6

7
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
0
-
0
6







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


Absolutely Rigid Systems and Absolutely
Indecomposable Groups
Paul C. Eklof

and Saharon Shelah

January 11, 2004

Abstract
We give a new proof that there are arbitrarily large indecomposable
abelian groups; moreover, the groups constructed are absolutely indecom-
posable, that is, they remain indecomposable in any generic extension.
However, any absolutely rigid family of groups has cardinality less than
the partition cardinal ().
Added December 2004: The proofs of Theorems 0.2 and 0.3 are not
correct, and the claimed results remain open. (The only if part assertion
in the last 3 lines before Proof of (II) on p. 266 is not correct.) How-
ever, Theorems 0.1 and 0.4, which give upper bounds to the size of rigid
systems/groups, are valid. And the construction in the proof of Theorem
0.3 does yield an armative answer to Nadels question whether there is
a proper class of torsion-free abelian groups which are pairwise absolutely
non-isomorphic.
0 Introduction
Mark Nadel [11] asked whether there is a proper class of torsion-free abelian
groups A

: Ord with the property that for any ,= , A

and A

are
not L

-equivalent; this is the same as requiring that A

and A

do not become
isomorphic in any generic extension of the universe. In that case we say that A

and A

are absolutely non-isomorphic . This is not hard to achieve for torsion

abelian groups, since groups of dierent p-length are absolutely non-isomorphic.
(See section 1 for more information.)
Nadels approach to the question in [11] involved looking at known con-
structions of rigid systems A
i
: i I to see if they had the property that
for i ,= j, Hom(A
i
, A
j
) remains zero in any generic extension of the universe.
We call these absolutely rigid systems. Similarly we call a group absolutely rigid
(resp. absolutely indecomposable) if it is rigid (resp. indecomposable) in any
generic extension. Nadel showed that the Fuchs-Corner construction in [4, 89]

Partially supported by NSF Grants DMS-9501415 and DMS-9704477

Partially supported by NSF Grant DMS-9704477. Pub. No. 678

1
6
7
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
0
-
0
6







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


constructs an absolutely rigid system A

: < 2

of groups of cardinality
, where is less than the rst strongly inaccessible cardinal. But he pointed
out that other constructions, such as Fuchs construction [5] of a rigid system
of groups of cardinality the rst measurable or Shelahs [13] for an arbitrary
cardinal involve non-absolute notions like direct products or stationary sets; so
the rigid systems constructed may not remain rigid when the universe of sets is
expanded. The same comment applies to any construction based on a version
of the Black Box.
Here we show that there do not exist arbitrarily large absolutely rigid sys-
tems. The cardinal () in the following theorem is dened in section 2; it is an
inaccessible cardinal much larger than the rst inaccessible, but small enough
to be consistent with the Axiom of Constructibility.
Theorem 1 If is a cardinal () and A

: < is a family of non-zero

abelian groups, then there are ,= in such that in some generic extension
V [G] of the universe, V , there is a non-zero (even one-one) homomorphism
f : A

.
This cardinal () (called the rst beautiful cardinal by the second author
in [14]) is the precise dividing line:
Theorem 2 If is a cardinal < () and is any cardinal (), there is
a family A

: < of torsion-free groups of cardinality such that in any

generic extension V [G], for all , A

is indecomposable and for ,= ,

Hom(A

, A

) = 0.
Despite the limitation imposed by Theorem 1, the construction used to prove
Theorem 2 yields the existence of a proper class of absolutely dierent torsion-
free groups, in the following strong form. This answers the question of Nadel
in the armative, and also provides a new proof of the existence of arbitrarily
large indecomposables.
Theorem 3 For each uncountable cardinal , there exist 2

torsion-free abso-
lutely indecomposable groups H
i,
: i < 2

of cardinality such that whenever

,= or i ,= j, H
i,
and H
j,
are absolutely non-isomorphic.
We show that the groups A

in Theorem 2 and the groups H

i,
in Theorem
3 are absolutely indecomposable by showing that in any generic extension the
only automorphisms they have are 1 and 1. (The proof of Theorem 3 does not
depend on results from [14].) However, we cannot make the groups absolutely
rigid:
Theorem 4 If is a cardinal () and A is a torsion-free abelian group of
cardinality , then in some generic extension V [G] of the universe, there is an
endomorphism of A which is not multiplication by a rational number.
2
6
7
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
0
-
0
6







