Complete $\mathcal{L}_{\omega_1,\omega}$-Sentences with Maximal Models in Multiple Cardinalities
Extracted source text ยท arXiv 1508.06620
\documentclass{amsart}
\title{Complete $\lomegaone$-Sentences with Maximal Models in Multiple Cardinalities}
\author[J. Baldwin]{John Baldwin}
\address{Department of Mathematics, Statistics, and Computer Science, University of Illinois at Chicago, 851 S. Morgan
St. (M/C 249), Chicago, IL 60607-7045, USA}
\email{jbaldwin@uic.edu}
\keywords{Maximal models, Complete sentences, Infinitary logic,
Homogeneously characterizable cardinals}
\subjclass[2010]{Primary 03C75, 03C35 Secondary 03C52, 03C30, 03C15}
\author[I. Souldatos]{Ioannis Souldatos}
\address{4001 W.McNichols, Mathematics Department, University of Detroit Mercy, Detroit, MI 48221, USA}
\email{souldaio@udmercy.edu}
\date{\today}
\usepackage[latin1]
{inputenc}
%\usepackage[german]{babel}
\usepackage{geometry,amssymb,amsthm,amsmath,
graphics,enumerate}
\usepackage{enumerate}
%\usepackage{showkeys}
%\usepackage{showlabels}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{hyperref}
%\renewcommand{\thesubsection}{\arabic{subsection}}
%\makeatletter
%%\def\@seccntformat#1{\@ifundefined{#1@cntformat}%
% {\csname the#1\endcsname\quad}% default
% {\csname #1@cntformat\endcsname}}% enable individual control
%\newcommand\section@cntformat{}
%\makeatother
\parindent=0pt
\parskip=7pt
\pagestyle{plain}
% \sidebar{..} puts .. in comment form
\newcommand{\sidebar}[1]{\vskip10pt\noindent
\hskip.70truein\vrule width2.0pt\hskip.5em
\vbox{\hsize= 4truein\noindent\footnotesize\relax #1 }\vskip10pt\noindent}
\geometry{
body={14cm, 23cm},
top=2.5cm,
left=3.5cm
}
%\numberwithin{theorem}{section}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{Thm}{Theorem}[subsection]
\newtheorem{Lem}[Thm]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{question}[Thm]{Open Question}
\newtheorem{Cor}[Thm]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{Prop}[Thm]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{Def}[Thm]{Definition}
\newtheorem{Rem}[Thm]{Remark}
\newtheorem{DefRem}[Thm]{Definition and Remark}
\newtheorem{Ex}[Thm]{Example}
\newtheorem{Not}[Thm]{Notation}
\newtheorem{Fact}[Thm]{Fact}
\newtheorem{claim}[Thm]{Claim}
\newtheorem{obs}[Thm]{Observation}
\newtheorem{example}[Thm]{Example}
\newtheorem{Cons}[Thm]{Construction}
\newtheorem{Con}[Thm]{Conjecture}
\newcommand{\A}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{A}}}
\newcommand{\B}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B}}}
\newcommand{\C}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{C}}}
\newcommand{\D}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{D}}}
\newcommand{\E}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{E}}}
\newcommand{\F}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}
\newcommand{\G}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{G}}}
\newcommand{\K}{\mathcal{K}}
\renewcommand{\L}{\mathcal{L}}
\newcommand{\M}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}}}
\newcommand{\N}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{N}}}
\newcommand{\z}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{Z}}}
\newcommand{\Mscr}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{M}}}
\newcommand{\ltoomega}{\ensuremath{\lambda^{\omega}}}%lambda to the omega
\newcommand{\infi}{{\omega_1,\omega}}
\newcommand{\qft}{\mathrm{tp_{qf}}}
\newcommand{\dom}{\mathrm{dom}}
\newcommand{\ran}{\mathrm{ran}}
\newcommand{\rank}{\mathrm{rank}}
\newcommand{\AP}{\mathrm{AP}_{\aleph_0}}
\newcommand{\Mod}{\mathrm{Mod}}
\newcommand{\ok}{\\[3mm]\noindent}
\newcommand{\acl}{\mathrm{acl}}
\newcommand{\bI}{\mathbf{I}}
\newcommand{\xnew}{X_{new}}
\newcommand{\ynew}{Y_{new}}
\newcommand{\omegaone}{\ensuremath{\omega_1}}
\newcommand{\lomegaone}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}_{\omega_1,\omega}}}
\newcommand{\lomega}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}_{\omega,\omega}}}
\newcommand{\alephs}[1]{\ensuremath{\aleph_{#1}}}
\newcommand{\alephalpha}{\alephs{\alpha}}
\newcommand{\beths}[1]{\ensuremath{\beth_{#1}}}
\newcommand{\bethalpha}{\beths{\alpha}}
\newcommand{\lang}[1]{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}_{#1}}}
\newcommand{\phiM}{\ensuremath{\phi_{\M}}}%\phi_\M
\newcommand{\ch}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{CH}_{\omega_1,\omega}}}
\newcommand{\homch}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{HCH}_{\omega_1,\omega}}}
\newcommand{\im}{\mathrm{im}}
\def\new{\rm new}
\def\abar{\mbox{\boldmath $a$}}
\def\bbar{{\bf b}}
\def\cbar{{\bf c}}
\def\dbar{{\bf d}}
\def\ebar{{\bf e}}
\def\fbar{{\bf f}}
\def\gbar{{\bf g}}
\def\hbar{{\bf h}}
\def\ibar{{\bf i}}
\def\jbar{{\bf j}}
\def\kbar{{\bf k}}
\def\lbar{{\bf l}}
\def\mbar{{\bf m}}
\def\nbar{{\bf n}}
\def\obar{{\bf o}}
\def\pbar{{\bf p}}
\def\qbar{{\bf q}}
\def\rbar{{\bf r}}
\def\sbar{{\bf s}}
\def\tbar{{\bf t}}
\def\ubar{{\bf u}}
\def\vbar{{\bf v}}
\def\wbar{{\bf w}}
\def\xbar{{\bf x}}
\def\ybar{{\bf y}}
\def\zbar{{\bf z}}
\def\bK{\mbox{\boldmath $K$}}
\def\bkzero{\mbox{\boldmath $K$}_0}
\def\bKk{\mbox{\boldmath $K$}_\kappa}
\def\subm{\prec_{ \bK}}
\def\subhat{\prec_{\hat \bK_0}}
\def\subKzero{\prec_{\bkzero}}
\def\Nbar{\overline{N}}
\def\Mbar{\overline{M}}
\def\Kbar{\overline{K}}
\def\Ascr{{\mathcal A }}
\def\Bscr{{\cal B }}
\def\Pscr{{\mathcal P }}
\def\Sscr{{\cal S }}
\begin{document}
\begin{abstract} In \cite{BKSoul} examples of incomplete sentences are given with maximal models in more than one
cardinality. The question was raised whether one can find similar examples of complete sentences. In this paper we give
examples of complete $\lomegaone$-sentences with maximal models in more than one
cardinality; indeed in countably many cardinalities.
