Saharon Shelah - Choiceless Polynomial Time Logic: Inability To Express

(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

CHOICELESS POLYNOMIAL TIME
LOGIC: INABILITY TO EXPRESS
Saharon Shelah
Institute of Mathematics
The Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
Rutgers University
Mathematics Department
New Brunswick, NJ USA
Dedicated to my friend Yuri Gurevich
Abstract. We prove for the logic
CPTime (the logic from the title) a sucient

condition for two models to be equivalent for any set of sentences which is small
(certainly any nite set ), parallel to the Ehrenfeucht Frasse games. This enables
us to show that sentences cannot express some properties in the logic
CPTime
and prove 0-1 laws for it.
Key words and phrases. Finite model theory; Computer Science; Polynomial time logic;
choiceless; games.
Partially supported by the United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation. Publication
634.
I would like to thank Alice Leonhardt for the beautiful typing.
Typeset by A
M
S-T
E
X
1
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

2 SAHARON SHELAH
Anotated Content
0 Introduction
1 The choiceless polynomial time logic presented
[We present this logic from a paper of Blass, Gurevich, Shelah [BGSh
533]; where the intention is to phrase a logic expressing exactly the prop-
erties which you can compute from a model in polynomial time without
making arbitrary choices (like ordering the model).]
2 The general systems of partial isomorphisms
[We dene a criterion for showing that the logic cannot say too compli-
cated things on some models using a family of partial automorphisms
(not just real automorphisms) and prove that it works. This is a relative
of the Ehrenfeucht-Frasse games, and the more recent pebble games.]
3 The canonical example
[We deal with random enough graphs and conclude that they satisfy the
0-1 law for the logic
CPTime thereby proving the logic cannot express

too strong properties.]
4 Relating the denitions in [BGSh 533] to the ones here
[We show that the denition in [BGSh 533] and the case = 7 here are
essentially the same (i.e. we can translate at the cost of only in small
increases in time and space).]
5 Closing comments
[We present a variant of the criterion (the existence of a simple k-system).
We then dene a logic which naturally expresses it. We comment on
dening N
t
[M] for ordinals.]
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

CHOICELESS POLYNOMIAL TIME LOGIC: INABILITY TO EXPRESS 3
0 Introduction
We deal here with choiceless polynomial time logic, introduced under the
name
CPTime in Blass Gurevich Shelah [BGSh 533]; actually we deal with

several versions. Knowledge of [BGSh 533], which is phrased with ASM (abstract
state machine), is not required except when we explain in 4 how the denitions
here and there t. See there more on background, in particular, on ASM-s and
logic capturing P Time. The aim of this logic is to capture statements on a
(nite) model M computable in polynomial time and space without arbitrary
choices. So we are not allowed to choose a linear order on M, but if P is a unary
predicate from the vocabulary
M
of M and P
M
has log
2
(|M|) elements
then we are allowed to create the family of all subsets of P
M
, and if e.g.
([P
M
[)! |M| we can create the family permutations of P
M
. Note that a
statement of the form
CPTime captures what can be computed in polynomial

time without arbitrary choices is a thesis not a theorem. For a given model M,
we consider the elements of M as urelements, and build inductively N
t
= N
t
[M],
with N
0
= M, N
t+1
N
t
[M] P(N
t
[M]) but the denition is uniform and the
size of N
t
[M] should not be too large, with the major case being: it has a
polynomial bound.
So we should have a specic guide telling us how to create N
t+1
from N
t
,
hence we should actually write N
t
[M, ]. In the simplest version (we called it
pure) essentially =
(x, y) : < m
0
and N
t
is a transitive nite set with M
the set of urelements, N
0
= M, N
t+1
= N
t
a : N
t
[=
(a,
b) :

b
g( y)
(N
t
)
and < m
0
; where each
is a rst order formula in the vocabulary of M

plus the membership relation , (i.e.
M
,) and N
t
has the relations of
M and the relation N
t
. We stop when N
t
= N
t+1
, in the nice cases after
polynomial time and space, and then can ask N [= ? getting yes or no.
We consider several versions of the denition of the logic; this should help
us to see what is the true logic capturing polynomially computable statements
without making arbitrary choices.
Our aim here is to deal with nite models and processes, but we dedicate a
separate place at the end to some remarks on innitary ones and set theory. We
also comment in this section on classical model theoretic roots; both, of course,
can be ignored.
For a logic L it is important to develop methods to analyze what it can say.
Usual applications of such methods are to prove that:
(a) no sentence in L expresses some property (which another given logic
can express so we can prove that they are really dierent)
(b) certain pairs of models are equivalent
(c) zero-one laws.
For rst order logic we use mostly elimination of quantiers, E.F. (Ehrenfeucht-
Frasse ) games (see [ CK] or [Ho93] or Ebbinghaus and Flum [EbFl95]) and ? CK ?
others; we are most interested in relatives of E.F. games. In nite model theory
people have worked on the logic L
,k
(usually denoted by L
k
,
) of rst order
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

4 SAHARON SHELAH
formulas in which every subformula has k free variables, a relative of the L
,
logics (see e.g. [ Di]). We can use even such formulas in L
,
but for equivalence ? Di ?
of nite models this does not matter. For L
,
the relatives of E.F. games are
called pebble games (see [EbFl95]).
The E.F. criterion (see Karp [Ka]) for the L
,
-equivalence of two models
M
1
, M
2
of the same vocabulary is the existence of a non-empty family F of
partial one-to-one functions from M
1
to M
2
such that for every f F, i 1, 2
and a M
i
there is g F extending f such that i = 1 a Dom(g)
and i = 2 a Rang(g) (a particular case is M = N; there, of course,
M, N are equivalent but the question is when are (M, a), (M, b) equivalent).
Note that for nite models and even for countable models, this criterion implies
isomorphism. But if we restrict ourselves to rst order sentences of quantier
depth < k we can replace F by F
: < k) and above we say that for every

f F
+1
, j 1, 2, a M
j
there is g F
as there (this is the original E.F.

game). For L
,k
this does not work but without loss of generality, f F &
A Dom(f) f A F, and above we restrict ourselves to f F with
[Dom(f)[ < k. Now probably the simplest models are those with equality only:
so every permutation of the (universe of the) model is an automorphism. So
using this group it is proved in [BGSh 533] that
CPTime cannot say much on

such models, thus showing that the
CPTime does not capture P Time logic, in

fact odd/even is not captured.
But in our case suppose we are given F, a family of partial isomorphisms
from M
1
to M
2
, we have to create such a family for N
t
[M
1
, ], N
t
[M
2
, ].
We answer here some questions of [BGSh 533]: get a 0-1 law, show that
CPTime
+ counting does not capture P Time.
Note that if P
M
is small enough then we can have e.g. Per(P
M
), the group
of permutations of P
M
, as a member of N
t
= N
t
[M, ] for t large enough: just
in N
3t
we may have the set of partial permutations of P
M
of cardinality < t.
We thank Yuri Gurevich and Andreas Blass for helpful comments.
Notation:
1) Natural numbers are denoted by i, j, k, , m, n, r, s, t. We identify a natural
number t with s : s < t so 0 = and we may allow t = = the set of natural
numbers ( for set theorists). Let [m] = 1, . . . , m.
2) Let denote a vocabulary, i.e. a set of predicates P (each predicate with
a given arity n(P)); we may also have function symbols, but then it is natural
to interpret them as partial functions, so better to treat them as relations and
avoid function symbols. We may attach to each predicate P a group g
P
permutations of 0, . . . , n(P) 1 telling under what permutations of its argu-
ment places the predicate P is supposed to be preserved; if not specied g
P
is a
trivial group.
3) Let P, Q, R denote predicate symbols.
4) Formulas are denoted by , , , ; usually , are sentences.
5) Let L denote a logic and L() denote the resulting language, the set of
L-formulas in the vocabulary .
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

6) Let M, N denote models and let
M
= (M) denote the vocabulary of M
and let P
M
denote the interpretation of the predicate P
M
. So P
M
is a
relation on M with arity n(P) and if g
P
= g
P
is not trivial and g
P
, a
:
< n(P))
n(P)
M, then a
: < n(P)) P
M
a
()
: < n(P)) P
M
.
Models are nite if not said otherwise.
7) Let [M[ be the universe (= set of elements) of M and |M| the cardinality of
[M[, but abusing notation we may say of M.
8) Let t, s denote functions from the set of natural numbers to the set of natural
numbers 1 and let T denote a family of such functions. We may write t(M)
instead of t(|M|).
9) For a function f and a set A let f(A) = f(x) : x A and x Dom(f).
[Why do we not write f(A)? Because f may act both on A and on its elements;
this occurs for functions like G(f), dened and investigated is 2.]
0.1 Discussion: Would we really like to allow t(M) to depend not just on |M|?
For the denition of the logic we have no problems, also for the criteria of equiva-
lence of M
1
, M
2
(except saying |M
1
| = |M
1
| & t
1
= t
2
t
1
(M
1
) = t
2
(M
2
)).
But this is crucial in proving a weak version of the 0-1 law, say for random
graphs, to overcome this we need to compensate with more assumptions.
1 The Choiceless polynomial time logic presented
Here we present the logic. How does we compute when a model M satises
a sentence ? Note that the computation should not take too long and use
too much space (in the main case: polynomial).
Informally, we start with a model M with each element an atom=ure-element,
we successively dene N
t
[M] and N
+
t
[M], an expansion of N
t
[M], t running on
the stages of the computation; to get N
t+1
[M] from N
t
[M] we add few families
of subsets of N
t
, each family for some consist of those dened by a formula
(, a) for some a from N
t
[M], and we update few relations or functions, by
dening them from those of the previous stage. Those are P
t,
for < m
1
. We
may then check if a target condition holds, then we stop getting an answer:
the model satises or fails by checking if some sentence holds; the natural
target condition is when we stop to change. Note that each stage increases the
size of N
t
[M] by at most a (xed) power, however in |M| steps we may have
constructed a model of size 2
M
but this is against our intentions. So we shall
have a function t in |M|, normally polynomial, whose role is that when we have
wasted too much resources (e.g. |N
t
[M]| + t) we should stop the computation
even if the target condition has not occurred, in this case we still have to decide
what to do.
This involves some parameters. First a logic L telling us which formulas are
allowable
(a) in the inductive step (the
(, y) s)
(b) in stating the target condition (we use standard ones: N
+
t+1
= N
+
t
or
P
0
= P
2
or c
0
= c
2
) and the telling us if the answer is yes or no.
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

6 SAHARON SHELAH
Second, a family T of functions t (with domain the family of nite models) which
tell us when we should stop having arrived to the limit of allowable resources
(clearly the normal family T is t
k
: k < where t
k
(M) = |M|
k
). So for
which describes the induction step (essentially how to get N
t+1
[M] from N
t
[M]),
telling us the answer and t T we have a sentence
,,t
. We still have some
variants, getting a logic L
T
[L
] for each 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 22.

In the case = 1 we ignore t, so M [=
,,t
i for some t < the target
condition N
+
t
= N
+
t+1
holds, or let t = and for this t, is satised by N
+
t
.
This is a very smooth denition, but we have lost our main goal. We may restrict
ourselves to good sentences for which we always stop in reasonable time and
space.
In the case = 2, possibly we stop because of t before the target condition
holds; in this case we say
,,t
is undened for M. The case = 3 is like
= 2 but we restrict ourselves to the so called standard T, where in N
t
[M]
we have the natural numbers < t, so we can ignore the time as a resource as
always |N
t
[M]| t. The case = 4, is like = 3 but instead stopping when
|N
t
[M]| is too large, we stop when at least one of the families of sets added to
N
t
[M] to form N
t+1
[M] is too large. For = 5, is like the case = 2, but an
additional reason for stopping is t > t(|M|). The case = 6 is as the case = 2
separating the bounds on space (that is |N
t
[M]|) and time (that is t), the
case = 7 is similar, not stopping for N
+
t
= N
+
t+1
. The cases = 11, = 22
are like = 1, = 2 respectively, but using N
t
[M, , t] (see Denition 1.1(c))
instead N
t
[M, ] but for = 22 we separate t to two functions.
We treat as our main case = 3, see more 1.7.
More formally
1.1 Denition. 1) We are given a model M, with vocabulary =
[0]
, nite
and not in , let
+
=
[1]
= . Considering the elements of M as atoms
= urelements, we dene V
t
[M] by induction of t : V
0
[M] = (M
,
M) and
clearly with M being empty (as we consider the members of M as atoms =
urelements). Next V
t+1
[M] is the model with universe V
t
[M] a : a V
t
[M]
(by our assumption on urelements we have a V
t
[M] a / M) with the
predicates and individual constants and function symbols of interpreted as in
M (so function symbols in are always interpreted as partial functions) and
Vt+1[M]
is V
t+1
[M].
2)
(A) We say = (

, ,

P) is an inductive scheme for the logic L
f.o.
or
the language L
f.o.
() (where L
f.o.
is rst order logic) if: letting m
0
=
g(
), m
1
= g( ) and
[2]
=
[2]
[] =
[1]
P
k
: k < m
1
we have
(a)

P = P
k
: k < m
1
) is a sequence (with no repetitions) of predicates
and function symbols not in
[1]
(notationally we treat an n-place
function symbol as (n+1)-predicate); where P
k
is an m
(P
k
)-place
predicate. Let m
1
be the function giving this information and
whether P
k
is a predicate or a function symbol (so have domain
0, . . . , m
1
1)
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

(b)

=
: < m
0
),
(x; y
) is rst order in the vocabulary
[2]
,
(c) =
k
: k < m
1
),
k
=
k
( x
k
) is rst order in the vocabulary
2
with g( x) = m(P
k
), moreover x = x
i
: i < m(P
k
)).
(B) We say is simple if
(d) each P
k
is unary predicate and and each
k
(x) appears among the
s (with empty y
) and for every hereditary model N
[M],
and a
[2]
expansion N
+
of N
we have a : N
+
[=
(a) is a
member of N
or is
(C) We may write m
0
, m
1
,
, m
, m
1
,
, P
. We let
(x, y
) : < m
0
.
(D) We say is predicative if each P
k
is a predicate; we may restrict ourselves
to this case for the general theorems. We say is pure if m
1
= 0
(E) is monotonic if y x is
for some < m
0
(this will cause N
t
below
to grow); no big loss if we restrict ourselves to such . It is strongly
monotonic if in addition each
k
( x) has the form P
k
( x)
k
( x) (this will
cause also each P
k
to grow)
(F) is i.c. if each P
k
is (informally an individual constants scheme) a zero
place function symbol; in this case if P
k
is well dened we may write it
as c
k
.
3) For M, =
[0]
,
[1]
,
[2]
, and = (

, ,

P) as above, we shall dene by
induction on t a submodel N
t
= N
t
[M] of V
t
[M] and

P
t
= P
t,k
: k < m
1
)
and N
+
t
[M] and P
t,
(for < m
0
) as follows; more exactly we are dening
N
t
[M, ], P
t,k
[M, ] for k < m
1
, P
t,k
[M, ] for k < m
0
.
We let N
+
t
[M, ] = (N
t
[M, ], P
t,0
[M, ], . . . , P
t,m11
[M, ]).
Case 1: t = 0: N
t
[M] = V
0
[M] and P
t,k
= (an m
(k)-place relation).
Case 2: t + 1: N
t+1
[M] is the submodel of V
t+1
[M] with set of elements the
transitive closure of M
<m0
P
t,
[M] where we dene P
t,k
[M] and P
t+1,
by:
P
t,
[M] =
a N
t
[M] : N
+
t
[M] [=
(a,
b) :

b
(g( yi))
(N
t
[M])
P
t,k
= a
m(k)
(N
t
[M]) : N
+
t
[M] [=
k
[ a]
but if P
k
is a function symbol,
P
t,
= ab) N
t
[M] : N
+
t
[M] [=
( a, b) & (!y)
( a, y)
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

8 SAHARON SHELAH
(so if is simple, then for t > 1,
k
(x, y) L
f.o.
(
[2]
) is actually
k
(x, y, c
t1
)
L
f.o.
(
[1]
)).
Case 3: t =
N
t
=
s<t
N
s
, P
t,k
=
s<t
P
s,k
.
3A) If in addition t T and is monotonic (see part (2) clause (E)) we dene
N
t
[M, , t], P
t,
[M, , t] and P
t,
[M, , t] as in part (3) except that the universe
of N
t+1
[M, , t] is the transitive closure of M
P
t,
[M, , t] : < m
0
and
P
t,
[M, , t] has at most t(|M|) members.
4) We say is standard if some
i
guarantees that t N
t
[M] (so a natural
number s belongs to N
t
[M] i s < t; remember that we identify the natural
number t with the set 0, 1, . . . , t 1).
5) Let q.d.() be the quantier depth of the formula .
6) We may replace above rst order logic by another logic L. We let L
f.o.
denote
rst order, L
card
is dened just like rst order logic except that we demand that
is standard and dening inductively what is a formula, we allow the formation
of formulas the form [x : (x, y)[ = s. We let L
card,T
(on T see below) be
dened just like L
f.o.
but for each t T we allow the quantier (Q
t
x)(x, y)
with
N [= (Q
t
x)(x, a) i t([ure(N)[) < [b : N [= (b, a][,
where ure(N) is the set of urelements of N.
6A) Lastly, let L
f.o.+na
be like L
f.o.
but we add one atomic formula [atoms[ = x
being interpreted as: the number of atoms is x. So this can be expressed in
L
card,T
where T = id, id(n) = n.
1.2 Remark. Alternatively to L
card
: have a quantier
(Q
eq
x
1
, x
2
)(
2
(x
1
, y
1
),
2
(x
2
, y
2
)),
which says that [x :
2
(x, y
1
)[ = [x :
2
(x, y
2
)[.
In the denition below the reader can concentrate on = 3. The t 2 & . . .
is not a serious matter.
1.3 Denition. Let T be a set of functions t : N N and L
be a logic
(L
f.o.
or L
f.o.+na
or L
card
usually) and let be a vocabulary. If t is constantly
we may write .
We dene for = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 22 the logic L
T
[L
] below. For all of

those logics the set of sentences for a vocabulary called L
T
[L
]() is a subset
of =
[L
, T] =
,,t
: an inductive scheme for L
(),
L
() and t T, (equal if not said otherwise). Also for most of those logics
we dene the stopping time t
[M, , t] or t
[M, ] (if t does not matter). The

satisfaction relation for L
T
[L
]() is denoted by [=
. Also we write
,
instead
,,t
if t does not matter. (We may let Dom(t) be the set of relevant structures,
see 0.1).
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