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


1 Innitary logic and generic extensions
We will conne ourselves to the language of abelian groups. Thus an atomic
formula is one of the form

n
i=0
c
i
x
i
= 0 where the c
i
are integers and the x
i
are variables.
L

consists of the closure of the atomic formula under negation (), -

nite conjunctions () and disjunctions (), and existential (x) and universal
(x) quantication (over a single variable or equivalently over nitely many
variables). L

consists of the closure of the atomic formula under negation,

arbitrary (possibly innite) conjunction (

) and disjunction (

), and under
existential and universal quantication (x, x). Rather than give formal de-
nitions of other model-theoretic concepts, we will illustrate them with examples.
Thus the formula (y) :
xz(2z = x) (z(3z = y))
is a formula of L

with one free variable, y, which says that every element is

2-divisible, but y is not divisible by 3. More formally, if A is an abelian group
and a A we write A [= [a] and say a satises in A, if and only if every
element of A is divisible by 2 and there is no b A such that 3b = a.
Also, the formula (x) :
y(py = x) (

n1
z(p
n
z = y)) (x ,= 0)
is a formula of L

with free variable x such that A [= [a] if and only if

a p
+1
A0.
A sentence is a formula which has no free variables; if is a sentence of
L

,we write A [= if and only if is true in A. We write A

B to
mean that every sentence of L

true in A is true in B (and conversely because

true in A implies true in B.) Obviously, if there is an isomorphism
f : A B, then A

B. A necessary and sucient condition for A

B
is given by the following ([8], or see [1, pp. 13f]):
Lemma 5 A

B if and only if there is a set P of bijections p : A

p
B
p
from a nite subset A
p
of A onto a nite subset B
p
of B with the following
properties:
(i)[the elements of P are partial isomorphisms] for every atomic formula
(x
1
, ..., x
m
) and elements a
1
, ..., a
m
of dom(p), A [= [a
1
, ..., a
m
] if and only if
B [= [p(b
1
), ..., p(b
m
)];
(ii)[the back-and-forth property] for every p P and every a A (resp.
b B), there is p

P such that p p

and a dom(p

) (resp. b rge(p

)).
It is an easy consequence that if A and B are countable, then A

B if
and only if A

= B. Also, this implies that if it is true in V that A

B,
then A

B remains true in V [G]. The converse is easy, and direct, since a

sentence of L

which, in V , holds true in A but false in B has the same status

in V [G], since no new elements are added to the groups.
3
6
7
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
0
-
0
6







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


(By a generic extension we mean an extension of the universe V of sets
dened by the method of forcing. In general, more sets are added to the universe;
possibly, for example, a bijection between an uncountable cardinal and the
countable set . So cardinals of V may not be cardinals in V [G]; but the ordinals
of V [G] are the same as the ordinals of V . Also, the elements of any set in V
are the same in V or V [G].)
There exist non-isomorphic uncountable groups A and B (of cardinality
1
for example) such that A

B. (See for example [3].) However, for any

groups A and B in the universe, V , there is a generic extension V [G] of V in
which A and B are both countable (cf. [7, Lemma 19.9, p. 182]). Therefore we
can conclude that A

B if and only if A and B are potentially isomorphic,

that is, there is a generic extension V [G] of the universe in which they become
isomorphic. Barwise argues in [1, p. 32] that potential isomorphism (that
is, the relation

) is a very natural notion of isomorphism, one of which

mathematicians should be aware. If one proves that A B but leaves open the
question [of whether A and B are potentially isomorphic] then one leaves the
possibility that A and B are not isomorphic for trivial reasons of cardinality.
Or to put it the other way round, a proof that [A is not potentially isomorphic
to B ] is a proof that A B for nontrivial reasons.
As an example, consider reduced p-groups A