The key new construction is a complete
$\lomegaone$-sentence with arbitrarily large models but with
$(\kappa^+,\kappa)$ models for every $\kappa$.
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
We unite ideas from \cite{BFKL, BKL, Hjorthchar,Knightex} to find
complete sentences with maximal models in two cardinals. There have
been a number of papers finding complete sentences of $\lomegaone$
characterizing cardinals beginning with Baumgartner, Malitz and
Knight in the 70's, refined by Laskowski and Shelah in the 90's and
crowned by Hjorth's characterization of all cardinals below
$\aleph_{\omega_1}$ in the 2002. These results have been refined
since. But this is the first paper finding complete sentences with
maximal models in two or more cardinals.
Our arguments combine and extend the techniques of building atomic
models by Fraiss\'{e} constructions using disjoint amalgamation,
pioneered by Laskowski-Shelah and Hjorth, with the notion of
homogeneous characterization and tools from
Baldwin-Koerwien-Laskowski. This paper combines the ideas of Hjorth
and Knight with specific techniques from \cite{BFKL, BKL,
SouldatosCharacterizableCardinals, Souldatoscharpow} and many proofs
are adapted from these sources.
\textbf{Structure of the paper}:
In Section \ref{template}, we explain the merger techniques for
combining sentences that homogeneously characterize one cardinal
(possibly in terms of another) to get a single complete sentence with
maximal models in prescribed cardinalities.
Section \ref{genknight} contains the main technical construction of
the paper: the existence of a complete sentence with a unary
predicate that has $(\kappa^+,\kappa)$ models for every $\kappa$.
From this construction and the tools of Section~\ref{template}, we
present examples of $\lomegaone$-sentences with maximal models in
$\kappa$ and $\kappa^+$ and no larger models.
In Section
\ref{sec:ltoomega} we present examples of $\lomegaone$-sentences with
maximal models in $\kappa$ and $\kappa^\omega$ and no larger models.
The argument can be generalized to maximal models in $\kappa$ and
$\kappa^{\aleph_\alpha}$, for all countable $\alpha$.
Finally in Section \ref{ManyCardinalities}, if $\kappa$ is a
homogeneously characterizable cardinal, we present an
$\lomegaone$-sentence with maximal models in cardinalities
$2^{\aleph_0}, 2^{\aleph_1},\ldots, 2^{\kappa}$ and no models larger
than $2^\kappa$.
\section{The general construction}\label{template}
\numberwithin{Thm}{section} \setcounter{Thm}{0}
In this section, for a cardinal $\kappa$ that admits homogeneous
characterization, we construct a complete sentence $\phi_\kappa$ of
$\lomegaone$ that has maximal models in $\kappa$ and $\kappa^+$ and
no larger models. The proof applies the notion of a receptive model
from \cite{BFKL} and merges a sentence homogeneously characterizing
$\kappa$ with a complete sentence encoding the old idea of
characterizing $\kappa^+$ by a $\kappa$-like order. This template is
extended to functions other than successor in later sections.
We require a few preliminary definitions.
\begin{Def}\label{Def:HomChar} Assume $\lambda\le\kappa$ are infinite cardinals,
$\phi$ is a complete $\lomegaone$-sentence in a vocabulary that
contains a unary predicate $P$, and $\M$ is the (unique) countable model of $\phi$. We say
\begin{enumerate}
\item a
model $\N$ of $\phi$ is of type $(\kappa,\lambda)$, if
$|\N|=\kappa$ and $|P^\N|=\lambda$;
\item For a countable structure $\M$, $P^\M$ is a set of {\em
absolute indiscernibles} for $\M$, if $P^\M$ is infinite
and every permutation of $P^\M$ extends to an
automorphism of $\M$.