Case 1: = 1.
We let
t
[M, ] = Mint : t 2 and N

+
t
[M, ] = N
+
t+1
[M, ].
(If there is no such t N we let it be (i.e., for set theorists) and we could
also have used undened; note that t does not appear).
M [=

,
i N
+
t
[M, ] [= for t = t
[M, ].
Case 2: = 2.
We let t
[M, , t] = Mint : |N
t+1
[M, ]| + (t + 1) > t(|M|) or t 2 &
N
+
t
[M, ] = N
+
t+1
[M, ] and
(a) if for t = t
[M, , t] we have t 2 & N

+
t
[M, ] = N
+
t+1
[M, ] then
,,t
is true or false in M i N
+
t
[M, ] [= or N
+
t
[M, ] [= re-
spectively and we write M [=

,,t
or M [=

,,t
respectively, (so
,,t
is equivalent to
,,t
).
(b) if t
[M, , t] = t(|M|) + 1 we say M [=

,,t
is undened and we
say the truth value of
,,t
in M is undened.
Case 3: = 3.
As in Case 2 but we restrict ourselves to standard , see Denition 1.1(4), and
let t
[M, , t] = Mint : |N
t+1
[M, ]| > t(|M|) or t 2 & N
+
t
[M, ] =
N
+
t+1
[M, ] and dene [=
as in Case 2.
Case 4: = 4.
As in Case 2 but we restrict ourselves to standard and let:
t
[M, , t] = Mint :for some k < m

0
the set P
t+1,k
[M, ]
has > t(|M|) members or
t 2 & N
+
t
[M, ] = N
+
t+1
[M, ]
(so it can be ; but by a choice of e.g.
0
we can guarantee P
t,0
= 0, . . . , t1
so that this never happens) and dene [=
as in Case 2.
Case 5: = 5.
As in Case 2 but we restrict ourselves to standard and t
[M, , t] = Mint :
t > t(|M|) or for some k < m
0
the set P
t+1,k
[M, ] has > t(|M|) members
or t > 2 & N
+
t
[M, ] = N
+
t+1
[M, , t].
Case 6: = 6.
As in the case = 2 but
t
[M, , t] = Mint : t > t

tm
(|M|) or |N
t
[M, ]| > t
sp
(|M|)
or N
+
t
[M, ] = N
+
t+1
[M, ]
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

10 SAHARON SHELAH
where
t
tm
(n) = t(2n), t
sp
(n) = t(2n + 1)
and, of course, tm, sp stand for time and space, respectively. So we may replace t
by two functions t
tm
, t
sp
and write sentences as
,,t
,t
(similarly for = 7, 22).
Case 7: = 7.
We dene t
[M, , t] = Mint : t > t

tm
(|M|) or |N
t
[M, ]| > t
sp
(|M|) or
2 & N
+
t
[M, ] = N
+
t+1
[M, ]
and let:
M [=

,,t
i N
t
[M, ] [= for t = t
[M, ].
(so unlike cases 2-6, the truth value is always dened)
Case 11: = 11.
As in the case = 1, but we use N
t
[M, , t],

P
t
[M, , t] (see Denition
1.1(3A)).
Case 22: = 22.
As in the case = 2, but we use N
t
[M, , t
wd
],

P
t
[M, , t
wd
] where t
wd
T
is dened by t
wd
(n) = t(2n) (wd for width) and dene t
by
t
[M, , t] = Mint :N
t+1
[M, , t
wd
] + (t + 1) > t
ht
(|M|) or
t 2 & N
+
t
[M, , t
wd
] = N
+
t+1
[M, , t
wd
]
where (ht for height)
t
ht
T is dened by t
ht
(n) = t(2n + 1).
We may write t
wd
, t
ht
instead of t.
1.4 Remark. Alternatively:
Case 10 + : For = 1, . . . , 7.
Like the case but we use N
t
[M, , t],

P
t
[M, , t] and let t
10+
= t
.
Case 20 + : = 1, . . . , 7.
As in the cases = 1, . . . , 7, but we use N
t
[M, , t
wd
],

P
t
[M, , t
wd
], where
t
wd
T is dened by t(n) = t(2n) (wd for width) and we replace t by
t
ht
, t
ht
(n) = t(2n + 1), where for x = tm,sp we derive from t
ht
the functions
t
ht,x
20+
= (t
ht
)
x
.
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

1.5 Denition. 1) In Denition 1.3 we say
,,t
is -good when: for every
nite model M one of the following occurs:
(a) = 1 and t
[M, ] <
(b) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and in the denition of t
[M, , t] always the last

possibility occurs and not any of the previous ones
(c) = 11 as in the case = 1 using N
t
[M, , t],

P
t
[M, , t]
(d) = 22, as for = 2 using N
t
[M, , t],

P
t
[M, , t].
2) Let L
T
(L
)
good
be the logic L
T
(L
) restricted to -good sentences.

3) If in
,,t
we omit we mean P
t,0
= the set of atoms.
4) We say that M [=

,,t
is in a good way if this case of part (1) holds
1.6 Remark. We can replace in cases = 2,3,4 clause (b), the statement N
+
t
[M, ]
= N
+
t+1
[M, ] by a sentence
1
.
1.7 Discussion: 0) Note that considering several versions should help to see how
canonical is our logic.
1) The most smooth variant for our purpose is = 4, and the most natural
choice is L
= L
card
or L
= L
card,T
, but we are not less interested in the
choice L
= L
f.o.
, L
= L
f.o.+na
. From considering the motivation the most
natural T is n
m
: m < , and = 3.
2) For e.g. = 1, 2, 3 some properties of M can be incidentally expressed by
the logic, as the stopping time gives us some information concerning cardinality.
For example let Y be a complicated set of natural numbers, e.g. non-recursive,
and let t
T be: t(|M|) is |M| + 10 if |M| Y and t(|M|) = |M| + 6 if

|M| / Y . We can easily nd =
,,t
, with a standard induction scheme
such that it stops exactly for t = 8 and saying nothing (or if you like saying
that there are 8 natural numbers). Clearly for = 2, 3 we have M [=

,,t
if |M| Y and not M [=

,,t
if |M| / Y . Of course, more generally,
we could rst compute some natural number from M and then compare it with
t(|M|). This suggests preferring the option [=
undened in clause (b) of case

2, Denition 1.3 rather than false.
3) If you like set theory, you can let t be any ordinal; but this is a side issue
here; see end of 5.
Implicit in 1.3 (and an alternative to 1.3) is (note: an (M, )-candidate (N,

P)
is what looks like a possible N
t
[M, ] and a (, t)-successor of it is what looks
like N
t+1
[M, ]):
1.8 Denition. Let M, as in Denition 1.3 be given.
1) We say (N,

P) is an M-candidate or (M, )-candidate if:
(a) N is a nite transitive submodel of
t
V
t
[M] which includes M, expanded
by the relations of M (so it is a (
M
)
[1]
-model)
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

12 SAHARON SHELAH
(b)

P = P
k
: k < m
1
), P
k
an m
(k)-relation on N or a partial (m
(k)
1)-place function on N when P
k
is a predicate or a function symbol
respectively.
In fact here the only information from used is m
1
of , so we may write
(M, m
1
)-candidate.
2) We say (N
,

P
) is the (, t)-successor of (N,

P) if (N
,

P
), (N,

P) satises
what N
+
t+1
[M, , t], N
+
t
[M, , t] satises in Denition 1.1(3A), so
[N
[ = is the transitive closure of M
<m1
A
[N, , t],
where A
= A
[N, , t] is P
[N, ] =
a : (N, c) [=
(a,
b) :

b
g( g
)
N
if
this family has t(M) members or is equal to N and A
is empty otherwise.
2A) We say (N
,

P) is the -successor of (N,

P) if (

N
,

P
), (N,

P) satises what
N
+
t+1
[M, ], N
+
t
[M, ] satises in Denition 1.1(3); this means just that (N
,

P
)
is the (, )-successor of (N,

P).
2B) If is pure (i.e. m
1
= 0), actually only

count and we may replace

by

.
2C) We say that (N,

P) is a (M, )
+
-candidate if it is an (M, )-candidate and
the sets , [M[ (= set of atoms) belongs to N.
3) We dene N
t
= N
t
[M, , t] and

P
t
=

P
t
[M, , t] by induction on t as follows:
for t = 0 it is M (i.e. with P
t,k
= ),
for t + 1, (N
t+1
,

P
t+1
) is the (, t)successor of (N
t
,

P
t
), see below 1.9,
for t = we take the union.
1.9 Claim. 1) If (N,

P) is an (M, )-candidate, it has exactly one (, t)-
successor (and exactly one -successor).
2) The pair (N
t
[M, , ],

P
t
[M, , ]) dened in Denition 1.8(3), is equal to
the pair (N
t
[M, ],

P
t
[M, ]) dened in Denition 1.1(3).
3) If is monotonic, (N
,

P
) the -successor of (N,

P) where both are (M, )
+
-
candidates, then N N
; if is also standard then N N
.
4) If is strongly monotonic (see Denition 1.1(2)(E)) and (N
,

P
) is the -
successor of (N,

P) both are (M, )
+
-candidates, then N N
and P
for
< m
1
.
There are many obvious inclusions between the variants of logics by natural
translations. We mention the following claim which tells us that there is no real
harm if we restrict ourselves to pure s.
1.10 Claim. 1) Assume the is an inductive scheme in L
f.o.
(
+
), a sen-
tence in L
f.o.
(
+
). Then we can nd a pure inductive scheme
in L
f.o.
(
+
)
and r
, r
and p
and sentences
1
and formulas
(x),
k
( x
k
) for k <
m
1
, g( x
) = m
(k) in L
f.o.
() such that:
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

for every -model and t we have, if t
= r
+r
t then:
(a) the set N
t
[M, ] is a N
t
[M,
] : N
t
[M,
] [=
[a],
(b) P
t,k
[M, ] = a
m
(N
t
[M,
]) : N
t
[M,
] [=
k
[ a], where
m = m
(k),
(c) N
t
[M, ] [= i N
t
[M,
] [=
,
(d) N
+
t
[M, ] = N
+
t+1
[M, ] (i.e. it stops) i N
t
[M,
] [=
i
N
t
[M,
] = N
t
+1
[M,
],
(e) N
t
[M,
] has exactly p
(|N
t
[M, ]|) elements, and N
t
+r
[M,
]
has p
(|N
t
[M, ]|) when r < r
and p
an integer polynomial,
(f) if is standard then so is
.
2) Similarly using a logic L
if it is closed under rst order operations and

substitutions.
Remark. We can similarly deal with N
t
[M, , t], but then we have to deal with
some form of cardinality quantiers, etc.
Proof. For simplicity we assume that is standard. Now for every (M, m
1
)
candidate (N,

P) we shall dene a M-candidate N
= N
(N,
P)
. We shall have
N
+
r
+r
t
[M,
] is N
N
+
t
[M,]
.
The set of natural numbers of N
is s : s < r
+r
t. The universe of N
is the union of the following sets:

(a) N
(b) x, r
t : x N
(used to dene N),
let a
x,k,m
=: x, r
t + 1 +k, r
t + 1 +m
1
+m for x N, k < m
1
, m <
m
(k)
(used to help to code P
t,k
)
(c) a
xm,k,m
: m < m
(k) r
t + 1 +k, r
t + 1 +m
1
+i :
k < m
1
, x
0
, . . . , x
m
(k)1
N and i 0, 1 and
i = 1 x
m
: m m
(k)) P
t,k
(d) some more elements to take care of the

N
t
[M,
] has exactly p
(|N
t
[M, ]|) elements
(if we agree to N
t
[M,
] has exactly p(|N

t
[M,
], t|) then this is not

necessary).
The rest should be clear.
1.10
We try to sort out some of the relations between these logics by checking when
two variants of a sentence say related things, for quite many
1
,
2
.
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

14 SAHARON SHELAH
1.11 Claim. Let
1
,
2
1, . . . , 7 and
=
,,t
L
T
(L
)() for = 1, 2
and consider
()
2
is
2
-good implies
1
is
1
-good,
() for every (nite) -model M, (M [=
2

2
) (M [=
1

1
),
()
if
is
-good for = 1, 2 then M [=

2

2
M [=
1

1
.
In the following clauses we list cases which holds under various conditions.
(A)() + () if
1
=
2
and t
1
< t
2
,
(B)() + () if
1
= 2,
2
= 3, is standard and t
1
2t
2
,
(C)() + () if
1
= 3,
2
1
t
2
,
(D)() + () if
1
= 4,
2
1
t
2
,
(E)() + ()
if
1
= 3,
2
1
is large enough,
(F)() + () if
1
= 5,
2
1
t
2
,
(G)()+() if
1
= 3,
2
= 5, is standard and (n)[t
1
(n) n+m
0
t
2
(n)t
2
(n)],
(H)() + ()
if
1
= 1,
2
= 2,
(I)() + ()
if
1
= 2,
2
= 1 and t
1
is large enough,
(i.e. t
1
(n) > Maxt
2
[M, , t
2
] : M a -model
with universe [n] and t
2
[M, , t
2
] < ; note that
Max is taken on a nite set)
(J)() + () if
1
= 6,
2
= 2 and t
1
(2n) t
2
(n), t
1
(2n + 1) t
2
(n),
(K)() + () if
1
= 2,
2
= 6 and t
2
t
1
(2n) +t
1
(2n + 1),
(L)() + () if
1
= 7,
2
= 6 and t
1
t
2
(note: after good stopping, nothing changes) t
1
is large
enough
Proof. Straightforward.
1.12 Conclusion. 1) Assume that T satises
() (s T)(m)(t T)(n)(t(n) n +m(s(n))
2
).
Then the logics L
T
(L
)
good
for = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 are weakly equivalent where
L
1
, L
2
are weakly equivalent if L
1
wk
L
2
and L
2
wk
L
1
; where L
1
wk
L
2
means that for every sentence
1
L
1
there is
2
L
2
such that for every
M we have
1
M [=
1
implies M [=
2
2) If in addition T consists of integer polynomials and L
L
f.o.+na
, L
card
we can add = 7.
1.13 Remark. In part 1.12(2) we can replace the assumption on t demanding
only that:
1
note that if teh truth value of
1
in M is undened, then the implication is trivial.
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

() for every t T view t as (t
tm
, t
sp
) there is s T such that we can
compute t
tm
(n), t
sp
(n) is s
tm
(n) time, s
sp
(n) space in the relevant
sense (using the given L
, etc.).
1.14 Claim. The family of good sentences in the logic L
T
(L
f.o.
), that is the
logic L
T
(L
f.o.
)
good
, is closed under the following: the Boolean operation, (x),
and substitution (that is, up to equivalence) when at least one of the following
holds
()
1
= 1
()
2
2, 3, 5 and T satises () of 1.12
()
3
= 11
()
4
= 22 and for each t T, T[t
wd
] =: s
ht
: s T, s
wd
= t
wd
satises
() of 1.12.
Proof. Straight.
2 The general systems of partial isomorphisms
Though usually our aim is to compare two models M
1
, M
2
we rst concentrate
on one model M; this, of course, gives shorter denitions.
Our aim is to have a family F of partial automorphisms as in Ehrenfeucht-Frasse
games (actually Karp), of the model M we analyze, not total automorphism
which is too restrictive. But this family has to be lifted to the N
t
s. Hence
their domains (and ranges) may and should sometimes contain an element of
high rank. It is natural to extend each f F to G
t
(f), a partial automorphism
of N
t
. So we should not lose anything when we get up on t. The solution is
I A : A M closed downward and F (could have used F
: < m
1
)),
a family of partial automorphisms of M. So every x N
t
will have a support
A I and for f F, its action on A determines its action on x, (G
t
(f)(x)
in this section notation). It is not unreasonable to demand that there is the
smallest support, still this demand is somewhat restrictive (or we have to add
imaginary elements as in [Sh:a] or [Sh:c], not a very appetizing choice here).
But how come we in stage t +1 succeed to add all sets X = X
,
b
denable by
(x,
b) for some sequence

b
g(
b)
N
t
? Let m be such that

b = b
1
, . . . , b
m
).
The parameters b
1
, . . . , b
m
each has a support say A
1
, . . . , A
m
resp., all in
I; so when we have enough mappings in the family F, the new set has in
some sense the support A =
m
=1
A
, in the sense that suitable partial mappings

act as expected. So if y N
t
has support B (BRy in this section notation),
f F, A B Dom(f) and f A = id
A
, then the mapping G
t
(f) which f
induces in N
t
will satisfy y X
,
b
(G(f))(y) X
i,
b
.
But we are not allowed to increase the family of possible supports and A though
a kind of support is probably too large: in general, I is not closed under unions.
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

16 SAHARON SHELAH
But, if we add X = X
,
b
we have to add all similar X
= X
,
b
. Recall that
necessarily our strategy is to look for a support A
I for X
,
b
. So we like to nd
A
I which is a support of X, that is such that that if f F, AA
Dom(f),
then f A induces a mapping of X
i,
b
to some X
i,
b
, which when f A
=
id
A
, satises that X
i,
b
will be equal to X
i,
b
thus justifying the statement
A
supports X. How? We use our bound on the size of the computation.