( any ordinal) such that the

length of A

is , that is, p

= 0 but for all < , p

,= 0. Then for any

1
,=
2
, the groups A

1
and A

2
are not even potentially isomorphic: this is
because for any there is a formula

(x) such that x(

(x) x ,= 0) is true
in a p-group A if and only if A has length . Indeed, we dene, by induction,

to be
y(py = x

(y))
if = + 1 and if is a limit ordinal dene

to be

<
y(py = x

(y)).
Thus there is a proper class of pairwise absolutely non-isomorphic p-groups.
Although there is not available a standard group-theoretic notion which will
serve the same purpose for torsion-free groups, we will prove in section 5 that
there is a proper class of indecomposable torsion-free abelian groups H

:
a cardinal such that for any ,= , the groups H

and H

are not L

-
equivalent.
2 Quasi-well-orderings and beautiful cardinals
A quasi-order Q is a pair (Q,
Q
) where
Q
is a reexive and transitive binary
relation on Q. There is an extensive theory of well-orderings of quasi-orders
developed by Higman, Kruskal, Nash-Williams and Laver among others (cf.
[12], [9]). A generalization to uncountable cardinals is due to the second author
([14]). The key notion that we need is the following: for an innite cardinal
4
6
7
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
0
-
0
6







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


, Q is called narrow if there is no antichain in Q of size , i.e., for every
f : Q there exist ,= such that f()
Q
f(). (Note that this use of the
terminology antichain in [10, p.32] for example is dierent from its use
in forcing theory.)
A tree is a partially-ordered set (T, ) such that for all t T, pred(t)= s
T : s < t is a well-ordered set; moreover, there is only one element r of T,
called the root of T, such that pred(r) is empty. The order-type of pred(t) is
called the height of t, denoted ht(t); the height of T is supht(t) + 1 : t T.
If Q is a quasi-order, a Q-labeled tree is a pair (T,
T
) consisting of a tree T of
height and a function
T
: T Q. On any set of Q-labeled trees we dene
a quasi-order by: (T
1
,
1
) _ (T
2
,
2
) if and only if there is a function : T
1
T
2
which preserves the tree-order (i.e. t
T1
t

implies (t)
T2
(t

)) as well as
the height of elements and also is such that for all t T
1
,
1
(t)
Q

2
((t)).
One result from [14] that we will use implies that for suciently large cardi-
nals and suciently small Q, any set of Q-labeled trees is -narrow. In order
to state the result precisely we need to dene a certain (relatively small) large
cardinal.
Let () be the rst -Erd os cardinal, i.e., the least cardinal such that
()
<
; in other words, the least cardinal such that for every function F
from the nite subsets of to 2 there is an innite subset X of such that
there is a function c : 2 such for every nite subset Y of X, F(Y ) = c([Y [).
It has been shown that this cardinal is strongly inaccessible (cf. [7, p. 392]).
Thus it cannot be proved in ZFC that () exists (or even that its existence is
consistent). If it exists, there are many weakly compact cardinals below it, and,
on the other hand, it is less than the rst measurable cardinal (if such exists).
Moreover, if it is consistent with ZFC that there is such a cardinal, then it is
consistent with ZFC + V = L that there is such a cardinal ([15]). If () does
not exist, then Theorem 6 is uninteresting. On the other hand, Theorem 7 then
applies to every cardinal , and its consequences, given in section 4, are still of
interest.
The following is a consequence of results proved in [14] (cf. Theorem 5.3, p.
208 and Theorem 2.10, p. 197):
Theorem 6 If Q is a quasi-order of cardinality < (), and o is a set of
Q-labeled trees, then o is ()-narrow.
On the other hand, it follows from results in [14] that for any cardinal smaller
than (), there is an absolute antichain of that size:
Theorem 7 If < (), there is a family T = (T

) : < of -labeled
trees, each of cardinality < (), such that in any generic extension of V , for
all ,= , (T