\item $\phi$ \emph{homogeneously characterizes} $\kappa$, if
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\phi$ has no model of size $\kappa^+$; \item
$P^\M$ is a set of absolute indiscernibles for
$\M$, and
\item there is a maximal model of $\phi$ of type $(\kappa,\kappa)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{Def}
The next notation is useful for defining mergers. We slightly
broaden the notion of `receptive' from \cite{BFKL} by requiring some
sorts of the `guest sentence' to restrict to $U$ while others are new
sorts in the final vocabulary.
\begin{Not}
\label{fixvoc1} Fix a vocabulary $\tau$ containing unary predicates
$V,U$ and a binary relation symbol $P$. The sentence $\theta_0$ says
$V$ and $U$ partition the universe and $P$ is a projection of $V$
onto $U$.
Let $\tau_1$ extend $\tau$ and let $\theta$ be a complete
$\tau_1$-sentence of $\lomegaone$ that implies $\theta_0$. Fix a
vocabulary $\tau'$ disjoint from $\tau_1$ that contains a unary
predicate $Q$, and let $\psi$ an arbitrary (possibly incomplete)
$\tau'$-sentence of $\lomegaone$. Let $\tau_2$ contain the symbols of
$\tau_1 \cup \tau'$ except for $Q$.
\begin{itemize}
\item If $U$ defines an infinite {\em absolutely indiscernible
set} in the countable model of $\theta$, we call the pair
$(\theta,U)$ \emph{receptive}. We call $\theta$
\emph{receptive} if there is a $U$ such that $(\theta,U)$ is
receptive and in that case we also call the countable model
of $\theta$ a receptive model.
\item The \emph{merger} $\chi_{\theta,U,\psi,Q}$ of the pair
$(\theta,U)$ is the conjunction of $\theta$ and $\psi^{U,Q}$, where $\psi^{U,Q}$ is the result of
%restricting $\psi$ to the set defined by $Q$ and
substituting $U$ for $Q$ in $\psi$. Thus $\chi_{\theta,U,\psi,Q}$ is a $\tau_2$-sentence.
\item If in all models $\N$ of $\psi$, $Q^\N$ is the domain
of $\N$, then we will drop $Q$ and write
$\chi_{\theta,U,\psi}$.
\item If $\M\models\theta$ and $\N\models\psi$, the
\emph{merger model} $(\M,\N)$ denotes a model of
$\chi_{\theta,U,\psi,Q}$ where the elements of $Q^\N$
have been identified with the elements of $U^\M$, which
is the intersection of $M$ and $N$.
$\M$ will be called the %\emph{receptive}, or
\emph{host} model and $\N$ the \emph{guest
model}.
\end{itemize}
\end{Not}
Note that if $\phi$ and $P$ homogeneously characterize some $\kappa$,
then the countable model of $\phi$ is receptive. Fact~\ref{mergeprop}
extends the argument in \cite{BFKL} to reflect our more general
notion of merger.
\begin{Fact}\label{mergeprop} Let $(\theta,U)$ be receptive
and $\psi$ a sentence of $\lomegaone$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The merger $\chi_{\theta,U,\psi,Q}$ is a complete sentence
if and only if $\psi$ is complete.
\item There is a $1$-$1$ isomorphism preserving function between isomorphism types of
the countable models of $\psi$ and the isomorphism types of countable models of the merger
$\chi_{\theta,U,\psi}$.
\item If there is a model $M_0$ of $\theta$ with
$|M_0|=\lambda_0$ and $|U^{M_0}|=\rho$ and also a model
$M_1$ of $\psi$ with $|M_1|=\lambda_1$ and $|Q^{M_1}|=\rho$,
then there is a model of $\chi_{\theta,U,\psi,Q}$ with
cardinality $\max(\lambda_0,\lambda_1)$.
%\item For every cardinal $\lambda$, $\bI(\chi_{\theta,U,\psi,Q}, \lambda)
% \le \max (\bI(\theta, \lambda) ,\bI(\psi, \lambda))$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Fact}
\begin{Rem} {\rm The proof of 1) in \cite{BFKL} is a bit quick. The completeness
also depends on absolute indiscernability. Let $\N$ and $\N'$ be
countable models of $\psi$. Then $Q(\N) \cong_{\tau'} Q(\N')$. By absolute indiscernability that automorphism extends
to a $\tau_1$
automorphism of any $\M$ being merged with $\N$ or $\N'$.}
\end{Rem}
In Section~\ref{genknight} we prove:
\begin{Thm}\label{knightgen}
There is a complete $\lomegaone$-sentence\footnote{The subscript $M$
on $\phi_M$ is residue of the proof; we have only one such sentence.}
$\phi_M$ with a unary predicates $X, Y$ and binary predicate $<$ such
that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\phi_M$ has arbitrarily large models.
\item If $\M \models \phi_M$, $|\M| \leq |X^\M|^+$.
\item For
each $\kappa$, there exist a model of $\phi_K$ of type
$(\kappa^+,\kappa)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
Idea of the Proof: We will construct (via a generalized
Fra{\"i}ss{\'e} construction) a sentence $\phi_M$ whose models behave
as follows. The sort $Y$ is linearly ordered by $<$. Each element
$y$ of $Y$ determines a function $g (\_,y):X \rightarrow Y$ so that
for $y\in Y$, $g (\_,y)$ maps $X$ onto the initial segment below $y$.
The mapping is finite-to-one and so bounds the size of any initial
segment by $|X|$. The full proof is in Section~\ref{genknight}.