So we need a dichotomy: either there is A
I as above or the number of sets

X
i,
b
dened by
i
(x,
) varying

b
is too large!!
On this dichotomy hangs the proof.
However, we do not like to state this as a condition on N
t
but rather on M.
We do not know how
(x,
) will act but for any possible A
this induces
an equivalence relation on the set of images of A
(for this F has to be large

enough).
Actually, we can ignore the
s and develop set theory of elements demanding

each has a support in I through F. Now we break the proof to denition and
claims.
We consider several variants of the logic: the usual variant to make preserva-
tion clear, and the case with the cardinality quantier. We use one F but we
could have used F
: k
); in this case actually, for much of the treatment

only F
0
would count. The relevant basic family of partial automorphisms is
dened in 2.1. Note that the case with cardinality logic, with a stronger as-
sumption is clearer, if you like to concentrate on it, ignore 2.1(4) and read in
Denition 2.3 only part (1), ignore 2.9 but read 2.10, ignore 2.17, 2.20 but read
2.18, ignore 2.22, 2.24 but read 2.23.
2.1 The Main Denition. 1) We say Y = (M, I, F) is a k-system if
(A) I is a non empty family of subsets of [M[ (the universe of the model M)
closed under subsets and each singleton belongs to it
[hint: intended as the possible supports of elements Nt[M, ] and as rst approxi-
mation to the possible supports of the partial automorphisms of M, where M is the
model of course; the intention is that M is a nite model]
Let I[m] =:
m
=1
A
: A
I for = 1, . . . , m
(B) F is a non empty family of partial automorphisms of M such that f
F & A Dom(f) & A I f(A) I (recall f(A) = f(x) :
x A Dom(f); F is closed under inverse (i.e. f F
f
1
F
)
and composition and restriction (hence, together with (D) clearly B
I[k] id
B
F)
(C) if f F then Dom(f) is the union of k members of I
(D) if f F and A
1
, . . . , A
k1
, A
k
I and 1, . . . , k 1 A

Dom(f), then for some g F we have
f
k1
=1
A
g
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

A
k
Dom(g)
2) Assume Y is a k-system and B I[m], m k 2 and A I
() let H
Y
(B, A) = g F : Dom(g) B A and id
B
g
() E
Y
(B, A) is the family of equivalence relations E on H
Y
(B, A) such that:
() if g
1
, g
2
, g
3
, g
4
H
Y
(B, A) and f F satises id
B
f, g
1
(A)
g
2
(A) Dom(f) and g
3
f (g
1
(BA)), g
4
f (g
2
(BA)
then g
1
Eg
2
g
3
Eg
4
.
(this tells you in particular that only g A matter for determining g/E)
3)
() Let H
I,m
= H
Y ,m
be the family of functions h from [m] = 1, . . . , m
to Seq
I
= a : a list with no repetitions some A I; we can look at a
as a one-to-one function from [0, g a) onto A; of course for f F and
a,
b Seq
I
the meaning of f( a) =

b is g( a) = g(
b) and f(a
i
) = b
i
for
i < g( a). Let Seq
I,A
= a Seq
I
: Rang( a) = A. For m = 1 we may
identify h : [m] Seq
I
with h(1) so H
I,1
is identied with Seq
I
.
() for h H
I,m
and f F such that
i[m]
Rang(h(i)) Dom(f) we dene
h
= f h as the following function: Dom(h
) = [m] and h
(i) = f (h(i))
() let 2r + s k; for B I[s] and 1 m r let E
0
I,B,m
= E
0
Y ,B,m
be the
following 2-place relation on h : h : [m] Seq
I
:
h
1
E
0
I,B,m
h
2
i for some f F, id
B
f and h
2
= f h
1
.
If B = we may omit it; similarly m = 1
() for 2m + s k and B I[s] let E
I,m
(B) = E
Y ,m
() be the family of
equivalence relations such that for some h
H
I,m
, E is an equivalence
relation on the set h H
I,m
: hE
0
I,m
h
which satises:
() if h
1
, h
2
, h
3
, h
4
H
I,m
, f F, id
B
f, h
2
= f h
1
, h
4
= f h
3
and
Rang(h
1
(i)) Rang(h
1
(i)) : i [m] Dom(f),
then h
1
Eh
3
h
2
Eh
4
.
If B = we may omit it. If m = 1 we may omit it.
4) We say that a k-system Y = (M, I, F) is (t, r)-dichotomical
2
when
if 1 m r and E E
I,m
(), then ()
1
()
2
where
()
1
there is A I which satises:
if h
1
, h
2
H
I,m
, f F, id
A
f and h
2
= f h
1
then h
1
Eh
2
()
2
the number of E-equivalence classes is > t(|M|).
2
note that this is how from there are not too many we get there is a support in I
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

18 SAHARON SHELAH
If we omit r (and write t-dichotomical) we mean r = [k/2], k 3.
Note that in parts (3), (4) without loss of generalityh is one-to-one.

2.2 Remark. 1) However, if we shall deal with L
= L
card
or L
= L
card,T
we naturally have to require that f F preserve more. Whereas the (t, r)-
dichotomy is used to show that either we try to add too many sets to some
N
t
[M, ] or we have support, the counting (k, r)-system assure us that the
lifting of f preserves the counting quantier, and the medium (t, r)-dichotomy
will be used in the maximal successor, see 2.24.
2) It causes no harm real in 2.1(3)(), () and similarly later, to restrict our-
selves to e.g. r +s k/100, k > 400.
2.3 Denition. 1) We say Y = (M, I, F) is a counting (or super) (k, r)-system
if:
Y is a k-system and
()
1
Assume that 0 m r and for = 1, 2 we have B
I[m] and
E
E
Y ,1
(B
). If f F, f maps B
1
onto B
2
and f maps E
1
to E
2
(see
2.4(1)), then [Dom(E
1
)/E
1
[ = [Dom(E
2
)/E
2
[.
(This should be good for analyzing the model N
t
[M, , t]). If we omit r (write
counting k-system) we mean r = k 2, k 3.
2) We say that the k-system Y = (M, I, F) is medium (t, k, r)-system if
()
2
Assume that 1 m r and for = 1, 2 we have B
I[m] and
E
E
Y ,1
(B
). If f F, f maps B
1
onto B
2
and f maps E
1
to E
2
(see
2.4), then [Dom(E
1
)/E
1
[ = [Dom(E
1
)/E
2
[ or both are > t(|M|).
3) We omit r if r = k 2 1 (see 2.8 below).
Note that 2.4 is closed to 2.8 and 2.7(2)-(4).
2.4 Observation. Let Y = (M, I, F) is a k-system.
1)
() if 2m + s k and B I[s], then E
0
Y ,B,m
is an equivalence relation
satisfying () of Denition 2.1(3)()
() the following two conditions on B I[s], m (k s)/2, s k and G are
equivalent:
(i) G is an equivalence class of E
0
I,B,m
(ii) G is the domain of some E E
I,m
(B)
() if k
= 2m + s k and F
= f A : f F, A I[k
], and
Y
= (M, I, F
) then Y
is a k
-system and for each B I[s] we have

E
Y ,m
(B) = E
Y
,m
(B) and E
0
Y ,B,m
= E
0
Y
,B,m
.
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

() if B
1
, B
2
I[k 2], f F, f maps B
1
onto B
2
and g
1
, g
1
Seq
I
,
Rang(g
1
) Rang(g
2
) Dom(f), then g
2
=: f g
1
belongs to Seq
I
and
g
2
= f g
1
belongs to Seq
I
and g
1
E
0
I,B1,1
g
1
g
2
E
0
I,B2,1
g
2
() If B
1
I[k 2], A
2
I, f F, B
1
Dom(f), B
2
= f(B
1
), then we
can dene F
eq
f,B1,B2
(E) E
I,1
(B
2
) for E E
I,1
(B
1
) (the image of E by
f) by: if f B
1
g F, a
1
, a
2
Seq
I
, g maps a
1
to a
1
and g maps a
2
to a
2
then a
1
E a
2
a
1
F
eq
f,B1,B2
(E) a
2
.
2) Let 2r +s k,
(), (), parallely to part (1) with m r, h
H
I,m
, B
I[s].
Proof. Straight, e.g.:
Part (1), Clause (): We use: F contains id
C
wherever C I[k] (for reexiv-
ity), F closed under inverting (for symmetry) and is closed under composition
(for transitivity).
2.4
2.5 Discussion 1) In the system Y = (M, I, F) we deal only with partial au-
tomorphisms of M, we need to lift them to the models N
t
[M, ] or actually
N
+
t
[M, ] or N
+
t
[M, , t] appearing in Denition 1.3; this motivates the follow-
ing denition 2.6. (We more generally dene liftings to (M, )-candidates).
2) Note that here probably it is more natural if in the denition of k-system Y ,
we replace the relations f g, f = g A, f g A on F by abstract
ones (so F will be an index set). Also in Denition 2.6 we could demand more
properties which naturally holds (similarly in Denition 2.13, e.g. if you satisfy
the properties of a set B is Z-support of x you are one).
2.6 Denition. 1) Let Y = (M, I, F) be an k-system, M a -model, is an
inductive scheme for L
(
+
) and m
1
= m
1
.
We say that Z = (N,

P, G, R) = (N
Z
,

P
Z
, G
Z
, R
Z
) is a -lifting or m
1
-lifting
of Y if
(a) (N,

P) is an (M, m
1
)-candidate so N is a transitive submodel of set
theory i.e. of V
[M] with M as its set of urelements and the relations

of M (see Denition 1.4(1))
(b) G is a function with domain F
(c) for f F
() G(f) is a function with domain N, f G(f), moreover f =
G(f) M and
() G(f) is a partial automorphism of N
(d) if f F, g F, f g then G(f) G(g)
(e) R is a two-place relation written xRy such that
xRy x I & y N
[we say: x is a Z-support of y]
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

20 SAHARON SHELAH
(f)
() if ARy and f F, A Dom(f), then
y Dom(G(f)) and f A = id
A
G(f)(y) = y
() if f F and y Dom(G(f)) (hence y N) then some a Z-support
of y is included in Dom(f)
(g) (y N)(A I)ARy
[i.e. every element of N has a Z-support]
(h) if A I and A Dom(f), y Dom(G(f)) then
ARy f(A)R(G(f)(y))
(i) for f F we have G(f
1
) = (G(f))
1
(j) for f
1
, f
2
F, f = f
2
f
1
we have
3
G(f) G(f
2
) G(f
1
)
(k) if a
m1()
(Dom(f)) and f F and f( a) is well dened, then a P
Z

f( a) P
Z
; moreover Rc
if P
Z
is the individual constant c
= c
Z
when
c
is well dened (see Denition 1.1(2)(F); this implies that G(f) is a

partial automorphism of (N,

P)).
We may write m
1
= m
Z
1
, recall that m
1
(k) gives the arity of P
k
and the infor-
mation is it a relation or (possibly partial) function.
2.7 Fact: Let Y = (M, I, F) be a k-system, and Z be an m
1
-lifting of Y .
1) The 0 -lifting (in Denition 2.12) exists and is a lifting (see Denition
2.6).
2) If f
1
, f
2
F and A is a Z-support of y N then
f
1
A = f
2
A & A Dom(f
1
) f
1
(y) = f
2
(y).
3) From Z we can reconstruct Y , F, m
1
; and if I = A : for some B, A
B and B is a Z-support of some y N then we can reconstruct also I (so the
whole Y ).
Proof. 1) Easy [compare with 2.4, 2.8].
2) Let y
= G(f
2
)(y), let A
1
= A, A
2
= f
2
(A
1
) hence as A is a Z-support of
y and A Dom(f
1
) necessarily y
is well dened and A

2
R
Z
y
(see Denition
2.6(1) clause (h)). We know that f
1
2
and f
1
2
f
1
belongs to F (see Denition
2.6(1) clauses (i) and (j)). We also know that A
2
Dom(f
1
2
) so as A
2
R
Z
y
(see above) we have y
Dom(G(f
1
2
)) (see Denition 2.6(1), clause (f)())
and (G(f
1
2
))(y
) = y (by Denition 2.6(1), clause (i) as (G(f

2
))(y) = y
by the
choice of y
).
Clearly A = A
1
Dom(f
1
2
f
1
) hence (see Denition 2.6(1), clause (f)())
we have y Dom(G(f
1
2
f)).
3
so maybe x even has support A
, id
A
for = 1, 2 but x has no support Dom(f)

(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

But id
A
f
1
2
f
1
, so as AR
Z
y we have y = (G(f
1
2
f))(y). By Denition
2.6(1), clause (j) we have, as the left side is well dened:
(G(f
1
2
f
1
))(y) = ((G(f
1
2
)) (G(f
1
)))(y)
and trivially
(G(f
1
2
)) (G(f
1
)))(y) = (G(f
1
2
))((G(f
1
))(y)).
By the last three equations y = (G(f
1
2
f
1
))(y) = (G(f
1
2
))((G(f
1
))(y)), but
by the above we note y = (G(f
1
2
))(y
). So, as G(f
1
2
) is one-to-one (having an
inverse), we have (G(f
1
))(y) = y
, now as y
was dened as (G(f

2
))(y) we are
done.
3) Straightforward.
2.7
Note that 2.8 is close to 2.4 and 2.12(2)-(4).
2.8 Denition/Claim. Let Y = (M, I, F) be a k-system and Z = (N,

P, G, R)
be an m
1
-lifting of Y .
1) For B N let E
B
= E
Y ,Z
B
be the following 2-place relation on N:
x
1
E
B
x
2
i for some f F we have id
B
f and (G(f))(x
1
) = x
2
.
2) If B I[k 2] so k 3 then
() E
B
is an equivalence relation on N
() if f F, B Dom(f) then f maps E
B
to E
f(B)
which means:
f B g F &
<2
(G(g))(x
) = y
[x
1
E
B
x
2
y
1
E
f(B)
y
2
]
() if B Dom(f) then there is a one-to-one function F = F
f,B
from N/E
B
onto N/E
f(B)
such that:
()
1
for x
1
, x
2
N we have: (g)(f B g F & G(g)(x
1
) = x
2
)
F(x
1
/E
B
) = x
2
/E
f(B)
() if x N and AR
Z
x and a Seq
I,A
then there is an equivalence relation
E E
Y ,1
(B) with domain f( a) : f extend id
B
and A Dom(f) such
that:
()
2
if f
F, id
B
f
and A Dom(f
) for = 1, 2 then G
Z
(f
1
)(x) =
G
Z
(f
2
)(x) f
1
( a)Ef
2
( a)
()
3
[x/E
B
[ = [Dom(E)/E[
() if f, F are as in clause () and x
1
, x
2
N then
()
4
if F(x
1
/E
B
) = x
2
/E
B
and Y is a counting k-system,
then [x
1
/E
B
[ = [x
2
/E
B
[
()
5
if F(x
1
/E
B
) = x
2
/E
B
and Y is a medium (t, k)-system,
then [x
1
/E
B
[ = [x
2
/E
B
[ or both are > t(M).
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