) (T

).
Some commentary is needed on the absoluteness of the antichain T =
(T

) : < , since this is not dealt with directly in [14]. T is constructed

in a concrete, absolute, way from a function F which is an example witnessing
5
6
7
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
0
-
0
6







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


the fact that < (). First, a -D-barrier B and function q : B is
constructed (B is a kind of elaborate indexing for an antichain cf. [14, proof
of 2.5, p. 195]). This gives rise ([14, proof of 1.12, pp. 192f]) to an example
showing that T

() is not -narrow for some < (); this example is em-

bedded into the quasi-order of -labeled trees, giving rise to T ([14, p. 221]).
The proof that T is an antichain reduces to the key property of F, a property
which is absolute by an argument of Silver [15]. Using an equivalent deni-
tion of (), F is taken to be a function from the nite subsets of to
such that there is no one-one function : such that for all n ,
F((0), ..., (n 1)) = F((1), ..., (n)); this property of F is preserved
under generic extensions because it is equivalent to the well-foundedness of a
certain tree; more precisely, the tree of nite partial attempts at has no innite
branch.
3 A bound on the size of absolutely rigid sys-
tems
In this section we will prove Theorems 1 and 4.. Suppose that A

: < is
a family of non-zero abelian groups, where we can assume that = (). For
each < , let T

be the tree of nite sequences of elements of A

; that is, the

elements of T

are 1-1 functions s : n

s
A

for some n
s
and s t if and
only if n
s
n
t
and t n
s
= s.
Let Q
ab
be the set of all quantier-free n-types of abelian groups; that is,
Y Q
ab
if and only if for some abelian group G, some n , and some function
s : n G, Y is the set tp
qf
(s/G) of all quantier-free formulas (x
0
, ..., x
n1
)
of L

such that G [s(0), ..., s(n1)]. Partially-order Q

ab
by the relation of
inclusion.
Dene

: T

Q
ab
by letting

(s) = tp
qf
(s/A

). Now we can apply

Theorem 6 to the family of Q
ab
-labeled trees o = (T

) : < . (Note that

the cardinality of Q
ab
is 2
0
which is < () since () is strongly-inaccessible.)
Therefore there exists ,= such that (T

) _ (T

), say : T

is
such that s t implies (s) (t) and for all s T

(s)

((s)).
Now move to a generic extension V [G] in which A

is countable. In V [G],
let : A

be a surjection. We will dene an embedding f : A

by
letting f((n)) = ( n + 1)(n) for all n < . To see that f is an embedding,
note that f((n)) = ( k)(n) for all k > n since preserves the tree ordering;
moreover, for any a, b, c A

, there is a k such that a, b, c rge( k) so since

( k)

(( k)) =

(f(0), ..., f(k 1)))

every quantier-free formula satised by a, b, c in A

(e.g. a ,= 0, ab = c, ab =
c) is satised by f(a), f(b), f(c) in A

. This completes the proof of Theorem 1

The argument is very general and could be applied to any family of struc-
tures (for example, to those in [6]). If we start with a torsion-free group A
of cardinality (), and apply the argument to the family of structures
6
6
7
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
0
-
0
6







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


A, a
v
) : < () where a

: < () is a linearly independent subset of

A, then we obtain ,= such that in a generic extension in which A becomes
countable we have an embedding f : A A taking a

to a

. This proves
Theorem 4.
Ernest Schimmerling has pointed out that there is a soft proof of these
results (not relying on Theorem 6) using a model of set theory (with A

:
< as additional predicate) and a set of indiscernibles given by the dening
property of = ().
4 Existence theorem
In this section we will prove Theorem 2. So let < () and let be a cardinal
(). Let (T