Using this result we show if $\kappa$ is homogeneously
characterizable, we can construct a complete sentence of $\lomegaone$
that has maximal models in $\kappa$ and $\kappa^+$ and no larger
models. Before we proceed with the particular example we need to
prove the following theorem.
\begin{Thm}\label{Thm:ManyMaximal} Let $\kappa$ be a homogeneously characterizable cardinal. Then there exists an
$\lomegaone$-sentence $\chi$ in a vocabulary with a new unary predicate symbol $B$, such that $(\chi,B)$ is
receptive, $\chi$ homogeneously characterizes $\kappa$ and $\chi$ has maximal models with $(|\M|, |B^{\M}|)=
(\kappa,\lambda)$, for all $\lambda\le\kappa$.
\end{Thm}
\begin{proof}
Fix a receptive pair $(\theta,U)$ such that $\theta$ homogeneously
characterizes $\kappa$. Define a new vocabulary $\tau=\{A,B,p\}$
where $A,B$ are unary predicates and $p$ is a binary predicate. Let
$\phi$ be the conjunction of: (a) $A,B$ partition the universe and
(b) $p$ is a total function from $A$ onto $B$ such that each
$p^{-1}(x)$ is infinite. In the countable model of $\phi$, $B$ is a
set of absolute indiscernibles.
Now merge $\theta$ and $\phi$ by identifying $U$ and $A$. The merger
$\chi=\chi_{\theta,U,\phi,A}$ is a complete sentence which does not have
any models of size $\kappa^+$. Let $\M$ be a maximal model of
$\theta$ with $U^\M$ of size $\kappa$, and $\N$ a model of $\phi$ of
type $(\kappa,\lambda)$, for some $\lambda\le\kappa$. Then the merger
model $(\M,\N)$ is a maximal model of $\chi$ with $|(\M,\N)|=\kappa$ and $|B^{(\M,\N)}|=
\lambda$, which proves the result
\end{proof}
A word of caution: In the countable model of $\theta$, the predicate
$U$ defines a set of absolute indiscernibles, and the same is true
for the countable model of $\phi$ and $B$. So, we started with two
models and two sets of absolute indiscernibles. In the merger
$\chi_{\theta,U,\phi,A}$, the absolute indiscernibles of the host
model (model of $\theta$) are used to bound the size of $A$ from the
guest model (model of $\phi$). Moreover, the predicate $B$ from the
guest model defines a set of absolute indiscernibles in the merger
model too, and it may be small.
Now, combining Theorem \ref{Thm:ManyMaximal} and Theorem
\ref{knightgen} we conclude
\begin{Cor}\label{Cor:kkplus} Let $\kappa$ be a homogeneously characterizable cardinal. Then there is a complete
sentence
that characterizes $\kappa$ and has maximal models in $\kappa$ and $\kappa^+$.
In particular there is a complete sentence with maximal models in
$\aleph_1$ and $\aleph_2$.
\end{Cor}
\begin{proof} Let $\phi^*_\kappa$ be the merger
$\chi_{\phi_\kappa,U,\phi_M,X}$, where the pair $(\phi_\kappa,U)$ witnesses the homogeneous characterizability of
$\kappa$, and the pair $(\phi_M,X)$ is given by Theorem \ref{knightgen}. By Fact~\ref{mergeprop},
$\phi^*_\kappa$ is complete. Suppose $(\M,\N) \models \phi^*_\kappa$
and $\M$ is a maximal model of $\phi_\kappa$ of size $\kappa$. If
$|U^\M|<\kappa$, then $|X^\N|<\kappa$, and by Theorem \ref{knightgen}
(2) $|\N|\le\kappa$. So, the merger model is maximal and has size $\kappa$.
On the other hand, if $|U^\M|=\kappa$, then choose a model $\N$ of
$\phi_M$ of type $(\kappa^+,\kappa)$, which is maximal among models
of $\phi_M$ with $X=U^\M$. By Theorem \ref{knightgen}, there is no
$(\kappa^{++},\kappa)$-model of $\phi_M$ and therefore, there must be
such a maximal $(\kappa^+,\kappa)$ model. The merger model $(\M,\N)$
is again a maximal model of $\phi^*_\kappa$, but this time it has
size $\kappa^+$.
\end{proof}
Particular examples of homogeneously characterizable cardinals are given by \cite{BaumgartnersHanfNumber},
\cite{Hjorthchar},
\cite{Soul1}, \cite{Souldatoscharpow}, \cite{SouldatosCharacterizableCardinals}, \cite{BKL}.
\begin{Thm} If $\kappa$ is homogeneously
characterizable, then
the same holds true
\begin{enumerate}
\item for\footnote{Baumgartner; see also Theorem 3.4 of
\cite{Souldatoscharpow}} $2^\kappa$;
\item for\footnote{Theorem
3.6,\cite{SouldatosCharacterizableCardinals}}
$\kappa^\omega$;
\item \label{SoulPow} for\footnote{Corollary 5.6, \cite{Soul1}}
$\kappa^{\aleph_\alpha}$, for all countable ordinals
$\alpha$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
\begin{Thm}[Theorem 4.29, \cite{Souldatoscharpow}] If $\aleph_\alpha$ is a characterizable cardinal, then
$2^{\aleph_{\alpha+\beta}}$ is homogeneously characterizable, for all $0 < \beta < \omega_1$.
\end{Thm}
Finally a result of slightly different character; we note a direct
proof of a sentence $\phi_n$ that homogeneously characterize
$\aleph_n$ ($n> 0$) and has $(\aleph_n,\aleph_k)$ models for $k\le n$.
\begin{Thm}[\cite{BKL}]\label{Thm:BKLExamples} For each $n\in\omega$, there is a complete $\lomegaone$-sentence
$\phi_n$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\phi_n$ homogeneously characterizes $\aleph_n$ with absolute indiscernibles
in a predicate $P$; and
\item for each $k\le n$, there is a maximal model $N_k$ of $\phi_n$ of type $(\aleph_n,\aleph_k)$.