22 SAHARON SHELAH
Proof of (2).
Clause ():
Reexivity:
For x N choose a Z-support A I, so we can nd f F extending id
BA
hence G(f) maps x to itself, hence xE
B
x.
Symmetry:
If f F witnesses xE
B
y then f
1
F witnesses yE
B
x.
Transitivity:
If x
0
E
B
x
1
, x
1
E
B
x
2
let f
1
witness x
0
E
B
x
2
and let f
2
witness x
1
E
B
x
2
, now
let A
0
Dom(f
1
) be a Z-support of x
0
, so A
1
= f
1
(A
0
) Rang(f
1
) is a Z-
witness of x
1
, now let A
1
Dom(f
2
) be a Z-support of X
1
, so BA
1
I[k 1]
hence without loss of generalityA
1
Dom(f
2
) hence A
2
= f
2
(A
1
) is a Z-
support of x
2
, so x
1
Dom(G(f
2
f
1
)) and G(f
2
f
1
) G(f
1
) G(f
2
) hence
G(f
2
f
1
)(x
1
) = x
2
as required.
Clause ():
So assume f B g F and (G(g))(x
) = y
, for = 1, 2 and we should

prove x
1
E
B
x
2
y
1
E
f(B)
y
2
. It suces to prove x
1
E
B
x
2
y
1
E
f(B)
y
2
(as
applying it to B
= f(B), f
= f
1
, g
= g
1
, y
1
, y
2
, x
1
, x
2
we get the other
implication). As x
1
E
B
x
2
we can nd a witness h, i.e., id
B
h F and
(G(h))(x
1
) = x
2
. Let A
1
Dom(h) be a Z-support of x
1
and let A
2
= h(A
1
),
so A
2
is a Z-support of x
2
.
If B I[k 4] without loss of generalityA
1
, A
2
Dom(g), and let A
1
=
f(A
1
), A
2
= f(A
2
), lastly let g
= g h g
1
. Now (G(g
))(y
1
) = y
2
,
id
f(B)
g
so g
witnesses y
1
E
f(B)
y
2
as required.
But maybe B / I[k4], still B I[k2]; now for = 1, 2, as (G(f))(x
) = y
there is a Z-support C
of x
such that C
Dom(g) and let C
= g(C
). So
we can nd, for = 1, 2 a function g
1
F such that g (B C
1
) g
1
and A
1
Dom(g
2
) and also there is h
1
F such that h (B A
1
) h
1
and
C
1
Dom(h
1
). So h
1
g
1
1
extends (g B)
1
and C
1
Dom(g
1
1
), (g
1
1
)(C
1
) =
C
1
Dom(h
1
) but C
1
is a Z-support of y
1
. Hence (G(hg
1
1
))(y
1
) is well dened
and equal to (G(h) G(g
1
1
))(y
1
) = (G(h))((G(g
1
1
))(y
1
)) = (G(h
1
))(x
1
) = x
2
.
Let g
2
F be such that g (B A
2
) g
2
and (h
1
g
1
1
)(C
1
) Dom(g
2
) and
similarly we get g
1
2
h
1
g
1
1
extends id
g(B)
and (G(g
1
2
h
1
g
1
1
))(y
1
) = y
2
,
so we are done.
Clause (), (), ():
Should be clear.
2.8
Quite naturally for such a m
1
-lifting Z of Y the family G(f) : f F
Y
helps us to understand rst order logic on (N

Z
,

P
Z
).
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

2.9 Claim. Assume Y = (M, I, F) is a k-system and Z = (N,

P, G, R) is an
m
1
-lifting of Y .
Then
() Assume ( x) is rst order and k quantier depth(( x)) + g( x), or
just ( x) L
,k
which means:
every subformula of ( x), (e.g. itself ) has k free variables.
If a
g( x)
N, A
Ra
and A
Dom(f) (hence a
Dom(G(f))) for < g( x)

and f F then
(N,

P) [= [. . . , a
, . . . ]
<g( x)
(N,

P) [= [. . . , G(f)(a
), . . . ]
<g( x)
Proof. We prove this by induction on the quantier depth of . Let m = g( x)

so x = x
: < m) and without loss of generalitym k.

Case 1: atomic.
As G(f) is a partial automorphism of N and even (N,

P) this should be clear.
Case 2: = or =
1

2
or =
1

2
.
Straight.
Case 3: = ( x) = (y)(y, x).
Without loss of generality y is not a dummy variable in , that is has a free
occurrence. Let x = x
0
, . . . , x
m1
) so m < k.
As G(f
1
) = G(f)
1
it is enough to prove N [= [a
0
, . . . , a
m1
] N [=
[G(f)(a
0
), . . . , G(f)(a
m1
)].
So we assume the left side, i.e.
()
1
N [= [a
0
, . . . , a
m1
],
hence for some a
N we have
()
2
N [= [a
, a
0
, . . . , a
m1
].
Necessarily a
has a Z-support A
I.
Now k m + 1 and Y is a k-system hence there is f
F such that f
(
<m
A
) f
and A
Dom(f
). So each of a
, a
0
, . . . , a
m1
has a Z-
support included in Dom(f
) hence by the induction hypothesis applied to

[a
, a
0
, . . . , a
m1
] and ()
2
we have
()
3
N [= [G(f
)(a
), G(f
)(a
0
), . . . , G(f
)(a
m1
)].
So by the denition of [= we get
()
4
N [= (y)(y, G(f
)(a
0
), . . . , G(f
)(a
m1
).
But for < m, the set A
is a Z-support of a
and f
= f A
hence
(G(f
))(a
) = G(f)(a
) so
()
5
N [= (y)(y, G(f)(a
0
), . . . , G(f)(a
m1
)].
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

24 SAHARON SHELAH
But ( x) = (y)(y, x) so we are done.
2.9
Having dealt with rst order logic we should deal with cardinality logic (actually
any of the variants we mention). Here we use the counting version, really natu-
rally the medium version suces but for it we have to use more bookkeeping
of the various things used, and the reader can use only this smoother case.
Note that if we like to add cardinality quantiers on pairs we need s 2, etc.,
but we may create the set of pairs in N
t
so not so necessary.
2.10 Claim. Assume that Y is a counting k-system (see Def 2.3(1)) and Z =
(N,

P, G, R) is an m
1
-lifting of Y .
Then
() assume ( x) L
card,T
or ( x) L
card
(can have both kinds quantiers;
recall that L
f.o. + na
is included in a special case of L
card,T
) and every
subformula of ( x), including ( x) itself, has < k free variables and
m = g( x) < k
()
( x)
if f F and A
is a Z-support of a
and A
Dom(f) for < m

then:
(N,

P) [= [a
0
, . . . , a
m1
] i (N,

P) [= [G(f)(a
0
), . . . , G(f)(a
m1
)]
()
( x)
if f F and A
is a Z-support of a
for = 1, . . . , m1 and A

Dom(f) then the sets b N : (N,

P) [= [b, a
1
, . . . , a
m1
],
and b N : (N,

P) [= [b, G(f)(a
1
), . . . , G(f)(a
m1
)] have the
same number of elements.
Proof. We prove by induction on the quantier depth of .
We rst show that
()
( x)
()
( x)
Why? So assume ()
( x)
, and a
1
, . . . , a
m1
N be given (where g( x) = m) and
also f F and A
1
, . . . , A
m1
N, A
is a Z-support of a
for = 1, . . . , m1
such that A
Dom(f), and we should prove the equality in ()

( x)
. Let a
i
be a
if i = 1 and (G(f))(a
) if i = 2. Let A
i
be A
if i = 1 and (G(f))(A
) if
= 2.
Let B
i
=
m1
=1
A
i
so B
i
I[m1] and f maps B
1
onto B
2
.
By Denition 2.8(1) we know that E
B
is an equivalence relation on N and, see

Denition 2.8(2), clause (), (), the function F = F
f,B1
satises
(i) F is a one-to-one function from N/E
B1
onto N/E
B2
(ii) f B
1
g F & (G(g))(x
1
) = x
2
(F(x
1
)/E
B1
) = x/E
B2
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

(iii) for every x
1
N, A
1
I such that A
1
R
Z
x
1
, and a
1
Seq
I,A1
for some
E = E
x1
E
Y ,1
(B
1
) we have Dom(E) = x
1
/E
B1
and
() if [id
B1
f
& A
1
Dom(f
)] for = 1, 2 then f
1
( a
1
)E
x
f
2
( a
2
)
(G(f
1
))(x
1
) = (G(f
2
))(x
1
)
(iv) if x
1
N, x
2
N, (G(g))(x
1
) = x
2
for some g F such that f B
1
g,
then [(x
1
/E
B1
)/E
x1
[ = [(x
2
/E
B2
/E
x2
[.
Hence it suces to prove, assuming F(x
1
/E
A1
) = x
2
/E
A2
that
N [= [x
1
, a
1
, . . . , a
m1
] N [= [x
2
, G(f)(a
1
), . . . , G(f)(a
m1
)].
As we can replace f by a suitable extension of f B
1
, without loss of generality
there are y
1
x
1
/E
B1
and y
2
x
2
/E
B2
such that (G(f))(y
1
) = y
2
. We can nd
C
1
Dom(f) which is a Z-support of y
1
.
As x
1
E
B1
y
1
we can nd f
1
F such that id
B1
f
1
and (G(f
1
))(x
1
) = y
1
;
as m < k, without lose of generality C
1
Rang(f
1
) and let C
0
= (f
1
1
)(C
1
),
let C
2
= f(C
1
). As x
2
E
B1
y
2
we can nd f
2
F such that id
B2
f
2
and
(G(f
2
))(y
2
) = x
2
; as m < k without lose of generality C
2
Dom(f
2
) and let
C
3
= f
2
(C
2
). So f
= f
2
f f
1
belongs to F and extends f B
1
and it maps
C
0
onto C
3
hence y
1
Dom(G(f
)), and clearly (G(f

1
))(x
1
) = y
1
, (G(f))(y
1
) =
y
2
, (G(f
2
))(y
2
) = x
2
hence (G(f
))(x
1
) = x
2
and, of course, B
Dom(f
)
hence applying ()
( x)
to f
, x
1
, a
1
, . . . , a
m1
we get
(N,

P) [= [x
1
, a
1
, . . . , a
m1
] (N,

P) [= [x
2
, G(f)(a
1
), . . . , G(f)(a
m1
)]
recalling x
2
= (G(f
))(x
1
). So holds.
Now the inductive proof of ()

is separated to cases. The case atomic,
= , =
1

2
, = (y)((y, x)) works as in the proof of 2.9. The new
cases hold because ()
hold by the induction hypothesis + .

2.10
2.11 Claim. We can weaken in 2.10 the assumption on Y to medium (t, k)-
dichotomical provided that:
if B I[m], 1 m r, then every equivalence class of E
Y ,Z
B
(so a subset
of N
Z
, see Denition 2.8(1)) has t(M
Y
) members.
2.12 Denition. For Y = (M, I, F) a k-system, the 0-lifting or the 0m
1
-
lifting if m
1
= m
1
is (M,

P, G, R) where
(a) G is the identity on F
(b) ARy A I & y A
(c) each P
is the empty relation.

(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

26 SAHARON SHELAH
Clearly our intention requires us for a k-system Y , to move from an -lifting
Z
t
= (N
t
[M, , t],

P
t
[M, , t], G
t
, R
t
) to a -lifting
Z
t+1
= (N
t+1
[M, ],

P
t+1
[M, ], G
t+1
, R
t+1
).
Toward this aim naturally in Denition 2.13 below we dene for -lifting Z some
successors, and in Claim 2.16 we prove what they satisfy.
In Denition 2.13(6) we can dene Z
is the full t-successor of Z (both m

1
-
liftings of a k-system Y ).
2.13 Denition. Let Y = (M, I, F) be a k-system and Z = (N,

P, G, R) be
an m
1
-lifting of Y .
1) We say X is good or (Y , Z)-good if
(a) X a subset of N
(b) for some A I we have A supports X (for our Y and Z) which means:
if f F, BRy (so B I, y N) and AB Dom(f), and f A = id
A
then y X (G(f))(y) X
(note: (G(f))(y) is well dened by clause (f) of 2.6)
(c) X / N.
2) Let P = P
Y ,Z
be the family of good subsets of N, let R = R
Y ,Z
be the
two-place relation dened by: ARX i A supports X, i.e. (b) of part (1) holds.
3) For f F we dene a function G
+
(f) = G
+
Y ,Z
(f) with domain P
Y ,Z
N
as follows, (well, now (G
+
(f))(X
1
) = X
2
is just a relation, but by 2.14(1) clause
(ii) below it is a function)
() For good X such that ARX, A I when A Dom(f) we let (G
+
(f))(X)
= y N : for some g F and y
X we have f A g and G(g)(y
) =
y
() G
+
(f) N = G(f).
Note that no contradition arises between clauses () and () because of
clause (c) in part (1).
4) We dene E = E
Y ,Z
as the following two place relation: X
1
EX
2
i X
1
, X
2
are good subsets of N
Z
and for some f F we have (G
+
(f))(X
1
) = X
2
; this is
an equivalence relation (see 2.15(2) below).
5) Z
= (N
,

P
, G
, R
) is a successor of Z if:
(a) N N
N P
Y ,Z
(b) X
1
E
Y ,Z
X
2
& X
1
P
Y ,Z
& X
2
P
Y ,Z
[X
1
N
X
2
N
]
(c) G
is a function with domain F and for f F the function G
(f) is
dened as G
+
(f) from part (3) restricted to N
(d) R
is R [R (I N
)]
(e) the pair (N
,

P
) is an (M, m
1
)-candidate; so P
is an m
1
()-ary relation
or function as dictated by m
1
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

6) We say Z
is a -reasonable successor of Z if it is a successor and

(e)
b N : (N,

P) [=
b) but when is i.c. (see Denition 1.1(2),

clause (F)) this is so only if P
and P
= otherwise (for each

< m
1
(so we demand P
).
We may omit if clear from the content.
7) We say that Z
= (N
,

P
, G
, R
) is a full successor of Z if it is a successor

of Z and N
= N P
Y ,Z
. We say it is the full successor if in addition P
=
and it is the full reasonable successor (or reasonable full successor) if it is a full
successor which is a reasonable successor.
8) Z
= (N
,

P
, G
, R
) is a full t-successor of Z if it is a successor of Z and

(a)
8
N
= N X P
Y ,Z
: [X/E
Y ,Z
[ t(|M|).
So if we omit t we mean t(|N|) = .
9) Z
= (N
,

P
, G
, R
) is the true (, t)-successor of Z if m

1
= m
1
and Z
is a
reasonable successor of Z and:
(a)
9
(N
,

P
) is the (, t)-successor of (N,

P), (see Denition 1.8(2)).
10) Z
= (N
,

P
, G
, R
) is the true -successor of Z if it is a
-reasonable
successor of Z and:
(a)
10
(N
,

P
) is the -successor of (N,

P), (see Denition 1.8(2A))
[this just means the true (, )-successor of Z].
Note that the names above indicate our intentions, but we have to prove that
Z
is a successor of Z implies that Z is an m

1
-lifting of Y (done in 2.16),
the true (, t)-successor of Z is a t-successor of Z (done in 2.17, 2.18, 2.20) and
similarly without the t.
2.14 Claim. Assume Y is a k-system, an inductive scheme (so is common)
and Z is an -lifting of Y .
1) In Denition 2.13(3), if k 3 then for f F and (Y , Z)-good X we have:
(i) if the relation X
2
= (G
+
(f))(X
1
) holds and (G(f))(x
1
) = x
2
then x
1

X
1
x
2
X
2
(ii) the value (G
+
(f))(X) does not depend on A, so G
+
(f) is well dened.
(iii) if the relation X
2
= (G
+
(f))(X
1
) holds then X
2
is a (Y , Z)-good
2) There is a unique object Z
which is the full successor of Z. ; there is a unique

object Z
which is the reasonable full successor of Z and there is a unique object

which is the reasonable t-full successor of Z.
3) If the Z
is the true (, t)-successor of Z, then Z
is a reasonable successor of
Z which implies Z
is a successor of Z.
4) There is at most one true successor Z
of Z.
Proof. Easy, using 2.16(2) below for part (2); e.g.
1) Clause (i) So assume that X
1
is (Y , Z)-good, A
1
is a Z-support of X
1
,
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

28 SAHARON SHELAH
A
1
Dom(f), f F and X
2
= (G(g))(x) : x Dom(g), f A g N and
(G(f))(x
1
) = x
2
. First x
1
X
1
x
2
X
2
by the denition of X
2
. Second
assume that x
2
X
2
, so for some y X
1
and g F we have f A
1
g
and (G(g))(y) = x
2
. Let B
2
Dom(g) be a Z-support of y. Let B
1
Dom(f)
be a Z-support of x
1
; as k 3 there is f
1
F such that f (A
1
B
1
) f
1
and g(B
2
) Rang(f
1
) so (G(f
1
))(x
1
) = x
2
. Now (G(g
1
f
1
))(x
1
) is well
dened as B
2
Dom(g
1
f
1
) hence is equal to ((G(g
1
) (G(f
1
)))(x
1
) = y
and (g
1
f
1
) A
1
= id
A1
hence x
1
X
1
y X
1
but y X
1
hence x
1
X
1
as required.
Clause (ii) So assume that f F, X is good and for = 1, 2 the set A
I is a
support of X and A
Dom(f). For = 1, 2 let X
=: y N : for some g F
and y
X we have f A
g and (G(g))(y
) = y.
By the symmetry it is enough to show that y X
1
y X
2
. So assume y X
1
hence there are g F and y
X such that f A
1
g and (G(g))(y
) = y.
As y
X N, by Denition 2.6(1), clause (g) there is B I which is a

Z-support of y
. As (G(g))(y
) = y without loss of generality B is such that

B Dom(g) (see Denition 2.6(1), clause (f)). As Y is a k-system and k 3
there is f
F such that f (A
1
A
2
) f
and g(B) Rang(f
) hence
for some B
Dom(f
) we have (f
)(B
) = g(B) so for some y
N we
have (G(f
))(y
) = y. By clause (i) applied to A

2
, f
, y
, y we have y
X
y X
2
, so it is enough to prove that y
X. Now easily g
1
f
F,
B
Dom(g
1
f
), id
A1
g
1
f
and so y
Dom(G(g
1
f
)) and
(G(g
1
f
))(y
) = y
. Hence, as X is good (see Denition 2.13(1) clause (b)),

we have y
X y
X, but y
X by its choice, so we are done.