) : < be the family of -labeled trees as in Theorem

7. We can assume that each node of T

of height m is a sequence of length m

and the tree-ordering is extension of sequences; so the root of the tree is the
empty sequence <>.
Let p
n,m,j
: n, m , j 0, 1) and q
n,m,,j
: n, m, , j 0, 1) be two
lists, with no overlap, of distinct primes.
For any ordinal , Z

be the tree of nite strictly decreasing non-empty

sequences z of ordinals such that z(0) = . (Thus for some n ,
z : n such that = z(0) > z(1) > ... > z(n 1).)
For n let g
n
: T([n, (n+1))) such that for each < , g
n
() is a
subset of [n, (n+1)) which is conal in (n+1) = n+. (Here the operations
are ordinal addition and multiplication, so, in particular, n is less than
+
, the
cardinal successor of .) We also require that for ,= , g
n
() g
n
() = . For
n > 0, let Y
n
=

rge(g
n
), and let Y
0
= g
0
(0).
For < , let W

be the Q-vector space with basis

n
/
n
B
n,
where
for n > 0
/
n
= a

z
: Y
n1
, z Z

,
B
n,
= b

,
: Y
n1
, T

<>
and /
0
= a
0

= B
0,
. We are going to dene A

to be a subgroup of W

.
Since is xed throughout the construction, we will usually omit the subscript
from what follows (until we come to consider Hom(A

, A

)).
For each n > 0, let h
n
be a bijection from /
n
B
n
onto ; let h
0
(a
0
) = 0.
Then for any w /
n
B
n
, and any g
n
(h
n
(w)), we will use a

<>
or b

<>
as
a notation for w. (So a

<>
= b

<>
; moreover, a

<>
= a

<>
if and only if and
belong to the same member of the range of g
n
.) Now we can dene A (= A

)
to be the subgroup of W generated (as abelian group) by the union of

n0

1
p
k
n,m,0
a

z
: m, k , z Z

<>, Y
n
, dom(z) = m (1)

n0

1
p
k
n,m,1
(a

z
+a

zm1
):m, k 0, z Z

, Y
n
, dom(z) = m (2)
7
6
7
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
0
-
0
6







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


and

n0

1
q
k
n,m,
(b

+b

m1
):m, k 0, T

, Y
n
, dom() = m,

() = .
(3)
(where b

1
= 0). We will use the sets (1) and (2) to prove that (I) A

is
absolutely indecomposable and the set (3) to prove that (II) Hom(A

, A

) = 0
for all ,= .
If x A

, we will write p

[x if for every k , there exists v A

such that
p
k
v = x. For example, if w /
n
B
n
and g
n
(h
n
(w)) and

(<>) =
0
,
then p

n,0,0
[w and q

n,0,o
[w. Assertions about divisibility in A

are easily checked

by considering the coecients of linear combinations over Q of elements of the
basis

n
/
n
B
n
of W

; for example, p

n,m,0
[x if and only if x =

r
i=1
c
i
a
i
zi
for some
1
, ...,
r
in Y
n
, z
i
of length m, and c
i
Q (with denominator a power
of p
n,m,0
).
Proof of (I)
We will show, in fact, that in any generic extension V [G] the only automor-
phisms of A (= A

) are the trivial ones, 1 and 1. This part of the proof does
not use the trees in T ; the absoluteness is a consequence of an argument using
formulas of L

, which therefore works in any generic extension. We will use

the following claim:
(1A) there are formulas
n,
(x) of L

(n , Y
n
) such that
for any u A, A [=
n,
[u] if and only if there are w
1
, ..., w
r

/
n
B
n
, and c
1
, ..., c
r
Z 0, such that u =

r
i=1
c
i
w
i
and

r
i=1
g
n
(h
n
(w
i
)).
Assuming the claim for now, suppose that in V [G] there is an automorphism
F of A. For any n , consider any w /
n
B
n
; since w = a

<>
for
g
n
(h
n
(w)), p

n,0,0
[w; therefore p

n,0,0
[F(w), and hence F(w) =

r
i=1
c
i
w
i
for some distinct w
i
/
n
B
n
. Moreover, by (1A), A [=
n,
[w] if and only
if g
n
(h
n
(w)) if and only if A [=
n,
[F(w)]. Thus, since the elements of
the range of g
n
are disjoint, we must have that r = 1 and w
1
= w, that is,
F(w) = cw for some c = c(w) Q.
If we can show that c(w) = c(a
0
) for all w

