Assume further D is good, i.e. for every M K
D
and there is a sequence
(
7
5
0
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
3







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
4


12 SAHARON SHELAH
(D, )-homogeneous model N K
D
which
D
-extends M. Then for every =

<
> [T[ +
0
and M K
D
of cardinality there is a strongly sequence (, )-
homogeneous.
{2b.33}
Conclusion 1.23. 1) The logic L(Q
cf
C
) has the strong
0
-saturated model existence
property (hence the strong
0
-homogeneous model existence property).
2) If = cf() Min(C) and Min(RegC) then in part (1) we can replace

0
by .
Proof. Choose C, RegC and apply 1.5.
1.23
(
7
5
0
)


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
3







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
1
2
-
2
4


ON STRONG HOMOGENEITY EXISTENCE FOR COFINALITY LOGIC SH750 13
2. Private Appendix
Moved from pgs.7,8:
{2b.17d}
Claim 2.1. If

M

and

M
0

M
1
and

M
0

M
2
. If

M
0
K
ec,

,

M
0

M
2
or

M
0

M
2
, then we can nd (

N, f
2
) such that:

M
1

N K

, moreover

N K
ec,

and f
2
is a
K
-embedding of

M
2
into

N over

M
0
.
Proof. By the denition of

M
0
K
ec,

in both cases we can assume

M
0

M
2
.
For a = a

: < ) list the elements of m(

M
2
) and let = tp
qf
( a, , m(

M
2
))
(x
0
, . . . , x
n1
,

b) : L(
T
) is quantier free,

b m(

M
0
) and m(

M
2
) [=
[a
0
, . . . , a
n1
,

b] P

(x

))
t(,)
: < , < and t(, ) is the truth value of
a

M
2

.
Now let D be a regular ultralter on = |m(

M
2
)| and use 1.9(2),(3). This is
ne to get (f
2
,

N) with

N K

and by 1.8(5) without loss of generality

N K

and by 1.11(1) without loss of generality

N K
ec,

.
2.1
References
[Mak85] Johann A. Makowsky, Compactnes, embeddings and denability, Model-Theoretic Logics
(J. Barwise and S. Feferman, eds.), Springer-Verlag, 1985, pp. 645716.
[Sh:h] Saharon Shelah, Classication Theory for Abstract Elementary Classes, Studies in Logic:
Mathematical logic and foundations, vol. 18, College Publications, 2009.
[Sh:3] , Finite diagrams stable in power, Annals of Mathematical Logic 2 (1970), 69118.
[Sh:43] , Generalized quantiers and compact logic, Transactions of the American Mathe-
matical Society 204 (1975), 342364.
[Sh:54] , The lazy model-theoreticians guide to stability, Logique et Analyse 18 (1975),
241308.
[Sh:88r] , Abstract elementary classes near
1
, Chapter I. 0705.4137. 0705.4137.
[MkSh:166] Alan H. Mekler and Saharon Shelah, Stationary logic and its friends. I, Notre Dame
Journal of Formal Logic 26 (1985), 129138, Proceedings of the 1980/1 Jerusalem Model Theory
year.
[Sh:199] Saharon Shelah, Remarks in abstract model theory, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic
29 (1985), 255288.
Einstein Institute of Mathematics, Edmond J. Safra Campus, Givat Ram, The He-
brew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 91904, Israel, and, Department of Mathe-
matics, Hill Center - Busch Campus, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 110
Frelinghuysen Road, Piscataway, NJ 08854-8019 USA
E-mail address: shelah@math.huji.ac.il
URL: http://shelah.logic.at