Clause (iii) Easy, or see the proof of ()
1
inside the proof of 2.16 below.
2.14
Now for the denition of successor for liftings of Y , we naturally ask whether
there is any.
2.15 Claim. Assume Y is a k-system k 3, an inductive scheme and Z is
an m
1
-lifting of Y and t T.
1) There is a
-reasonable full t-successor of Z (and it is unique), similarly

without t.
2) E
Y ,Z
, dened in 2.13(4) is an equivalence relation on P
Y,Z
(see Denition
2.13) and for every f F, the function G
+
(f) : P
Y ,Z
P
Y ,Z
preverse the
E
Y ,Z
-equivalence class.
Proof. 1) All is straight modulo part (2) (recalling 2.14).
2) Let Z
be the
-reasonable full successor of Z which exists by 2.14(2), and

is a successor of Z by 2.14, and is an m
1
-lifting by 2.16 below.
Why is E
Y ,Z
an equivalence relation on P
Y ,Z
= N
Z
N
Z
? In short, by the
properties of Z; in details:
E
Y ,Z
is reexive:
Let X P
Y ,Z
, so for some A I we have AR
Z
X (or equivalently ARX)

(see Denition 2.13(2)) and there is f F which is the identity on A, hence
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

(see Denition 2.13), X Dom(G
Z
(f)), and (G
Z
(f))(X) = X (as clause (f))

of Denition 2.6(1) holds as Z
is an m
1
-lifting of Y .
E
Y ,Z
is symmetric:
Use G
Z
(f
1
) = (G
Z
(f))
1
.
E
Y ,Z
is transitive:
Use G
Z
(f
1
f
2
) G
Z
(f
1
) G
Z
(f
2
).
[This is similar to 2.4.]
By the denition of E
Y ,Z
(see Denition 2.13(4)), clearly for f F the
mapping G
+
(f) = G
Z
P
Y ,Z
preserves the E
Y ,Z
-equivalence class or use
2.16.
2.15
Clearly for reasonable cases, everything can be interpreted in N
Z
full
Y,t
, see later.
We now prove that Denition 2.13(1)-(5) works as intended, i.e. any successor
of Z is an m
1
-lifting of Y . In particular, we have to show that the functions
dened are functions with the right domain and range and the Es are equivalence
relations. This is included in the proof of 2.16.
2.16 Claim. Assume Y is a k-system and Z is an m
1
-lifting of Y (see De-
nition 2.1(2),Denition 2.6) and k 3.
Any successor Z
of Z is an m
1
-lifting of Y .
Proof. We check the clauses in Denition 2.6. Let G
+
, G
, R
, N
,

P
be as in
Denition 2.13.
Clause (a): As N is transitive with M its set of urelements, and X N
N
X P
Y ,Z
X N also N
is transitive with M its set of urelements. Clearly

N has the right vocabulary
+
=
M
and Q
M
Q
N
= Q
M
. So N
is as required. Also

P
= P
: < m
1
), each P
as required by m
1
.
Clause (b): By Denition 2.13(5)(c) we have that G
is G
+
N
where the
function G
+
is dened in part (3) of Denition 2.13 and f F implies G
+
(f)
is a partial function with domain N P
Y ,Z
(see 2.14(1)). So G
is a function
with domain F and G
(f) by its denition is a partial function with domain

N
.
Clause (c):
Subclause ():
For f F we know that G(f) is a function, G(f) M = f (see Denition
2.6(1)), clause (c)(i)) and G(f) = (G
+
(f)) N (see Denition 2.13(3) par-
ticularly subclause (), remembering that X good X / N by Denition
2.13(1), clause (c)). As M N N
and G
(f) = G
+
(f) N
, together we get
f = (G
+
(f)) M = (G
(f)) M.
Subclause (): Let f F, G(f) = f
1
, G
(f) = f
2
and let x, y N
belongs to
the domain of f
and we should prove

(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

30 SAHARON SHELAH
() f
2
(x) N
() x N
N f
2
(x) N
N
() if x ,= y are from N
then f
2
(x) ,= f
2
(y)
() for every predicate Q
M
, f
2
preserve Q and Q
() N
[= y x N
[= f
2
(y) f
2
(x)
(we shall do more toward proving clause (g) of Denition 2.6(1) below).
Note that for clause (), as f
2
N = G(f
) N = G(f) = f
1
, it is enough
to check it for x N
N, which is done in , ()
4
+ ()
1
+ ()
6
below (as a
good subset of N does not belong to N). Clause () also follows from , ()
4
+
()
1
+ ()
6
below. As for clause (), if x, y N use G(f
) N = G(f); if
x N & y N
N note that G(f
)(x) = (G(f))(x) N and (G(f
))(y) / N
by clause (); similarly if x N
N & y N; lastly if x, y N
N we use
clause () proved below and N
being transitive (as f
(x), f
(y) are subsets of

N so / M). Now clause () is easy as G
(f) M = f and f being a partial

automorphism of M being from F.
Lastly, we consider clause (), so we let x, y N
. If x N, then f
2
(x) is
necessarily in N too, but N is transitive, hence N
[= y x y N and
N
[= z f
2
(x) z N, so as f
2
N = f
1
we are done. So we can assume
x N
N, so x is a good subset of N, so for some A

0
I, A
0
R
Z
x. We dene
z =:
b N :for some g F and b
x we have
1
f A
0
g and G(g)(b
) = b
.
We need the following, and it suces
assume x N
N and z is dened as in
1
.
Then
()
1
z is a good subset of N with A
1
=: f(A
0
) a support of z
()
2
x = b
N : for some g F and b z we have

f
1
(f(A
0
)) g and G(g)(b) = b
()
3
z does not belong to N
()
4
z = f
2
(x)
()
5
if B is another Z-support of x, then z
= z when z
= b N :
for some g F and a x we have f A g and G(g)(a) = b.
()
6
z N
Proof of ()
1
. We should check clauses (a),(b),(c) of Denition 2.13(1). Now
clause (a) is trivial and clause (c) is dealt with in ()
3
which we prove below
(and we do not use it till then, so no vicious circle). So we concentrate on proving
clause (b). So suppose:
(i) a, b N and
(ii) g
1
F satises A
1
Dom(g
1
) and g
1
A
1
is the identity and
(iii) a Dom[G(g
1
)] and b = G(g
1
)(a).
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

Now we should prove that a z b z. It is enough to prove as applying
it to g
1
1
we get the other implication. As b = G(g
1
)(a) necessarily by clause (i)
of Denition 2.6 for some Z-support B
1
of a we have B
1
Dom(g
1
).
Assume a z then by the denition of z we can nd g F and a
X such that f A
0
g and G(g)(a
) = a. By Denition 2.6(1), clause

(f)() there is B
2
I such that B
2
is a Z-support of a
and B
2
Dom(g).
As k 3 and as we can replace g by any g
such that g (A
0
B
2
)
g
F,without loss of generalityB

1
Rang(g). So, possibly changing B
2
without loss of generality B
1
= g(B
2
) (see clause (b) of Denition 2.6(1)).
Let g
= g
1
g, so A
0
B
2
Dom(g
), g
A
0
= g A
0
= f A
0
.
[Why? As g A
0
= f A
0
, f(A
0
) = A
1
and g
1
A
1
= id
A1
; also B
2

Dom(g) and g(B) is equal to B
1
which is Dom(g
1
)]. Hence a
Dom(G(g
))
and so G(g
)(a
) = (G(g
1
)) (G(g)(a
)) = (G(g
1
)) (a) = b. (See Denition 2.6(1),
clause (j).)
So g
, a
witness b z; so b z has been proved under the assumption a z.

So by symmetry we have proved a z b z.
Proof of ()
2
.
Call the set in the right side x
.
First assume that a x, so a has a Z-support B
1
hence for some g
1
F
we have A
0
B
1
Dom(g
1
) and f A
0
g
1
, hence a Dom(G(g
1
)) and let
b =: (G(g))(a), so b z by the denition of z, also b has Z-support B
2
=: g(B
1
).
Let g
2
= g
1
1
so g
2
F and G(g
2
) = G(g
1
)
1
hence (G(g
2
))(b) = a. Lastly, as
f A
0
g
1
clearly f
1
(f(A
0
)) g
2
. Together g
2
, b witness that a x
. So
we have proved a x a x
.
Second, assume that a x
, so we have witnesses g, b for this, i.e. g

F, b z, f
1
(f(A
0
)) g and (G(g))(b) = a. So we can nd B
1

Dom(g) a Z-support of b, so B
0
= g(B
1
) is a Z-support of a. As b z
there are witnesses for it, that is, there are g
1
F and b
x such that
f A
0
g
1
and (G(g
1
))(b
) = b, hence g
1
1
F, G(g
1
1
) = (G(g
1
))
1
so
without loss of generality B
1
Rang(g
1
) and let B
2
= (g
1
1
)(B
1
), but B
1
is
a Z-support of b hence B
2
is a Z-support of b
. Let g
= g g
1
F. Now
A
0
Dom(g
1
) and g
1
(A
0
) = f(A
0
) Dom(g) hence A
0
Dom(g
), and
as g
1
A
0
= f A
0
, and g f(A
0
) = f
1
f(A
0
) clearly g
A
0
= id
A0
.
Also B
2
Dom(g
1
), B
1
= g(B
2
) Dom(g), hence B
2
Dom(g
) and
(G(g
))(b
) = (G(g g
1
))(b
) = G(g)((G(g
1
))(b
)) = (G(g))(b) = a, but as
g
A
0
= id
A0
and ()
1
we have b
x (G(g
))(b
) x which means
b
x a x. But we have chosen b
x hence a x. So we have proved that

a x
a x. Thus nishing the proof of ()

2
.
Proof of ()
3
. If z N there is A
I such that A
is a Z-support of z.
Now there is f
1
F, f A
0
f
1
such that A
Rang(f
1
). So z
1
=
G(f
1
1
)(z) is well dened and by ()
2
we can check that b N : b z
1
= x;
contradiction to x / N.
Proof of ()
4
.
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

32 SAHARON SHELAH
Should be clear.
Proof of ()
5
.
By 2.14(1).
Proof of ()
6
.
By clause (b) of 2.13(5).
We continue checking the clauses in Denition 2.6.
Clause (d):
Easy as for f, g F we have f g G(f) G(g).
Clause (i):
By the symmetry it is enough to show that G
(f
1
) G
(f)
1
.
So let (G
(f
1
))(x) = z.
Now we know that both G(f) and G(f
1
) maps N to N and N
N to N
N
(that is when dened), so if x N we have z N and we use Z satises
Denition 2.6 (1), clause (i) to get (G(f)
1
)(z) = x as required. So assume
x N
N hence z N
N. By ()
4
+
1
and ()
2
we are done.
Clause (j):
Assume x
0
Dom(G
(f)), hence x
0
has a Z
-support A
0
Dom(f), so by
the denition of f
2
f
1
= f we have A
0
Dom(f
1
) and f
1
(A
0
) Dom(f
2
).
So we have x
0
Dom(G
(f
1
)) and x
1
=: (G
(f
1
))(x
0
) has Z
-support A
1
=:
f
2
(A
0
). Similarly x
2
=: (G
(f
2
))(x
1
) is well dened and has Z
-support A
2
=:
f
1
(A
1
) which is Rang(f
2
f
1
) = Rang(f). Now we would like to show that
x
2
= (G
(f))(x
0
); if x
0
N this should be clear so assume that x
0
N
N
hence x
1
, x
2
N
N. Let x
2
= (G
(f))(x
0
), it is well dened as x
0
has Z
-
support A
0
, A
0
Dom(f) and it suces to prove that x
2
= x
2
. So let y N
and we shall prove that (y x
2
) (y x
2
).
Let B
2
be a Z
-support, equivalently Z-support of y and let y

2
= y. We can
nd f
2
F such that f
2
A
1
= f
2
A
1
and B
2
Rang(f
2
) so as A
1
is a Z
-support of x
1
, clearly (G
(f
2
))(x
1
) = (G
(f
2
))(x
1
) = x
2
. Let B
1
=
((f
2
)
1
)(B
2
). Also we can nd f
1
F such that f
1
A
0
= f
1
A
0
and
B
1
Rang(f
1
) so as A
0
is a Z
-support of x
0
clearly (G
(f
2
))(x
0
) = x
1
and let
B
0
= ((f
1
)
1
)(B
1
). Let y
1
=: (G
((f
2
)
1
))(y
2
), so y
1
N has Z-support B
1
,
and let y
0
= (G
((f
1
)
1
))(y
1
), so y
0
N has Z-support B
0
. As G
(f
2
) maps x
1
to
x
2
and y
1
to y
2
we have by clause (c)() on Z
which we have already proved that

(y
2
x
2
) = (y
1
x
1
). Similarly as G
(f
1
) maps x
0
to x
1
and y
0
to y
1
we have by
clause (c)() that (y
1
x
1
) (y
0
x
0
) so together (y
2
x
2
) (y
0
x
0
). Now
f
= f
2
f
1
F and its domain include A
0
B
0
and G
(f
) maps y
0
to y
2
(by
clause (j) for Z!); also as x
0
is in its domain (as A
0
Dom(f
) is a Z
-support
of x
0
) and as f A
0
= f
A
0
we have (G
(f
))(x
0
) = (G
(f))(x
0
) but the
later is x
2
. So (G
(f
))(x
0
) = x
2
, so as y
0
Dom(G
(f
)) by clause (c) we have

(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

y
0
x
0
(G
(f
))(y
0
)) x
2
but (G
(f
))(y
0
) = y
2
so (y
0
x
0
) (y
2
x
2
). As
earlier we have gotten (y
2
x
2
) (y
0
x
0
) together (y
2
x
2
) (y
2
x
2
) but
y
2
= y so we are done.
Clause (e): See Denition of R
Z
in Denition 2.13(5), clause (d).

Clause (f):
Subclause ():
So assume AR
Z
y, f F and A Dom(f). First, if y N then we use

G
(f) N = G(f) and Z satisfying Denition 2.6(1), clause (f)(). Second, if

y N
N then AR
Z
y means ARy and clearly y is a good subset of N and by

the denition of G
(f)(= G
+
(f)), necessarily y Dom(G
(f)). If in addition
f A = id
A
, we should prove that (G
(f))(y) = y. Now by ()
4
apply to y, A
instead x, A
0
we have
(G
(f))(y) = b N :for some g F and b
y we have
f A g (i.e. id
A
g) and G(g)(b
) = b.
But as ARy we have:
id
A
g & b Dom(G(g)) [b y G(g)(b) y]
which means that (G
(f))(y) = y, as required.
Subclause ()(of (f)):
So assume f F and y Dom(G
(f)) (hence y N
). First, if y N,
recall that G
(f) N = G(f) and use Z satisfying clause (f)() of Denition

2.6(1) and
2
R
(I N) = R.
Second, if y N
N see the denition of G
(f) = G
+
(f) and R
.
Clause (g):
See the choice of R
, R.
Clause (h):
The new case is: assume A Dom(f), A I, X Dom(G
(f)), X N
N.
We have to show AR
Z
X f(A)R
Z
(G
(f))(X); now by by clause (i) it is

enough to prove the implication .
Let A
=: f(A) and X
=: (G
(f))(X), so we know that A, A
I and
X, X
N and A
RX
. We have to show that ARX. If ARX, then we

can nd g F, g A = id
A
, and z
0
Dom(G(g)), z
1
= G(g)(z
0
), such that
z
0
X z
1
/ X. We can nd B
0
I such that B
0
Rz
0
and B
0
Dom(g) and
let B
1
=: g(B
0
). We can nd f
1
, f A f
1
, B
0
B
1
Dom(f
1
), f
1
F and
without loss of generality f
1
= f and Dom(g) = AB
0
. Let g
= fgf
1
, B
0
=
f(B
0
) and B
1
= f(B
1
). Clearly B
0
, B
1
I and f
1
, g f
1
, g
= f g
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

34 SAHARON SHELAH
f
1
F. Also B
0
Dom(f
1
), (f
1
)(B
0
) = B
0
Dom(g), g(B
0
) = B
1
and f(B
1
) = B
1
hence together g
(B
0
) = B
1
. Let z
0
=: (G(f))(z
0
), z
1
=
(G(f))(z
1
), so (G(f
1
))(z
0
) = z
0
, (G(g))(z
0
) = z
1
, (G(f))(z
1
) = z
1
, and as B
0
is Z-support of z
0
, B
0
Dom(g
) necessarily (G(g
))(z
0
) = z
1
.
We can also show that (z
0
X) (z
0
X
) and (z
1
X) (z
1
X
) by
clause (c)() which we already proved so remembering (z
0
X) (z
1
/ X) we
get a contradiction to ARX
which we have assumed.