n
/
n
B
n
, then F is
multiplication by c(a
0
), and then it is easy to see that c(a
0
) must be 1. It
will be enough to show that if w = a

z
(resp. w = b

) for some Y
n1
, then
c(w) = c(a

<>
), for then c(w) = c(w

) for some w

/
n1
B
n1
(namely, the
unique w

such that g
n1
(h
n1
(w

))) and by induction c(w

) = c(a
0
).
So suppose w = a

z
; the proof will be by induction on the length of z that
c(a

z
) = c(a

<>
). Suppose that the length of z = m > 0. Let c = c(a

z
)
8
6
7
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
0
-
0
6







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


and c

= c(a

zm1
). By induction it is enough to prove that c = c

. Since
p

n,m,1
[(a

z
+a

zm1
), it is also the case that p

n,m,1
divides
F(a

z
) +F(a

zm1
) = ca

z
+c

zm1
= c(a

z
+a

zm1
) + (c

c)a

zm1
so p

n,m,1
[(c

c)a

zm1
, which is impossible unless c = c

.
The proof is similar if w = b

, but uses the primes q

n,m,
. So it remains to
prove (1A). We will begin by dening some auxiliary formulas of L

. First,
we will use p

[x as an abbreviation for

k
v
k
(p
k
v
k
= x).
Dene
n,m,0
(y) to be p

n,m,0
[y. Then for u A, A [=
n,m,0
[u] if and only
if u is in the subgroup (Z-submodule) generated by
1
p
k
n,m,0
a

z
: Y
n
, k
, z Z

, dom(z) = m. Dene
n,m,
(y) for each m > 0 by recursion on : if
= + 1,
n,m,
(y) is

n,m,
(y) y

(
n,m+1,
(y

) (p

n,m+1,1
[(y +y

)).
If is a limit ordinal, let
n,m,
(y) be

<

n,m,
(y).
Then for u A, A [=
n,m,
[u] if and only if u is in the subgroup generated by
a

z
: Y
n
, z Z

, dom(z) = m and z(m1) .

In particular, for m = 1, recalling that z Z

satises z(0) = , we have that

A [=
n,1,
[u] if and only if u is in the subgroup generated by
a

<>
: Y
n
, .
Now dene
n,
(x) to be

n,0,0
(x) y[p

n,1,1
[(x +y)
n,1,
(y)
n,1,+1
(y)].
If u =

r
i=1
c
i
w
i
, for some w
i
/
n
B
n
, then p

n,1,1
[(u+y) i y =

r
i=1
c
i
a
i
<i>
for some
i
g
n
(h
n
(w
i
)); using the conality of members of the range of g
n
, it
follows easily that
n,
(x) has the desired property.
Proof of (II)
Suppose that there is a non-zero homomorphismH : A

. We are going
to use H to dene : T

showing that (T

) _ (T

), contrary to
the choice of the family of labeled trees. Now H(w) ,= 0 for some w /
n
B
n,
9
6
7
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
0
-
0
6







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


for some n . Thus for some Y
n
, H(b

<>,
) ,= 0. Fix such an (which can
in fact be any member of g
n
(h
n
(w))). Let

(<>) =
0
. Then q

n,0,0,0
[b

<>,
so q

n,0,0,0
[H (b

<>,
), and hence H(b

<>,
) must be of the form

r
i=1
c
i
b

i
<>,
where c
i
Q 0, and

(<>) =
0
. So letting (<>) = <> (as it must),
we have conrmed that

(()) =

() for =<>.
Now suppose that for some m 0, () has been dened for all nodes
of T

of height m such that

(()) =

(). Moreover, suppose that for

every of height m, the coecient of b

(),
in H(b

,
) is non-zero. Now
consider any node of T

of height m+1; let = m. In A

, for =

(),
q

n,m+1,,1
[b

,
+b

,
so q

n,m+1,,1
[H (b

,
)+H (b

,
) in A

. Since the coecient

call it c of b

(),
in H(b

,
) is non-zero, there must be a node

in T

of
height m + 1 such that

m = () and the coecient of b

,
in H(b

,
) is
c, and moreover such that

) = . So we can let () =

. This completes
the proof of Theorem 2.
5 Absolutely non-isomorphic indecomposables
In this section we sketch how to modify the construction in the preceding section
in order to prove Theorem 3. (Note that this construction does not require the
trees T

