We study descriptive set theory in the space by letting trees with no uncountable branches play a similar role as countable ordinals in traditional descriptive set theory. By using such trees, we get, for example, a covering property for the class of -sets of .

We call a family of trees universal for a class of trees if ⊆ and every tree in can be order-preservingly mapped into a tree in . It is well known that the class of countable trees with no infinite branches has a universal family of size ℵ1. We shall study the smallest cardinality of a universal family for the class of trees of cardinality ≤ ℵ1 with no uncountable branches. We prove that this cardinality can be 1 (under ¬CH) and any regular cardinal κ which satisfies (under CH). This bears immediately on the covering property of the -subsets of the space .

We also study the possible cardinalities of definable subsets of . We show that the statement that every definable subset of has cardinality <ωn or cardinality is equiconsistent with ZFC (if n ≥ 3) and with ZFC plus an inaccessible (if n = 2).

Finally, we define an analogue of the notion of a Borel set for the space and prove a Souslin-Kleene type theorem for this notion.

A canary tree is a tree of cardinality the continuum which has no uncountable branch, but gains a branch whenever a stationary set is destroyed (without adding reals). Canary trees are important in infinitary model theory. The existence of a canary tree is independent of ZFC + GCH.

An ordered structure is o-minimal if every definable subset is the union of finitely many points and open intervals. A theory is o-minimal if all its models are ominimal. All theories considered will be o-minimal. A theory is said to be n-ary if every formula is equivalent to a Boolean combination of formulas in n free variables. (A 2-ary theory is called binary.) We prove that if a theory is not binary then it is not rc-ary for any n. We also characterize the binary theories which have a Dedekind complete model and those whose underlying set order is dense. In [5], it is shown that if T is a binary theory, is a Dedekind complete model of T, and I is an interval in , then for all cardinals K there is a Dedekind complete elementary extension of , so that . In contrast, we show that if T is not binary and is a Dedekind complete model of T, then there is an interval I in so that if is a Dedekind complete elementary extension of .

Given a relational structure M and a cardinal λ < |M|, let øλ denote the number of isomorphism types of substructures of M of size λ. It is shown that if μ < λ are cardinals, and |M| is sufficiently larger than λ, then øμ ≤ øλ. A description is also given for structures with few substructures of given infinite cardinality.

It is consistent with ¬ CH that every universal theory of relational structures with the joint embedding property and amalgamation for -(3)-diagrams has a universal model of cardinality ℵ1. For classes with amalgamation for -(4)-diagrams it is consistent that and there is a universal model of cardinality ℵ2.

It is consistent that for many cardinals λ there is a family of at least λ+ unbounded subsets of λ which have uniformization properties. In particular if it is consistent that a supercompact cardinal exists, then it is consistent that ℵω has such a family. We have applications to point set topology, Whitehead groups and reconstructing separable abelian p-groups from their socles.

Stationary logic L(aa) is obtained for Lωω by adding a quantifier aa which ranges over countable sets and is interpreted to mean “for a closed unbounded set of countable subsets”. The dual quantifier for aa is stat, i.e., stat sφ(s) is equivalent to ¬aa s ¬φ(s). In the study of the L(aa)-model theory of structures a particular well behaved class was isolated, the finitely determinate structures. These are structures in which the quantifier “stat” can be replaced by the quantifier “aa” without changing the validity of sentences. Many structures such as R and all ordinals are finitely determinate. In this paper we will be concerned with finitely determinate first order theories, i.e., those theories all of whose models are finitely determinate.

Example 0.1. [5] The theory of dense linear orderings is not finitely determinate. Let S be a stationary costationary subset of ω 1 and

where

c.c.c. posets are characterised in terms of -generic conditions. This characterisation can be applied to get simple proofs of many facts about c.c.c. forcing including Con(MA + ┐CH).

If G and H are elementarily equivalent groups (that is, no elementary statement of group theory distinguishes between G and H) then the definable subgroups of G are elementarily equivalent to the corresponding ones of H. But G′ of G, consisting of all products of commutators [a, b] = a−1b−1ab of elements a and b of G, may not be definable. Must G′ and H′ be elementarily equivalent?

Let p be an odd prime. A method is described which given a structure M of finite similarity type produces a nilpotent group of class 2 and exponent p which is in the same stability class as M.

Theorem. There are nilpotent groups of class 2 and exponent p in all stability classes.

Theorem. The problem of characterizing a stability class is equivalent to characterizing the (nilpotent, class 2, exponent p) groups in that class.

Almost free groups were introduced in [9] as groups all of whose “small” subgroups are free. Here “small” means generated by fewer elements than the cardinality of the group. This concept is a generalization of locally free. Suppose κ is a cardinal > ω. A group is κ-free if every subgroup generated by fewer than κ elements is free. A group of cardinality κ which is κ-free is almost free. There are two related concepts which are closer approximations to freeness.

The Löwenheim–Skolem theorem states that if a theory has an infinite model it has models of all cardinalities greater than or equal to the cardinality of the language in which the theory is defined. A natural question is what happens if there is a model whose cardinality is less than that of the language.

If κ is an infinite cardinal less than the first measurable cardinal and κ < κω, the Rabin–Keiler theorem [1, p. 139] gives an example of a theory which has a model of cardinality κ in which every element is the interpretation of a constant and all other models have cardinality μ ≥ κω. Keisler has also shown that if a theory has a model of cardinality κ it has models of all cardinalities μ ≥ κω. We will show that within the bounds of the above theorems anything can happen.

The main result is as follows.