Clause (k):
Trivial.
2.16
Well we have -successors of candidates (in Denition 1.8, implicitly in Deni-
tion 1.1) and we have successors of m
1
-liftings Z of Y = (M, I, F) where Z has
in it a candidate (N
Z
,

P
Z
).
Of course, we like to connect then, specically show that true (, t)-successor
of Z exists. This is not always true, as Denition 1.8 can lead us to elements of
N
N with no support in I. In Denition 2.13 we restrict ourselves to elements

with support in I, and we can change the denition in 1.1, 1.8 to have it, but it
seems to me not so convincing for a logic. Rather we show that the dichotomy
assumptions (as in 2.1(3), 2.3) help.
When we use L
= L
f.o.
, then dealing with -successor is easier, we have
to look less carefully at cardinalities, still we need a dichotomy property (see
Denition 2.6) in order to get a Z-support to every member.
2.17 Claim. Assume that:
(a) Y = (M, I, F) is a k-system, k 3
(b) is an inductive scheme for L
f.o.
(
+
M
)
(c) for every < m
0
any subformula of
has k free variables; also for

every < m
1
any subformula of
has k free variables

(d) t T
(e) Y is a t-dichotomical k-system
(f) for every < m
0
the formula
has k/2 free variables.

Then
() if Z is an m
1
-lifting of Y then Z has a true (, t)-successor (see De-
nition 2.13(9))
() for every t there is an m
1
-lifting Z
t
of Y such that recalling De-
nition 1.1(3A), we have (N
Z
t
,

P
Z
t
) = (N
t
[M, , t],

P
t
[M, , t])
() if t t
[M, , t] and 1, . . . , 7 or t t
[M, , t] & = 11, . . . , 17

then there is an m
1
-lifting Z
t
of Y such that (N
Z
t
,

P
Z
t
) is equal to
(N
t
[M, ],

P
t
[M, ]) or (N
t
[M, , t],

P
t
[M, , t]),
respectively; similalry for = 21, . . . , 27.
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

Proof. Clearly clause () follows from clause (), just prove by induction on t.
Also clause () follows from () and clause (), so we deal with clause (). Let
Z = (N,

P, G, R).
The main point is to prove
assume < m
0
and for a
g( y)
N and X = X
a
= b N : (N,

P) =
[b, a]. Then ARX for some A I or

b N : (N, c) [=
[b, a
] : a
g( y)
N[ > t(|M|).
Let m = g( y), so 2(m+1) k and a = a
: < m), let A
I be a Z-support
of a
and let

b
be a list of A
without repetitions, and dene a function h
with
domain [m] with h
() =

b
. We dene a 2-place relation E on h
/E
0
I,m
, see
Denition 2.1(3)():
1
if for j = 1, 2, f
j
F and
[m]
Rang(h
()) Dom(f
j
) and h
j
= f
j
h
then h
1
Eh
2
X
G(f1)( a)
= X
G(f2)( a)
(where G(f
j
)(a
: < m)) = G(f

j
)(a
) : < m).
Now
2
E belongs to E
I,m
(),
see Def 2.1(3)().
Why? by traslating this means that:
() if a
1
, a
2
, a
3
, a
4
(G(f))( a) :
<m
A
Dom(f) and f F, and

(G(f))( a
1
a
2
) = a
3
a
4
, then N [= ( a
1
, a
2
) ( a
3
, a
4
)
where ( y
1
, y
2
) =: (x)[(x, y
1
) (x, y
2
)].
Now every subformula of ( y
1
, y
2
) has at most 2m + 1 < k free variables or
is a subformula of (x, y) hence has k free variables, hence by 2.9 we have
N [= ( a
1
, a
2
) i N [= ( a
3
, a
4
), so we are done showing
2
.
Now m k/2 and we are assuming that Y is a t-dichotomical k-system, so
()
1
or ()
2
of Denition 2.1(4) holds. Now ()
2
gives the desirable rst possible
conclusion in and ()
1
gives that [b : N [=
(b, a
) : a
m
N[ > t(|M|),
hence second possible conclusion in .
2.17
2.18 Claim. 1) Assume that
(a) Y is a counting k-system with k 3
(b) is an inductive scheme, in L
f.o.
or in L
f.o. + na
or L
card
or L
card,T
(c) for < m
0
, every subformula of
(y, x) has at most k 1 free variables

and for < m
1
every subformula of
has at most k 1 free variables

(d) t T
(e) Y is a t-dichotomical k-system
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

36 SAHARON SHELAH
(f) for < m
0
the formula

Then
() if Z is an m
1
-lifting, then Z has a true (t, )-successor
() for every t there is an m
1
-lifting Z
t
such that
(N
Z
t
,

P
Z
t
) = (N
t
[M, , t],

P
t
[M, , t]).
Proof. The proof is as in 2.17 , but we know by 2.10 that the partial automor-
phism G(f) preserves also
1
(y, x) and even (
k
y)
1
(y, x) when every subfor-
mula of
1
has < k free variables; (note that only now having 2m+1 < k rather
than 2m+ 1 k seem helpful or repeat the proof of 2.10 as we can use the < k
just for subformulas of ).
2.18
2.19 Remark. Why do we still need in 2.18 the t-dichotomical? Just to guar-
antee that the true (t, )-successor is included in the full one.
2.20 Claim. Assume
(a) Y is a k-system with k 3
(b) is an inductive scheme in L
f.o.
(c) for < m
0
, every subformula of
(y, x) has at most k 1 free variables

and for < m
1
every subformula of

(d) t T
(e) Y is medium t-dichotomical
(f) for < m
0
the formula

Then: the conclusion of 2.18 holds, so if t t
(M, , t), then for some m
1
-
lifting Z
t
we have (N
Z
t
,

P
Z
t
) = (N
t
[M, , t],

P
t
[M, , t]).
Proof. Like the proof of 2.17, 2.18.
2.21 Denition. 1) We say that H is a witness to the k-equivalence of Y
1
and
Y
2
if
(a) for = 1, 2 we have Y
= (M
, I
, F
) is a k-system
(b) H is a family of partial isomorphisms from M
1
into M
2
(c) for every g H , we have Dom(g) I
1
, Rang(g) I
2
(d) if g H and f
1
F
1
then g f
1
H
(e) if g H and f
2
F
2
then f
2
g H
(f) if g H and A I
1
[k 1] and B I
1
, then for some g
1
H we have
g A g
1
and B Dom(g
1
)
(g) if g H and A I
2
[k 1] and B I
2
, then for some g
1
H we have
g
1
A g
1
1
and B Rang(g
1
).
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

2) We say that H is a witness to the dichotomical (k, r)-equivalence of (Y
1
, t
1
)
and (Y
2
, t
2
) if
(i) Y
is a (t
, k, r)-dichotomical k-system for = 1, 2

(ii) H is a witness to the k-equivalence of Y
1
and Y
2
(iii) each g H preserved the possibility chosen in the denition of (t, k, r)-
dichotomical.
If we omit r, we mean s = [k/2].
3) We say that H is a witness to the counting k-equivalence of Y
1
and Y
2
if
(i) Y
is a counting (t, k, r)-system for = 1, 2

(ii) H is a witness to the k-equivalence of Y
1
and Y
2
(iii) each g H preserve the cardinalities involved in the denition of count-
ing (t, k, r)-system.
4) Similarly with medium dichotomy.
2.22 Main Conclusion: Assume
(a) Y
= (M
, I
, F
) is a t
-dichotomical k-system, and (M
) = for
= 1, 2
(b) H is a witness to the k-equivalence of Y
1
and Y
2
(c) L
f.o.
(
+
), i.e. a rst order sentence in the vocabulary
+
= ,
(d) is an inductive scheme for L
f.o.
(e) every subformula of and of
and of
has at most < k free variables

(f) t
1
, t
2
T
(g) every formula
has k/2 free variables and k 3 of course.

Then
() let
4
2, 3, 4, 5; the truth value of
,,t1
in M
1
and
,,t2
in M
2
under [=
are equal except possibly when: for some 1, 2 we have

the truth value of
,,t
in M
is undened whereas that of

,,t
3
in
M
3
is well dened and t
[M
, , t
] < t
[M
3
, , t
3
].
() For any t, if N
= N
t
[M
, , t
] is well dened for = 1, 2, then for every

sentence L
f.o.
(
+
) such that every subformula has at most k free
variables, we have N
1
[= N
2
[=
() if 2, 3, 4, 5 and
=
,,t
L
T
(L
f.o.
()) is -good for = 1, 2:
then M
1
[=

1
i M
2
[=
() for any t, if N
= N
t
[M
, , t
] is well dened for = 1, 2 and =

(x
1
, . . . , x
n
) L
f.o.
(
+
) is a formula such that every subformula has at
most k free variables then:
let a
1
, . . . , a
m
N
1
and g H , then
N
1
[=
[a
1
, . . . , a
m
] i N
2
[=
[(G(f))(a
1
), . . . , (G(f))(a
m
)].
4
here and below, for {6, 7} the conclusion is similar but expressed more cumbersomely
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

38 SAHARON SHELAH
Proof. First we can prove clause () by induction on the quantier depth of ,
as in 2.9.
Second, note that clause () follows from clause ().
Third, note that clause () follows from clause ()
and the denition of satisfaction 1.1.
Lastly, concerning clause () follows the denition of L-good (and clause
()).
2.22
2.23 Conclusion. Assume
(a) Y
= (M
, I
, F
) is a counting k-system, (M
) = for = 1, 2
(b) H is a witness for the counting k-equivalence of Y
1
and Y
2
(c) L
card,T
= L
card,T
(
+
) or L
card
(
+
)
(for < m
0
) and of
(for < m
1
)
(f) t T
(g) if < m
0
then

Then
() if =
,,t
and 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 22 then M
1
[=
M
2
[=
and
M
1
[=
M
2
[=

() For any t if N
= N
t
[M
, , t] is well dened for = 1, 2, then for every

sentence L
f.o.
(
+
) such that every subformula has at most k 1 free
variables, we have N
1
[=
N
2
[=

() for any t, if N
= N
t
[M
, , t] are well dened (for = 1, 2), and =

(x
1
, . . . , x
n
) L
f.o.
(
+
) is a formula such that every subformula has at
most k 1 free variables we have:
if a
1
, . . . , a
m
N
1
and g H , each (G(f))(a
) is well dened then

N
1
[=
[a
1
, . . . , a
m
] i N
2
[=
[(G(f))(a
1
), . . . , (G(f))(a
m
)].
Proof. Straight.
Now
2.24 Conclusion. Assume
(a) Y
= (M
, I
, F
) is a medium t-dichotomical k-system, (M
) = for
= 1, 2
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

(b) H is a witness for the medium t-dichotomical k-equivalence of Y
1
and
Y
2
(c) L
f.o.
(
+
)
= L
f.o.
(
+
)
(for < m
0
) and of
(for < m
1
)
(f) t
T
(g) if < m
0
then

Then
() if =
,,t
and 1, . . . , 5, 6, 7, 11, 22 then M
1
[=
M
2
[=
and
M
1
[=
M
2
[=

() For any t if N
= N
t
[M
, , t
] is well dened for = 1, 2, then for

every sentence L
f.o.
(
+
) such that every subformula has at most
(k 1)-free variables, we have N
1
[= N
2
[= .
2.25 Discussion We consider now some variants.
1) We have to consider the stopping times. If L
= L
car,T
or L
card,T
this
is natural, (and they are stronger logics than the earlier variants). If we still
would like to analyze in particular for the others, we should be careful how
much information can be gotten by the time.
2) We can modify such that in N
t+1
we can reconstruct the sequence (N
,

P
) :
s) (see 4).
3) We can change our presentation: rst proving the equivalences for N
Z[Y
,t
]
for
= 1, 2, (see Denition 5.5) and then proving that (N
t
[M
Y
, , t],

P
t
[M, , t])
is interpretable in N
Z
full
Y
,t
uniformly.
3 The canonical example
We apply 2 to the canonical example: random enough graph.
3.1 Denition. Let be a xed (nite) vocabulary consisting of predicates
only. We say M is a (s, k)-random -model if every quantier free 1-type over
A M, [A[ < k (not explicitly inconsistent) is realized in M by at least s(|M|)
elements. If s is constantly we may write k-random.
Remark. We can restrict the set of allowable quantier free types if it is nice
enough e.g. R two-place symmetric irreexive. More generally see e.g. [BlSh
528].
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

40 SAHARON SHELAH
3.2 Denition. T
pol
is T
Q
, where for a set Q R containing an unbounded
set of reals > 0 let T
Q
be f
q
: q Q, q > 0 where f
q
: is f
q
(n) = n
q
, or
more exactly, n
q
the least integer n
q
.
3.3 Claim. Assume
(a) q
, k are integers > 1 and k
= q
k
(b) s k, s > 0 integer
(c) M
is (s
, 3k
)-random -model for = 1, 2

(d) t
(|M
|) < (s
(|M
|))
q
+1
/(q
+ 1)! and s
(|M
|) > q
(e) is an inductive scheme for L

f.o.
(
[2]
), a sentence in L
f.o.
(
[2]
) and
each subformula of any formula among
( < m
0
),
m
(m < m
1
) and
has at most s free variables
Then
if 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and
,,t
is -good (at least for M
that is, the truth

values below are dened) for = 1, 2, then M
1
[=

,,t1
M
2
[=
,,t2
.
3.4 Remark. 1) Compare clause () with 2.21(2).
2) Why in 3.3 do we use clause (d)? As there we use N
t
[M
, , t
] so for some t we
may add the sets in P
t
[M
1
, , t
1
] to N
t
[M
1
, , t
1
] (in dening N
t+1
[M
1
, , t
1
]
but do not add P
[M
2
, , t
2
] to N
t
[M
2
, , t
2
] in dening N
t+1
[M
2
, , t
2
].
3) We concentrate on -good sentences (or local versions) in order to have neat
results. Otherwise we have really to be more careful, e.g. about the cardinalities
of the N
t
[M, , t]s. This is very reasonable for counting logic.
4) We have ignored in this claim, and others in this section, the cases 10 < .
We can deal with them, if we note the following required changes. We have to
note that the function t is split to two functions; one, t
sp
, for telling us how
to increase N
t
to N
t+1
, that is which additional families of subsets of N
t
are
allowed to be added, and for this function the parallel of clause (d) should be
demanded. Secondly we have to consider what families are added in each stage
(so for the counting and the medium analog our situation may be better).
Proof. We let I
= A M
: [A[ q
and
F
= f :f is a partial automorphism of M
and Dom(f) has q
k elements
()
1
Y
= (M
, I
, F
) is a k-system
[why? the least obvious clause in Denition 2.1(1) is clause (D) which
holds by Denition 3.1 above.]
()
2
Y
= (M
, I
, F
) is (t
, s)-dichotomical, (see Def 2.1(4)).

(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

Why? The proof of ()
2
takes most of the proof. Let m N be 1 m s and
let E be an equivalence relation from E
0
I,m
() so it is an equivalence relation on
h
/E
0
Y
,m
where h
: [m] Seq
I
, E satisfying () of clause () of Denition

2.1(3). For h h
/E
0
Y
,m
let

b
h
be the concatenation of h(1), h(2), . . . , h(m).
Without loss of generality h
is one-to-one and even

b
h
is with no repetitions.
Let t
= g(
b
h
) so t
k k
. By clause (c) and the denition of F there

is a quantier free formula ( x, y) L() with g( x) = g( y) = t
such that
h
1
Eh
2
i M
[= [
b
h1
,
b
h2
].
Clearly without loss of generality( x, y) tells us that the quantier free type of
x and of y (same as that of

b
h
= h
(1)h
(2) . . . h
(m)), call it p( x) and let

p[M] = a
t
M : a realizes p( x), so we can look at E restricted to this set.