of Theorem 7.) Let p

n,m,j
: n, m , j 0, 1) be a list of distinct
primes. Fix an uncountable ; for any < , let Z

be dened as before. Let

S
i,
: i < 2

be a list of 2

distinct subsets of , each of cardinality (and

hence conal in ).
For n ,= 1, let g
n
: T([n, (n + 1))) be dened as before. For i < 2

,
dene g
1,i
: T([, + ))) as before but with the additional stipulation
that for all < , g
1,i
() + : S
i,
. (Here again the operation
is ordinal addition.) Let Y
1,i
=

rge(g
1,i
) we will also choose g
1,i
such that
Y
1,i
= + : S
i,
. For convenience, for n ,= 1 we let Y
n,i
denote Y
n
(independent of i).
For each n > 0, let h
n,i
be a bijection from a

z
: Y
n1,i
, z Z

onto
; use these bijections to make identications as in the previous construction.
Then H
i,
is dened to be the subgroup of the Q-vector space with basis
a
0
a

z
: n > 0, Y
n1,i
, z Z

which is generated (as abelian group) by the union of

n0

1
p
k
n,m,0
a

z
: m, k , z Z

<>, Y
n,i
, dom(z) = m
and

n0

1
p
k
n,m,1
(a

z
+a

zm1
):m, k 0, z Z

, Y
n,i
, dom(z) = m.
10
6
7
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
0
-
0
6







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


As before, the groups H
i,
are absolutely indecomposable. It remains to
show that for ,= or i ,= j, H
i,
and H
j,
are not L

-equivalent (and hence

not isomorphic in any generic extension). For this we use the formulas
1,
(x).
If = and i ,= j, without loss of generality there exists S
i,
S
j,
; let
= +. If < , let = + for any in any S
i,
. In either case, x
1,
(x)
is true in H
i,
but not in H
j,
.
References
[1] J. Barwise, Back and forth through innitary logic, in Studies in Model
Theory (M. Morley, ed.), MAA (1973), 534.
[2] J. Barwise and P. Eklof, Innitary properties of Abelian torsion groups,
Ann. Math. Logic 2 (1970), 2568.
[3] P. Eklof, Innitary equivalence of abelian groups, Fund. Math. 81 (1974),
305314.
[4] L. Fuchs, Innite Abelian Groups, vols I and II, Academic Press (1970,
1973).
[5] L. Fuchs, Indecomposable abelian groups of measurable cardinalities, Sym-
posia Math. vol. XIII (1974), 233244.
[6] R. G obel and W. May, Four submodules suce for realizing algebras over
commutative rings, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 65 (1990), 2943.
[7] T. Jech, Set Theory, Academic Press (1978).
[8] C. Karp, Finite quantier equivalence, in The Theory of Models (J. W.
Addison et al, ed.), North-Holland (1965), 407412.
[9] R. Laver, On Fra

isses order type conjecture, Ann. Math. 93 (1971), 89

111.
[10] R. Laver, Better-quasi-orderings and a class of trees, in Studies in Foun-
dations and Combinatorics (G-C Rota, ed.), Academic Press (1978),
3148.
[11] M. E. Nadel, Scott heights of Abelian groups, J. Symb. Logic 59 (1994),
13511359.
[12] C. St. J. A. Nash-Williams, On well-quasi-ordering innite trees, Proc.
Camb. Phil. Soc 61 (1965), 697720.
[13] S. Shelah, Innite abelian groups, Whitehead problem and some construc-
tions, Israel J. Math 18 (1974), 24325.
[14] S. Shelah, Better quasi-orders for uncountable cardinals, Israel J. Math. 42
(1982), 177226.
11
6
7
8


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
0
-
1
0
-
0
6







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


[15] J. Silver, A large cardinal in the constructible universe, Fund. Math. 69
(1970), 93100.
12