\end{itemize}
\end{Thm}
Since in this last example, the complete sentence\footnote{The proof
that these $(\aleph_n,\aleph_k)$ models exist requires the use of
both frugal amalgamation and an amalgamation which allows
identification. We say a class has frugal amalgamation
if for every amalgamation triple $A, B,C$ there is an amalgam on the union of the domains with no identifications. See
\cite{BKS}.}
has maximal models of type $(\aleph_n,\aleph_k)$, for all $k \leq n$
there is no need to appeal to Theorem \ref{Thm:ManyMaximal} for the
proof of Corollary \ref{Cor:kkplus}.
\section{A complete sentence with only $(\kappa^+,\kappa)$-models
for all $\kappa$ }\label{genknight}
\numberwithin{Thm}{section}
\setcounter{Thm}{0}
Knight \cite{Knightex} constructed the first example of a complete
sentence characterizing $\aleph_1$. We will vary that idea to get
the result announced.
\begin{Lem}
There is a structure $A = (Q,<, g_n)$ in the vocabulary $\langle <,
g_n\rangle $, where $<$ is the usual dense order on $Q$ and the $g_n$
are unary, such that for each $n$ and $x$, $g_n(x) <x$ and for each
$x$ the set of $g_n(x)$ is the set of predecessors of $x$. Moreover
this structure has a proper elementary extension isomorphic to
itself. Thus $A$ is extendible. If $\phi_A$ is the Scott sentence of
$A$, $\phi_A$ characterizes $\aleph_1$.
\end{Lem}
The proof of this lemma involves an intricate construction of
functions $f_a$ for $a \in \Pscr_\omega(A)$; we now produce a similar
structure by a Fraiss\'e style construction, proving
Theorem~\ref{knightgen}. We follow the idea of Hjorth in replacing
functions $f_n$ by a uniform $f(x,y)$ indexed in the model. This
sentence will have arbitrarily large models with two sorts $X,Y$ such
that the sort of $|Y| \leq |X|^+$. This construction will allow us in
Theorem~\ref{kplusok} to construct $(\kappa^+,\kappa)$ models of
$\phi_M$. The predicates $G_n$ are used to enforce local finiteness.
We now describe the sentence $\phi_M$; the remainder of the subsection
completes the proof of Theorem~\ref{knightgen}.
\begin{Cons}\label{Con:GenJuliasExample} {\rm Let $\tau$ contain binary $<$, unary $X,Y$ and ternary
$g(x,y,z)$ and $(n+2)$-ary relation symbols $G_n(x_0,\ldots ,
x_{n-1},y,z)$ on $X^n \times Y^2$.
$\bK_0$ is the collection of finite structures such $X$ and $Y$ are
disjoint, $<$ linearly orders $Y$, $g(x,y,z)$ is a \emph{total}
function from $X\times Y$ into $Y$ such that $g(x,y,z)$ implies
$z\leq y$ and for each $y \in Y$, letting $W_y =\{z\in Y|z \le
y\}$, the function $g_y =g(\_,y):X\rightarrow W_y$ is onto. We
often write $g(x,y)=z$ for $g(x,y,z)$.
We want to guarantee that in each model for each $z<y \in Y$ there is
an $n$, $0<n<\omega$, such that the set $\{x\in X| g(x,y)=z\}$ has
size $n$. In other words, the function $g(\_,y)$ is finite-to-1 when
restricted to the set $\{x\in X| g(x,y)<y\}$. Notice that while
$g(x,y)$ is allowed to take the value $y$, the finite-to-1
restriction does not apply to the set $\{x\in X|g(x,y)=y\}$.
For each $z<y \in Y$, we use the $(n+2)$-ary relation symbols $G_n(x_0,\ldots ,
x_{n-1},y,z)$ on $X^n \times Y^2$ to indicate that the set
$\{x_0,\ldots,x_{n-1}\}$ equals the set $\{x\in X| g(x,y)=z\}$, which
is of size $n$. The relations $G_n$ satisfy the following:
The universal closure of each formula of the following form(s):
$$G_n(x_0,\ldots , x_{n-1},y,z) \rightarrow \bigwedge_{i<j<n}
x_i \neq x_j;$$
$$G_n(x_0,\ldots , x_{n-1},y,z) \rightarrow (z<y) \wedge \bigwedge_{i<n}
g(x_i,y,z);$$
$$G_n(x_0,\ldots , x_{n-1},y,z) \wedge g(w,y,z) \rightarrow \bigvee_{i<n}
w=x_i; $$
and for every permutation $\pi:n\rightarrow n$,
$$G_n(x_0,\ldots, x_{n-1},y,z)\leftrightarrow
G_n(x_{\pi(0)},\ldots,x_{\pi(n-1)},y,z)$$
and each sentence of the form:
$$\forall y\; \forall z< y\;\bigvee_{0<n<\omega}\exists x_0\exists x_1\;\exists x_2\ldots\exists x_{n-1}, \;G_n(x_0,x_1,
\ldots x_{n-1},
y,z);$$
}
\end{Cons}
Note that since in every member of $\bK_0$ and for every $y$ there is an
$x$ with $g(x,y) =y$, we will never have to check this condition in an
amalgamation. The following easy lemma will be applied several times.
\begin{Lem}\label{Lem:bigX}
If $A \in \bK_0$ and $m \in \omega$, there is a structure $B\in
\bK_0$ with $A$ a substructure of $B$ and $|X^B \setminus X^A|\geq
m$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof} Adjoin $m$ elements to $X^A$ and let $g^B(x,y)=y$, for all new $x$ and each $y\in Y^A$.