Can there be a
0
, a
1

t
(M
) realizing the same quantier free type p( x) (over

the empty set) which are not E-equivalent? If not, then [p[M
]/E[ = 1 and we
are done so assume there are. We can nd a
2

t
(M
) realizing the same quanti-

er free type p( x) and disjoint to a
0
a
1
(use M
is (s
, 3k
)-random), so a
2
, a
j
are not E-equivalent for some j 0, 1; so without loss of generality a
0
, a
1
are
disjoint. Now we ask are there disjoint

b
0
,
b
1

t
(M
) realizing p( x) which are

E-equivalent? If yes, we easily get a contradiction to E an equivalence rela-
tion (by nding

b
, a sequence from M
realizing p( x) such that both

b
a
0
,
a
1
realize the same quantier free type as

b
0
b
1
; contradiction). So: no disjoint
b
0
,
b
1
p[M
] are E-equivalent. Next we claim that
for some u [0, t
) and subgroup g of the group of permutations of u,

moreover of g
= g
u
= Per(u): if a
t
(M
) realizes p( x) then
a
(i)
: i u) realizes the same quantier type as a u, we have:
E a
t
(M
) : a realizes p( x) = E
g
a
t
(M
) : a realizes p( x)
where for any subgroup g
of g
, E
g
= E
t
,M
g
is dened by: for a,
b
t
(M
), aE
g
b ( g)(a
(t)
: t u) = b
r
: t u)) (this is an
equivalence relation).
[Why? It is enough to show: assume a,
b, c
t
(M
) realize p( x) and a,
b are
E-equivalent, r
< t
and a
r
/ b
t
: t < t
then c/E does not depend on c

r
(i.e. if c
(M
) realizes p( x) and r
< t
& r
,= r
c
r
= c
r
then cE c
.)
Toward this end, let be the partial function from [0, t
) to [0, t
) such that
(r
1
) = r
2
a
r1
= b
r2
. Clearly is one to one and r
/ Dom().
We choose by induction on j
t! a sequence a
j
p[M
] such that a
0
= a, a
1
=
b, the quantier free type of a

j
a
j+1
in M
is the same as the quantier free

type of a
0
a
1
= a
b in M
and (r)[a
j+1
r
/ a
j
r
: r < t
a
j
r
/ a
r
: r < t
].
Clearly j < t
! a
j
E a
j+1
, hence j t
! aE a
j
. Let
j
be the partial function
from [0, t
) to [0, t
) dened by
j
(r
1
) = r
2
a
r1
= a
j
r2
. Clearly
0
= id
[0,t
)
and
j+1
=
j
. Clearly
t
!
is the identity function on some subset of [0, t
)
and a
t
!
r2
= a
0
r1
(= a
r1
) r
1
= r
2
&
t
!
(r
1
) = r
1
. Now given c
as above we
can nd

b p[M
1
] such that c
b and c
b realizes the same quantier free type

as a
0
a
t!
, hence cE
b & c
b hence cE c
. Easily we are done proving

p[M
]/E has cardinality (s
(|M
|)
|u|
([g
[/[g[).
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

42 SAHARON SHELAH
[Why? Clear by and Denition 3.1.]
This number is (s
(|M
|)
|u|
/[u[!. Hence if [u[ > q
as s
(|M|) > k
= q
k
[u[ > q
(see assumption (d)) the number is (s
(|M
|))
q
+1
/(q
+ 1)! which
by assumption (d) is > t
(|M
|) and we get one of the allowable answers in

Denition 2.1(4). So we can assume that [u[ q
and this gives the second

possibility so we have nished proving ()
2
.
Let
H =
f :f is a partial embedding of M
1
into M
2
with Dom(f) having q
k members
.
()
3
H is a (k, s)-witness to the equivalence of (Y
1
, t
1
) and (Y
2
, t
2
)
[why? straight.]
So we can apply 2.22 and get the desired result.
3.3
Lastly, we can conclude the answer for the question in [BGSh 533]:
3.5 Theorem. 1) Assume 2, 3, 4, 5, = R, R binary symmetric ir-
reexive, p (0, 1) and T are given and each t T is bounded by a poly-
nomial. The logic L
T
(L
f.o.
)() satises the undecided 0-1 law for nite ran-
dom enough model, that is graph with a x probability p (0, 1) which means;
if
1
=
,,t
L
T
(L
f.o.
)() and
0
=
,,t
then MinProb(M
n
[=
0
),
Prob(M
n
[=
1
) : n < ) converge to zero
5
, where M
n
is G(n, p), the random
graph on n with edge probability p.
2) Moreover also the undecided
+
0 1-law hold; which means:
if
1
=
,,t
L
T
(L
f.o.
)() and
0
=
,,t
then for some 0, 1 the
sequence Prob(M
n
[=
) : n < ) converges to zero,

3) Similarly for any xed (nite) vocabulary consisting of predicates only p =
p
R
: R ), p
R
(0, 1)
R
.
Proof. 1) Let
0
,
1
, , , t be as above and > 0. Let s be large enough such
that assumption (e) of 3.3 holds, choose k = 3s so assumption (b) there holds.
We choose s
as s(n) = (n k) (Minp
k
/2, (1 p)
k
/2) and let q
be integer
> 0 such that for n large enough s(n)
q
+1
t(n)(q
+ 1)! and let k
= q
k.
Let n be large enough and M
1
n
, M
2
n
be random enough (for G(n, p)). We would
like to apply Claim 3.3 with M
1
= M
1
n
, M
2
= M
2
n
and , as in the denition
of
0
,
1
and t
1
= t
2
= t and s
1
= s
2
large enough. This is straight, noting that
the case of the truth value of
1
in M
n
is undened, i.e. we run out of resources,
just help us.
2) Similarly, this time for n is large enough, n
1
n, n
2
n and M
1
n1
, M
2
n2
are
random enough (for G(n
1
, p), G(n
2
, p) respectively).
3) Similarly
3.5
5
we do not ask that for some < 2 the probability for the satisfaction of
converges to
1, as the decision when to stop may be complicated. If we e.g. use an inside clock to tell us
when to stop, this disappears
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

3.6 Discussion: 1) It is reasonable to consider the undecided law if we know
that the (N
t
[M
, , t
],

P
t
[M
, , t
]) for = 1, 2 are quite equivalent for every

t, when |M
1
| = |M
2
|, but we do not have information otherwise.
2) We might prefer to have the usual zero-one law. There are some avenues
to get (at some price), see also 3.7,3.8 below; we may consider all sentences,
2, . . . , 5 and the usual 0-1 law.
We have to try to use t which tries to diagonalize the right sets. That is, using 3.3
for t
1
= t
2
= t, we can get strong enough equivalence of N
+
t
[M
1
, ], N
+
t
[M
2
, ],
which is ne if |M
1
| = |M
2
| < |M
2
|, so it is enough if N
+
t1
[M
, ], N
+
t2
[M
, ]
with t
1
= t
[M
1
, , t
1
], t
2
= t
[M
2
, , t
1
] and choose t such that they are quite
equivalent. As in N
+
t
[M
, ] we can dene N 0, . . . , t 1, this requires

t(|M
|) to be quite large compare to |M
|. So we can get our desired 0-1 laws

and all possible s, but for a logic remote from our intention.
On the other hand, we may restrict our family of sentences (here)
3.7 Theorem. If in Theorem 3.5 we restrict ourselves to the good sentences,
i.e. the logic is L
T
(L
f.o.
)
good
and 2, 3, 4, 5, then the usual 0-1 law holds.
Proof. Similar.
3.7
3.8 Theorem. 1) Assume 2, 3, 4, 5, = R, R binary symmetric ir-
reexive predicate, p (0, 1)
R
and T are given and for each t T for some
integer r and (0, 1/2)
R
we have 0 = limt(n)/n
r+1
: n N) and
= limt(n)/n
r+
: n N). Then the logic L
T
(L
f.o.
)() satises the re-
sults in 3.3 - 3.7.
2) Similarly for any xed (nite vocabulary consisting of predicates only,
p = p
R
: R ), p
R
(0, 1)
R
.
Proof. 1) Suppose that M
[=
,,t
and this because in stage t
the run stop,

i.e., in a good way; and assume further that M is random enough graph (for
our given and ). We can nd E
for <
such that E
is a quantier
free formula with 2m
variable dening an equivalence relation on p
(M) for
every random enough graph M, p
( x) a complete quantier free type with m
variables said to be pairwise distinct. We can nd non negative integers r

t
for
<
, t t
such that: if M is random enough graph and N

t
= N
t
[M, ]
then |N
t
| =
<
r
t
[(
m
M)/E
[. Now the expected value of [(

m
M)/E
[ is of
the form p
binomial(n, m
) for some constant p
. The distribution is similar

enough to normal (see [Sh 550]) to ensure that the run on M
n
will not stop for
t t
for over using resources.

2) Similarly
3.8
What we have done for random graphs we can do to unary predicate. The
point is to replace claim 3.3 by a parallel one (the rest will follow).
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

44 SAHARON SHELAH
3.9 Claim. 1) Assume that the vocabulary is P. P a unary predicate and
(a) q
+
, q
, k are integers > 1 and h is a decreasing (not necessarily strictly)

function from 0, 1, . . . , q
+
to 0, 1, . . . , q
,
(b) s is an integer k but > 0
(c) M
= ([M
[, P
M
) for = 1, 2
(d) if q q
+
then
(i) t
(|M
|) is at least [P
M
[
q
[(M
P
M
)[
h(q)
(ii) t
(|M
|) is strictly smaller than

binomial([P
M
[, q + 1) binomial([M
P
M
[, h(q)),
(iii) t
(|M
|) is strictly smaller than

binomial([P
M
[, q) binomial([M
P
M
[, h(q) + 1).
2) The parallel of 3.5- 3.8 holds
Proof. Similar but letting I
= A M
: for some q q
+
we have [AP
M
[ q
and [A P
M
[ h(q).
3.9
3.10 Denition. 1) We say M is a -model with k-elimination of quantiers
if for every subsets A
0
, A
1
of M, [A
0
[ = [A
1
[ < k and an isomorphism f from
M A
0
onto M A
1
and a
0
M there is a
1
M such that f = f a
0
, a
1
)
is an isomorphism from M (A
0
a
0
) onto M (A
1
a
1
).
2) We replace quantiers by quantier and counting if we add: and the
two sets a
0
M : a
0
, a
0
realize the same quantier free type over A
0
and
a
1
M : a
1
, a
1
realize the same quantier free type over A
1
has the same
number of elements (we can then get it to equivalence relations on m-tuples).
3.11 Claim. 1) Assume (a), (b), (e) in 3.3 replacing rst order by counting
logic and
(c)
() M
are -models which has k-elimination of quantier for = 1, 2

() if ( x, y) is a quantier free formula dening an equivalence
relation and g( x) = g( y) k
then the number of classes is

> t
(M
) for = 1, 2 or for some u [0, g( x)) with q
elements, some
( x u, y u) denes the equivalence relation

in M
1
and in M
2
() if 2r +s k and for = 1, 2, a

s
(M
), x
j
= x
j
i
: i < s),
for j = 1, 2,
( x
1
, x
2
, , a
) is rst order and denes in M

0
an equivalence relation E
and
1
=
2
and
the quantier free types of a
1
in M
1
and a
2
in M
2
are equal,
then [
r
(M
1
)/E
[, [
r
(M
2
)/E
2
[ are equal or
[
r
(M
1
)/E
1
[ > t
1
(|M
1
|) & [
r
(M
2
)/E
2
[ > t
2
(|M
2
|).
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

Then
if 1 7, 11 17, 21 27 then M
1
[=

,,t1
M
2
[=

,,t2
.
2) We have a theorem like 3.3, 3.8 (for as above) using 3.11(1) instead of 3.3.
3) We can in parts (1), (2) and in 3.3, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8 replace L
f.o.
by L
f.o. + na
.
Proof. Straight.
3.12 Claim. 1) Choiceless polynomial time does not capture counting logic.
2) Similarly for the pair (L
T
(L
f.o.
), L
T
(L
f.o.+na
)), the pair (L
T
(L
f.o.+na
),
L
T
(L
card
)) and the pair (L
T
(L
f.o.+na
), L
T
(L
card,T
)).
3) We can apply 3.11 to show that the pairs (M
1
n
, M
2
n
) of models from [GuSh
526] are not distinguished by our logics (for a sentence for n large enough.
Proof. 1) Use 2.22, 3.9 on the question: [P
M
[ |M|/2 with = P.
2),3) Also easy
3.12
3.13 Remark. : Y. Gurevich asks for 0-1 laws, as in 3.3 - 3.8, for the general
framework of 2. The answer is quite straight by 3.14, 3.15, when we use constant
I.
3.14 Denition. Let be a xed vocabulary consisting of predicates only. We
say M is (s, k)-random model if: every quantier free 1-type over A M, [A[ < k
(not explicitly inconsistent) is realized in M by at least s(|M|) elements.
We are, of course, using
3.15 Claim. Let k, s > 0 be integers, let = R, R symmetric irreexive
and p (0,
1
2
]
R
. The probability that: for M
n
a G(n; p) random graph (so
set of vertices in [n]), (M
n
, I) is not (s, k)-random is
<k
binomial(n, )
Prob(ipping n times a coin with probability p/2
for a head we get < s

heads).
4 Relating the definitions in [BGSh 533] to the one here
4.1 Discussion If we just like to replace the creation of N
t
[M, , t] by ASM,
we can note that we can straightforwardly code the actions of the ASM by a
monotone ; the waste is small except that we are not allowed to omit old
elements so for ne measurements this make a dierence. But we can just
replace N
t
[M, , t] by a situation of the ASM with no lose and no real dierence
in the proofs. Still, the reader may instead of just accepting or understanding
this observation choose to read the formal translation below. Though this seem
trivial, writing the details of a translation is tedious.
4.2 Discussion: How do we relate between the denitions above and [BGSh
533]?
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

46 SAHARON SHELAH
(i) an innite structure I there corresponds to a -model here
(ii) a state A there corresponds to a model of the form N = N
t
[M, ] in 1.3
and (N,

P) in 1.8
(iii) dynamic function there corresponds to P
t,
here
(iv) an object x is active at A in 5.1 there, corresponds to x N
(v) a program 5.7 there corresponds to an in 1.1(2) here (mainly the rst
order formulas used);
(vi) the counting function in 5.5 there corresponds to the cardinality quanti-
er (1.1(6)) here
(vii) the polynomial functions p, q in 5.1 there corresponds to t
sp
, t
tm
T
here
(viii) the logic there corresponds to L
T
(L
), L
L
f.o.
, L
r.o.+ na
, L
card
here.
If we insist on P
being individual constants this still can be done with a price.

The P
t+1,
can in the usual set theory manner be actually 7-place function from
N
t
to N
t
or 7-place relation on N
t
, or be the universe of N
t
. Understanding
this to interpret the successor step there to here we need that all parts of the
program are expressible in L
f.o.
(or L
card
). For the other direction we need to
show f.o. operations can be expressed by the programs of ASM there (see 6.1
there), no problem (and not needed to show our results solved problems there).
4.3 Lemma. 1) Let be a program concerned with -models (in [BGSh 533,
4.7]s sense). We can nd a natural number r
1 and such that:
1
(a) is an inductive scheme in L
f.o.
with
(b) for every integer polynomials p(n), q(n) and -model M such that p(n)
2, q(n) > n + 2 we have M [=
,p
(n),q
(n)
(in the sense of Denition
1.3) i M [= (in the sense of [BGSh 533]) when
() p
(n) = 3 +r
p(n), q
(n) = 2 + 2q(n).
2) If is as in [BGSh 533, 11], that is with being able to compute the cardinality
of M (= set of atoms) then a similar result holds but is in L
f.o. + na
.
3) If is as in [BGSh 533] for cardinality logic (see 4 there), then a similar
result holds but is in L
card
and spaces do not use
,3+n+r
(p),2+n+2q(n)
.
4) We can replace p, q by arbitrary function from T and get similar results.
Before proving 4.3:
4.4 Observation. 1) If we identify truth, false with the sets , [M[ and m
1
is as
in 1.1, then the state (for , i.e. there, etc.) of [BGSh 533] are the same
(M, m
1
)
+
-candidate here when we identify a state there with its set of active
elements (O.K., as they carry the same information). Sometimes we use any
transition set V
(M) containing the active member.

The main point is
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

4.5 Claim. Let be a program concerned with -models and the states corre-
spond to (M, m
1
)-candidates.
1) For every term for some natural number r() (actually at most its depth)
and pure inductive scheme which is monotonic and
0
= [y = x
0
] we have:
1
if (N
i
,

P
i
) is a (M, m
1
)-candidate for i = 0, . . . , r() and (N
i+1
,

P
i+1
) is
the (M, )-successor of (N
i
,

P
i
) and

is a variable assignment of x, a
sequence listing the free variables of into N
, then the interpretation

from under

in N
i
satises d =: val
Ni,
() N
r()
.
2) Moreover in (1) we can nd also formulas
,r
(x, y
, z) : < m
1
, r < r())
such that
2
in
1
above we can add:
if r r() and let N
r
= N
0
(TC(d)N
r
) where TC is transitive closure,
then N
r+1
= N
r
a : for some

b
g( y)
N
r
, (N
r
, P) [=
,2
(a,
b,

)
(identifying

with a sequence of members of N
0
).
3) For every rule R (see [BGSh 533, 4.5]) there are r(R) N and an inductive
scheme in L
f.o.
such that (P
0
is zero place relation):
3
if (N
i
,

P
i
) is a (M, )-candidate for i r(R) and (N
i+1
,

P
i+1
) is the
-successor of (N
i
,

P
i
) for i < r(R) and P
i,0
= truth, then i < r(R)
N
i
N
i+1
, the stationary (N
i(R)
,

P
i(R)
) is the R-udpate of (N
0
,

P
0
),
P
i,r(R)
= truth where

P
=

P [1, m
1
).
4) In (3) we can even have
4
N
r
= N
0
x : x active in N
r
.
Proof. 1) By induction on the term.
2) As N
r+2
can be (uniformly) interpreted in N
r
.
3) By induction on the rule R.
4.5
Proof of 4.3.
We describe what is an -successor rather than let r
= r(R
) +1, R
is the
rule which is. Then say formally what is .
Now the predicates (and function symbols) P
k
: k < m
0
serve some pur-
poses:
kind 1: The dynamic predicate and function symbols of , say P
k
for k w(1),
say P
k(1,0)
will denote , P
k(1,a)
will denote the set of atoms.
For notation simplicity
kind 2: P
k(2,0)
unary predicate will serve to denote the set of active elements;
and
kind 3: P
k(3,1)
, . . . , P
k(3,r
)
will be zero place relations, they will denote the time
modulo r
, say for t = 0 they are all false; for t = 1 we get true, true false ...,
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

48 SAHARON SHELAH
for t = 2 we get true, true, true, false... (without loss of generalityr
3 for
t = 3 + r
s + r, r < r
we have P
k(3,r
)
r
= r). The reason is that in our

translation one step for will be translated to r
steps in the construction of the

N
t
s and the translation begins only with t = 1. Now we can describe almost a
translation.
Now is such that:
(a) N
1
[M, ] is M M, ,
N
2
[M, ] is M
1
[M, ] 1, recall 1 =
N
3
[N, ] is N
1
[M, ] 1, 2,
(b) if t
= 3 + r
s, then P
t
,k(3,0)
= true, P
t
,k(3,1)
, . . . , c
t
,k(3,r
)
are false
and we take care that P
t
+r,k(3,r
)
= r
= 0 mod r
for r
and
(N
t
+2
,

P
t
+r
) : i r(R
)) is as in 4.4(3)+(4). Moreover

P
t
+r
=
P
t
+r(R
)
and N
t
+r
is the set of active members of (N
t
+r(R
)
,

P
t
+r(R
)
.
Well, as in =
,1+r
p,q
and = 1, the stopping decision for time will be the
same, but we still have to deal with the space (up to now using r + r
p would
be O.K.). However, between t
and t
+r
we have to preserve N
t
till creating
N
t
+r(R
)
and only then can we omit the elements of N
t
no longer necessary.
So we will have
kind 4: individual constants P
k(4,1)
, P
k(4,2)
(c) if t
= 3 + r
s then: P
t,k(4,0)
< P
t,k(4,1)
< P
t,k(4.2)
are the three last
ordinals, P
t,k(4,0)
is an active ordinal but not P
t,k(4,1)
, P
t,k(4,2)
and x
N
t
is active i P
t,k(4,2)
x N
t
.
So |N
t
| = 2 + 2|x N
t
: x active|.
Now starting with N
t
in deciding N
t
we omit and non-active elements except
the two last ordinals and then do as earlier by 4.4(3)+(4) for r = 1, . . . , r(R
)
taking care to have the right natural numbers.
So dening N
i
+2
, we take care of the doubling.
2), 3), 4) Similarly.
4.3
Less critical is the inverse relation
4.6 Lemma. 1) Let be an inductive scheme for L
f.o.
, = 7, =
,
L
f.o.
().
Then we can nd r
1 and a program for the same vocabulary as in [BGSh

533, 4] such that for every integer polynomials p(n), q(n) and -model M such
that:
M [=

,,p,q
(see Denition 1.3) i M [= where = (, p
, q
)
and [= is as in [BGSh 533, 4] where: p
(n) = r
, p
(n) +r
, q
(n) =
q(n) + 2
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

4.7 Lemma. 1) If is as in [BGSh 533, 11], that is with being able to compute
the cardinality of M (= set of atoms) then a similar result holds but is in
L
f.o. + na
.
2) If is as in [BGSh 533] for cardinality logic (see 4 there), then a similar
result holds but is in L
card
and spaces do not use
,3+n+r
(p),2+n+2q(n)
.
3) We can replace p, q by arbitrary function from T and get similar results.
Proof. 1) We ignore too short runs for simplicity. The q(n) = q(n) + 2 comes
from [BGSh 533] starting with two extra elements so during the computation we
preserve having two entry elements (except when we notice we are to stop-see
below).
Now every step of the computation for is translated to r
step during the

computation of the N
t
[M, ]s.
What do we do in those r
steps? First we compute the relations on N

t
denable
rst order subformulas of the
. We also translate to be equivalent to what

should be in the next state and then add the new elements (so N
t+1
[= was
computed in N
t
, as in 4.4).
2), 3), 4) Similar to part (1) + 4.3.
[How do we compute the rst order formulas? Where P
( x)
code ( x), we of
course represent all subformulas and do it inductively.]
Atomic are given
negation is by if P
( x)
( a) = truth then P
( x)
( a) = false, else P
( a) is truth
(and appropriate for all also adding dummy variables is possible by for all.
For conjunctions ( x) =
1
( x) use if P
( x)
( a) = truth then P
( x)
( a) = P
2( x)
( a)
else P
( x)
( a) = false.
For existential quantier, ( x) = (y)(y, x) use
if P
( x,bary)
( a) = truth then P
( x)
( a) = truth else do nothing.
4.3
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

50 SAHARON SHELAH
5 Closing comments
We may consider a context is (K, I) such that logics related to our proof in
2. The rst version in 5.1(3) changes the satisfaction the second (in 5.1(4),(4A))
changes also the syntax.
5.1 Denition. 1) A context is a pair (K, I) such that
(a) K be a class of models with vocabulary (= the set of predicates)
(b) I is a function
(c) Dom(I) = K
(d) I(M) is a family of subsets of M, whose union is [M[, and closed under
subsets.
1A) We call (K, I) invariant if
(e) I is preserved by isomorphisms, i.e. if f is an isomorphism fromM
1
K
onto M
2
K and A I(M
1
) then f(A) I(M
2
).
1B) We say f is an I-isomorphism from M
1
K onto M
2
K if f is an
isomorphism from M
1
onto M
2
such that I(M
2
) = f(A) : A I(M
1
).
Recall that I(M
2
)[k] =
<k
A
: A
I[M].
2) In 1) let
Seq
I
(M) = a : a a sequence of members of M of length , Rang( a) I(M).
3) Let L = L
f.o.
or L = L
,
; recalling that the logic L
,,
for , cardinals,
is dened like rst order logic but we allow conjunctions of
i<
, for < and
existential quantier ( x) with x a sequence of variables of length < , and
the depth of the formulas is < . We dene L
[k]
= L
[k]
,,
, logics with the
same syntax but with a dierence in the denition of the satisfaction relation,
M [=
[k]
I
[ a] or (M, I) [=
[k]
( a) is dened inductively on as usual, except
that
() we demand Rang( a) I[M][k] (otherwise not dened) , that is
M [=
[k]
I
( x)( x,
b) i
Rang(
b) I[M][k 1] and for some a

g( x)
M with
Rang( a) I(M) we have M [=
k
I
[ a,
b].
Let L
,,;card
, L
,;+na
, L
,;card,T
be dened similarly (so
M [=
[k]
I

!
x( x,
b) i (
b
g(
b))
M), Rang(
b) I(M)[k 1]
and = [a : a I and M [=
[k]
I
[a,
b][.
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

Omitting means some .
If , , are omitted they are
0
(so L
,,
is rst order).
4) We dene a logic L
[k]
,,
. Let us dene the formulas in L
[k]
,,
by induction
on , each formula has the form ( x
0
, x
1
, . . . , x
k11
), k
1
k, where the x
s
are pairwise disjoint sequences of variables of length < (so if =
0
, nite
sequences) and every variable appearing freely in appear in one of those se-
quences (so any formula is coupled with such x
0
, . . . , x
k11
), probably some not
actually appearing).
= 0: quantier free formula; i.e. any Boolean combination of atomic ones
(with the right variables, of course).
+ 1: non-limit ( x
0
, . . . , x
k11
) is fromL
[k]
,,
or is a Boolean combination of
formulas of the form ( y)( x
i0
, . . . , x
i
k
2
2
, y) where k
2
k, ( x
i0
, . . . , x
i
k
2
2
, y)
L
[k]
,,
.
limit: L
[k]
,,
=
<
L
[k]
,,
.
+ 1, limit: L
[k]
,,+1
is the set of L
[k]
,,
or a Boolean combinations of
members of L
,,
of the right variables.
Let L
k
,
=
L
[k]
,,
and L
[]
,,
=
k<
L
[k]
,,
and L
[k]
= L
[k]
0,0,
and
L
[k]
<
=
<
L
[k]
and L
[k]
= L
[k]
0,0
and L
[]
=
k<
L
k
.
4A) We now dene a satisfaction relation M [= ( a
0
, . . . , a
k11
) where k
1
k
(depending on I).
I.e. we dene by induction on , for ( x
0
, . . . , x
k11
) L
[k]
,,
, a
Seq
g( x
)
I
(M),
when does M [= [ a
0
, . . . , a
k11
] and when M [= [ a
0
, . . . , a
k11
]. This
is done naturally, in particular M [= ( y)( a
0
, . . . , a
k22
, y) i for some

b
Seq
g( y)
I
(M), (so Rang(
b) I(M)) we have M [= [ a
0
, . . . , a
k22
,
b].
5) We can dene for L one of the above, (L)
card
similarly adding the quanti-
ers [
( x; z)/
( x, y, z)] saying:
(. . . , . . . ; z) dene an equivalence relation

on x :
( x) with exactly s equivalence classes.

6) We can above replace models M by pairs (M, I), I P(M) closed under
subsets.
5.2 Discussion: We may replace M by M
+
, adding elements coding each A
I(M), with decoding by functions, but
(a) this does not capture [=
[k]
and
(b) for [=
[k]
this requires innitely many functions, we need to actually code
any sequence listing each A I(M).
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

52 SAHARON SHELAH
Still this framework seems to work quite smoothly for its purposes. We could
have made it more central (use 5.5 below).
Note that
5.3 Observation. For any k-system Y and Z and m
1
-lifting of Y , letting M
Y
=
M we have
Y
Z
= (N
Z
, A : (f F)[Dom(f) I
F
& A Dom(G(f))], G(f) : f F)
is a k-system.
Now easily (and it makes a connection with 1, 2):
5.4 Observation: 1) Let (K, I) be a context and M
1
, M
2
K be (nite as
always), -models, a vocabulary, and k < .
The following are equivalent:
(A) there are k-systems
Y
= (M
, I(M
), F
) for = 1, 2 and H as in Denition 2.21(1),(2)

(B) for every sentence L
[k]
f.o.
() we have
M
1
[=
[k]
I
M
2
[=
[k]
I

(C) for innite , , , for every sentence L
[k]
,,
() we have
M
1
[=
[k]
I
M
2
[=
[k]
I

(D) for every t and innite , , for every sentence L
[k]
,,
() we have
N
Z
full
Y
1
,t
[=
[k]
I
Y
1
t
N
Z
full
Y
2
,t
[=
[k]
I
Y
2
t
where N
Z
full
Y
,t
is dened in 2.13(7) and
I
Y
t
= Dom(f) : f G
Z
full
Y,t
.
5.4
Proof. Straight.
5.5 Denition. 1) We say (from Denition 1.1) is pure if m
1
[] = 0 so no
P
.
2) Let Y = (M, I, F) be a k-system; let Z
is the full t-successor of Z be

as dened in 2.13. We dene by induction on t; Z
t
= Z
t
[Y , t] as follows: for
t = 0, N
Z
t
= M, P
Z
t
is the empty set, G

Z
t
is the identity on F and R
Z
=
(A, x) : A I, x A; for t = s + 1 let Z
t
be the full t-successor of Z
s
. Let
I
Z
= I
Z,Y
= B : B S
Z
(A) for some A I where S
Z
(A) = S
Z,A
= x
N
Z
: A is a Z-support of x.
We can also see:
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

5.6 Claim. 1) Assume
(a) Y
= (M
, I
, F
) is a t-dichotomical k-system for = 1, 2

(b) Z
t
= Z
t
[M
, I
], so Z
t+1
is the full successor of Z
t
.
Then the following are equivalent:
() (M
1
, I
1
), (M
2
, I
2
) are L
[k]
-equivalent
() for every t < the pairs (M
Zt
1
, I
Zt
), (M
Zt
2
, I
Z2
) are L
[k]
-equivalent.
2) For any given (M, I) there in a sentence L
[k]
f.o.
(
M
) satised by (M, I)
and implying any other sentence
L
[k]
,
(
) satised by (M, I).

5.7 Remark. 1) So in part (2) we can apply 2.22, 2.23, 2.24.
2) Note that by 5.3, L
[k]
satises addition theorems.
5.8 Fact: For any we can nd
which is equivalent if we use in Denition

1.3 the case = 4 (well when t(|M
|) always is 2). In fact, we can reconstruct

(i.e. dene by a formula in L
) the sequence of P
t,
: t
< t) in N
t
.
5.9 Conclusion 1) Assume Y is counting k-system (see 2.3). Then we can dene
R
t
, G
t
for every t (N
t
the computation in time t) such that
(M,

P
0
, G
0
, R
0
) is 0-lifting
(N
t+1
,

P
t+1
, G
t+1
, R
t+1
) is a lifting, successor of (N
t
, c
t
, G
t
, R
t
).
2) So the formula the denes is preserved by f F
0
.
Proof. Straight.

5.10 Discussion: 1) In 2 and in 5.5 we can allow innite models M and dene
N
t
[M] = N
t
[M, , t] for every ordinal t, for this better assume is standard,
monotonic and pure (or strongly monotonic, i.e. demand P
,t
[M, , t] is in-
creasing with t; for t limit we take union and so V [M, , t] = N
[M, , t] :
an ordinal, see below. Now as in the case = 4, the analysis in 2 works for
this but it is not clear if we can get any interesting things.
Note that those denitions remind us of Godels construction of L, particularly of
L
+1
from L
, and the Frankel-Mostowski models (which use automorphisms).

May can this give interesting proofs of consistency for set theory with no choice
but with urelements? It seems they can be reduced to the classical case.
2) We can prove various equivalence and 0-1 laws by 5.5, by proving that the
relevant model N
t
can be interpreted in Z
t
[M, I] from 5.5, using f.o. logic which
suces.
Proof. Straight.
(
6
3
4
)

r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
0
5
-
1
2

m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
3
-
0
5
-
2
9

54 SAHARON SHELAH
REFERENCES.
[BlSh 528] John T. Baldwin and Saharon Shelah. Randomness and Semi-
genericity. Transactions of the American Mathematical Society,
349:13591376, 1997. math.LO/9607226.
[BGSh 533] Andreas Blass, Yuri Gurevich, and Saharon Shelah. Choiceless Poly-
nomial Time. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 100:141187, 1999.
math.LO/9705225.
[EbFl95] Heinz-Dieter Ebbinghaus and Jorg Flum. Finite model theory. Per-
spectives in Mathematical Logic. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995.
[GuSh 526] Yuri Gurevich and Saharon Shelah. On nite rigid structures. Jour-
nal of Symbolic Logic, 61:549562, 1996. math.LO/9411236.
[Ho93] Wilfrid Hodges. Model theory, volume 42 of Encyclopedia of Math-
ematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, 1993.
[Ka] Carol R. Karp. Finite quantier equivalence. In J. W. Addison,
L.A. Henkin, and A. Tarski, editors, The Theory of Models, pages
407412. NorthHolland Publ. Co, 1965.
[Sh 550] Saharon Shelah. 01 laws. Preprint. math.LO/9804154.
[Sh:a] Saharon Shelah. Classication theory and the number of noniso-
morphic models, volume 92 of Studies in Logic and the Foundations
of Mathematics. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-New
York, xvi+544 pp, $62.25, 1978.
[Sh:c] Saharon Shelah. Classication theory and the number of noniso-
morphic models, volume 92 of Studies in Logic and the Founda-
tions of Mathematics. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam,
xxxiv+705 pp, 1990.

Saharon Shelah - Choiceless Polynomial Time Logic: Inability To Express

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Saharon Shelah - Choiceless Polynomial Time Logic: Inability To Express

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

(

CPTime (the logic from the title) a sucient

CPTime thereby proving the logic cannot express

CPTime in Blass Gurevich Shelah [BGSh 533]; actually we deal with

CPTime captures what can be computed in polynomial

is a rst order formula in the vocabulary of M

: < k) and above we say that for every

as there (this is the original E.F.

CPTime cannot say much on

CPTime does not capture P Time logic, in

] for each 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 22.

) is rst order in the vocabulary

) and for every hereditary model N

for some < m

] below. For all of

[M, ] (if t does not matter). The

[M, ] = Mint : t 2 and N

[M, , t] we have t 2 & N

[M, , t] = t(|M|) + 1 we say M [=

[M, , t] = Mint :for some k < m

[M, , t] = Mint : t > t

[M, , t] = Mint : t > t

[M, , t] always the last

) restricted to -good sentences.

T be: t(|M|) is |M| + 10 if |M| Y and t(|M|) = |M| + 6 if

if |M| Y and not M [=

undened in clause (b) of case

) is the (, t)-successor of (N,

[ = is the transitive closure of M

count and we may replace

) the -successor of (N,

; if is also standard then N N

if it is closed under rst order operations and

is the union of the following sets:

(d) some more elements to take care of the

] has exactly p(|N

], t|) then this is not

-good for = 1, 2 then M [=

b) for some sequence

, in the sense that suitable partial mappings

I which is a support of X, that is such that that if f F, AA

supports X. How? We use our bound on the size of the computation.

I as above or the number of sets

) will act but for any possible A

(for this F has to be large

s and develop set theory of elements demanding

); in this case actually, for much of the treatment

= f h as the following function: Dom(h

-system and for each B I[s] we have

[M] with M as its set of urelements and the relations

is the individual constant c

is well dened (see Denition 1.1(2)(F); this implies that G(f) is a

is well dened and A

(see above) we have y

) = y (by Denition 2.6(1), clause (i) as (G(f

for = 1, 2 but x has no support Dom(f)

was dened as (G(f

, for = 1, 2 and we should

Dom(g) and let C

helps us to understand rst order logic on (N

Dom(G(f))) for < g( x)

Proof. We prove this by induction on the quantier depth of . Let m = g( x)