For each $n$ exactly the same elements satisfy $G_n$ in $A$ and $B$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Def} \label{gp} We call $(A,B)$ a {\em good pair}, if $A\subset B$, $A, B\in
\bK_0$ and $|X^{B}\setminus X^{A}|\ge|Y^{B}\setminus Y^{A}|$.
\end{Def}
\begin{Lem}\label{Lem:DAPForK0} $\bK_0$ has the disjoint amalgamation property under
substructure.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $A$ is a substructure of $B$ and $C$. Applying
Lemma~\ref{Lem:bigX} to $B$ with $m = |Y^B\setminus Y^A|$ and to $C$
with $m = |Y^C\setminus Y^A|$ we may assume
$|X^B\setminus X^A|\ge
|Y^B\setminus Y^A|$ and $|X^C\setminus X^A|\ge |Y^C\setminus Y^A|$
(and they intersect in $A$). Extend the partial order on $Y^B \cup
Y^C$ by linearly ordering the $a_i, b_j$ that are in an interval
$(c_i, c_j)$ in any way that preserves the ordering of the a's and of
the b's.
Let $X^D=X^B\cup X^C$ and $Y^D=Y^B\cup Y^C$. The goal is to define
$g^D(x,y)$ on the pairs $(x,y) \in (X^B\setminus X^A)\times
(Y^C\setminus Y^A) \cup (X^C\setminus X^A)\times (Y^B\setminus Y^A)$
to obtain an amalgam $D \in \bK_0$.
For each $y\in Y^C\setminus Y^A$, let $ W^B_{y}=\{z\in Y^B\setminus
Y^A|z\le y\}$. Define $g^D(x,y)$ so that for each $y\in
Y^C\setminus Y^A$ and each $x\in X^B\setminus X^A$, $g^D(x,y)\in
W^B_y$ and each element in $W^B_y$ is mapped to by at least one $x\in
X^B\setminus X^A$. This is possible by the application above of
Lemma~\ref{Lem:bigX}. If $W^B_y$ is empty, define $g^D(x,y)=y$.
Symmetrically, for each $x\in X^C\setminus X^A$ and each $y\in
Y^B\setminus Y^A$, define $g^D(x,y)$ to be an element in
$W^C_{y}=\{z\in Y^C\setminus Y^A|z\le y\}$, so that each element in
$W^C_{y}\subset Y^C\setminus Y^A$ is mapped to at least once. Again,
if the set is empty, define $g^D(x,y)=y$.
Since no newly defined triple $x,y_1,y_2$ that satisfies $g(x,y_1)=
y_2$ has both $y_1$ and $y_2$ in $C$, or both $y_1$ and $y_2$ in
$B$, we can extend the definition of the $G^D_n$'s consistent with
the new assignments of $g$ while extending $G_n^B$ and $G^C_n$ and so
making $D\in \bK_0$.
\end{proof}
We
summarize the results of this construction. We call a structure
$\bK_0$-generic if it is homogeneous and universal for
$\bK_0$-structures and is a union of finite structures.
\begin{Thm}\label{CountableGeneric}
There is a countable $\bK_0$-generic (and atomic) model $M$ (with
Scott sentence $\phi_M$), which is an increasing union of members of
$\bK_0$ which are each closed under $g$. Thus, $M$ is locally (but
not uniformly locally) finite. Moreover $M \models (\forall y_1,y_2)
[y_1<y_2 \rightarrow (\exists x) g(x,y_2) =y_1]$ since each model in
the union does.
Thus, if $N \models \phi_M$, $Y^N$ is a dense linear order and for
every $y \in Y^N$, $|X^N| \geq |\{y'\in Y^N:y'<y\}|$. In particular,
if $|X^N|\le \kappa$, then the size of $Y^N$ is bounded by
$\kappa^+$.
\end{Thm}
\begin{proof}
Since the $G_n$ are only defined on models of cardinality at least
$n$, there are only countably many models in $\bK_0$, so the
amalgamation property (and trivially joint embedding) guarantee the
existence of $\M$.
\end{proof}
\begin{Cor}\label{a1ok} There is an $(\aleph_1,\aleph_0)$-model of $\phi_M$.
\begin{proof} We borrow the technique of Lemma 1.10 of \cite{BFKL}. Expand
the vocabulary $\tau$ to $\tau'$ by adding a new unary predicate $Q$.
Consider the class $\bK'$ of finite $\tau'$-structures $N$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $N \restriction \tau \in \bK_0$;
\item $X^N \subseteq Q^N$; and
\item $Y^N\cap Q^N$ is an initial segment of $Y^N$.
\end{enumerate}
By virtue of $\bK_0$ satisfying disjoint amalgamation, the same is also true for $\bK'$.
We claim that the generic model $M'$ for $\bK'$ has a proper $\tau$-substructure $M_0$ with universe $Q^{M'}$,
$M_0\restriction \tau \cong M'\restriction \tau$, and $X^{M_0} = X^{M'}$.
Since $M'$ is $\bK'$-generic, both $M'\restriction\tau$ and $M_0\restriction\tau$ must be $\bK_0$-generic. By Theorem
\ref{CountableGeneric}, they are isomorphic.
The fact that $X^{M_0} = X^{M'}$ follows from condition (2).
Now, consider the question whether $M_0$ is a proper submodel of $M'$. It is immediate that $M_0$, $M'$ agree on $<$,
and $X^{M_0} = X^{M'}$ implies that they agree on the $G_n$'s too. The only case that needs to be considered is if there
exist $x\in X^{M_0}$ and $y_1\in Y^{M_0}$, and $g^{M_0}(x,y_1)$ does not equal $g^{M'}(x,y_1)$.
But this can happen only if $g^{M'}(x,y_1)\notin Y^{M_0}$, i.e. $g^{M'}(x,y_1)\notin Q^{M'}$. In this case,
$g^{M'}(x,y_1)<y_1$, $y_1\in Q^{M'}$ and $g^{M'}(x,y_1)\notin Q^{M'}$, contradicting condition (3).
So, we proved all three conditions on $M_0\restriction \tau$ and $M'\restriction \tau$.
Taking a countable increasing chain of atomic models, we get an $(\aleph_1,\aleph_0)$ model $M^* \models \phi_M$.
\end{proof}
\end{Cor}
\begin{Def}\label{hat} $C \in \hat \bK_0$ if
\begin{enumerate}
\item for every finite $A\subset C$ there exists some finite
substructure $A'$ of $C$ with $A\subset A'$ and $A'\in
\bK_0$.
\item $(Y^C,<)$ is a linear order without endpoints.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Def}
Condition 1) is often expressed by saying $C$ is locally finite. The
following lemma is a crucial observation.
\begin{Lem}\label{onto} If $C \in \hat \bK_0$, then $g^C_y$ maps onto $W^C_y =\{z\in C: z \leq y\}$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof} Let $z \in W^C_y$. By local finiteness there is a
finite $A$ such that $g^A_y$ maps onto $W^A_y$; in particular there
is an $x \in A$ with $g^A(x,y) = g^C(x,y) =z$.
\end{proof}
The structure $N$ is called {\em $\bK_0$-rich}, or just \emph{rich}, if for every $A \subset N$ which
is in $\bK_0$ and every extension $B \in
\bK_0$ of $A$, there is an embedding of $B$ into $N$ over $A$. If $N
\in \hat \bK_0$ and $N$ is rich then standard arguments show $N
\models \phi_M$.
Our first goal is to prove that $\phi_M$ has model in all
cardinalities. Then we will merge this sentence with a complete
sentence $\phi$ that homogeneously characterizes some cardinal
$\kappa$ by identifying $X$ with the set of absolute indiscernibles
of $\phi$. This will result in a complete $\lomegaone$-sentence that
has maximal models in two cardinalities: $\kappa$ and $\kappa^+$.
In the following argument we write $g^C(x,y)$ to emphasize when we
are using the existing model $C$ to define the extended function
$g^D(x,\_)$.
\begin{Thm}\label{Thm:AP} Let $C\in \hat \bK_0$ be infinite. Let $A,B\in \bK_0$, $A\subset B,C$. Then the triple
$(A,B,C)$ can be
disjointly amalgamated to a structure $D \in \hat \bK_0$ with
$|X^{D}|=|X^C|$ and $|Y^{D}|=|Y^C|$.
\begin{proof} As in the proof of Lemma \ref{Lem:DAPForK0}, extend the partial order on
$Y^B\cup Y^C$ to a \emph{total} order without endpoints.
Without loss of generality by Lemma~\ref{Lem:bigX} assume that
$|X^B\setminus X^A|\ge |Y^B\setminus Y^A|$. The goal is to extend
$g^C$ and $g^B$ to a function $g^D$ on all pairs $(x,y)\in
(X^B\setminus X^A)\times (Y^C\setminus Y^A) \cup (X^C\setminus
X^A)\times (Y^B\setminus Y^A)$ so that $D \in \hat \bK$. In stage 1,
we almost achieve this goal. But we may need a further finite
extension of $D$ to $D'$ and this is stage 2 of the construction.
In making this extension no new values are assigned to $g(a,b) =c$
where both $b,c$ are in $Y^C$, or both $b,c$ are in $Y^B$. So there
is no danger of injury to any predicate $G_n(\xbar,b,c)$ with $b,c
\in B$, or $b,c \in C$.
{\bf Stage 1:} We organize the case structure by the possible
locations of an $(x,y)$ on which $g^D$ must be defined. The first
case is $(x,y) \in X^B\setminus X^A\times
Y^C\setminus Y^A$. For fixed $y$ and each $x$
define $g^D(x,y)$ to be an element of the set $
W^B_{y}=\{z\in Y^B\setminus Y^A|z\leq y\}$, ensuring that each element in $W^B_{y}$ is
mapped to at least once. This is possible given the assumption
$|X^B\setminus X^A|\ge |Y^B\setminus Y^A|$. If $ W^B_{y}$ is
empty, let $g^D(x,y)=y$. Since only finitely many extensions $g^D(x,\_)$'s have been defined and all of them take values
outside of $C$, it is trivial to define the $G^D_n$. Note that since each $z \in Y^C$, $z\le y$, is already in the
range of $g^C_y$, $g^D_y$ maps onto $\{z\in Y^D|z\le y\}$.
The second case of stage 1 is $(x,y) \in X^C\setminus X^A \times
Y^B\setminus Y^A$. It requires more work, since we must define
$g^D(x,y)$ for infinitely many $x$ and finitely many $y$ without
violating the constraints on the $G_n$. We choose a surrogate
$y_0>Y^B$ with $y_0 \in Y^C \setminus Y^A$ that we use to define
$g^D(x,y)$ for all $(x,y)$ satisfying this case. For every $x\in
X^C\setminus X^A$ and $y\in Y^B\setminus Y^A$, we define $g^D(x,y)$
by three subcases.
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $g^C(x,y_0) \geq y$, let $g^D(x,y)=y$.
\item If $g^C(x,y_0) < y$ and $g^C(x,y_0) \notin Y^A$, let $g^D(x,y)=g^C(x,y_0)$.
\item If $g^C(x,y_0) < y$ and $g^C(x,y_0) \in Y^A$,
let\footnote{Since each $g^B(\_,y)$ is onto, there must be an
$x_1\in X^B$, $g^B(x_1,y)=g^C(x,y_0)$ holds; following the recipe in
2) would make $G^D_n(\xbar,y,z)$ differ from $G^B_n(\xbar,y,z)$.}
$g^D(x,y) =y$.
\end{enumerate}
Each $g^D(x,\_)$ maps into $W^D_y =\{z\in D: z \leq y\}$. Further the
range of $g^D(\_,y)$ contains all of $W^D_y$, except for the elements
(if any) in the set
$$P_y=\{z\in Y^C\setminus Y^A|z<y \text{ and }
g^C(x,y_0)=z\rightarrow x\in X^A\}.$$
Indeed, let $z<y$. If $z\in Y^B$, then there is an $x$ in $X^B$ with $g^B(x,y) =z$ since $B \in
\bK_0$. If $z\in Y^C\setminus Y^A$, there exist $x_1\in X^C$ with $g^C(x_1,y_0) = z$
since $C\in \hat{\bK}_0$. If in addition $z \notin P_y$, then $x_1$
can be assumed to belong to $X^C\setminus X^A$. Then $g^C(x_1,y_0)=g^D(x_1,y)=z$,
by subcase (2). If $z$ belongs to $P_y$, then $x_1$ is necessarily an element of $X^A$,
and none of subcases (1)-(3) applies since $x_1,y \in B$ and $g^D(x_1,y)$ equals $g^B(x_1,y)$.
Thus, there is no $x$ with $g^D(x,y) =z \in P_y$.
{\bf Stage 2:} We now ensure that all elements in $P_y$ are also
included in the range of $g^D(\_,y)$. For this we add a finite number
of new $x$'s, $X_{\new}$, call the extended domain $D'$, and extend
$g^D$ to $g^{D'}$. Since $X^A$ is finite, the same is true for $P_y$.
We map each $y\in Y^B \setminus Y^A$ to $P_y$ using these new
elements so that for each $y\in Y^B\setminus Y^A$ and each $z\in
P_y$, there exists at least one $x\in X_{\new}$ such that
$g^{D'}(x,y)=z$. For every $y\in Y^C$ and $x\in X_{\new}$ set
$g^{D'}(x,y)=y$.
We now define the $G_n^{D'}$. In stage 1 we did this for all $y \in
Y^C$ and $z \in Y^B$ with $z<y$. By property (1) of
Definition~\ref{hat}, for each $z\in Y^C\setminus Y^A$, there are
only finitely many $x\in X^C$ that agree that the value of
$g^C(x,y_0)$ is $z$. This implies that for each $y\in Y^B\setminus
Y^A$ and each $z\in (Y^C\setminus Y^A)\setminus P_y$, $z<y$, there
are only finitely many $x\in X^C\setminus X^A$ such that
$g^{D'}(x,y)=z$. If $z\in P_y$, then there are only finitely many
$x\in X_{\new}$ such that $g^{D'}(x,y)=z$. Extend the $G_n$'s from
$B$ and $C$ to $D'$ as the new assignments of $g^{D'}$ require.
This completes the construction of the amalgam $D'$; next we show
that each of $B,C$ is a substructure of $D'$. That is, the $G_n$'s
are preserved when we pass from $B,C$ to $D'$. To check from $B$ to
$D$, we must show that for each $y,z\in Y^B$ there is no $x \in
X_{\new}\cup (X^C\setminus X^A)$, with $y>z$ and $g^{D'}(x,y)=z$ as
this would violate $G^B_n(\xbar,y,z)$. If $x\in X_{\new}$ and $y\in
Y^B\setminus Y^A$, then $g^{D'}(x,y)\neq z$ since $g^{D'}(x,y)$ belongs to
$P_{y}\subset Y^C\setminus Y^A$. If $x\in X_{\new}$ and $y\in Y^A$,
then $g^{D'}(x,y)=y \neq z$. If $x\in X^C\setminus X^A$, there do not
exist $y,z\in Y^B$ with $y>z$ and $g^{D'}(x,y)=z$. For such a
$g^{D'}(x,y)$ could not be defined using subcase (2), as in subcase
(2) $z=g^{D'}(x,y)=g^C(x,y_0)\notin Y^A$ (and so certainly not in
$Y^B$ since $z \in Y^C$). So, for any $y, z\in Y^B$ with $y>z$,
$|\{x:g^{D'}(x,y) = z\}| = |\{x:g^B(x,y) = z\}|$, which makes $B$ a
substructure of $D'$.
To check that the $G_n$'s are preserved from $C$ to $D'$, let $y,z\in
Y^C$ with $y>z$.
We must show there is no $x\in X_{\new}\cup (X^B\setminus X^A)$ such that $g^{D'}(x,y)=z$. If
$x\in X_{\new}$, then $g^{D'}(x,y)=y$. If $x\in X^B\setminus X^A$,
then $g^{D'}(x,y)\in W^B_{y}\subset Y^B\setminus Y^A$ by the first case of Stage 1.
Thus, both $B$ and $C$ are substructures of $D'$.
It remains to prove that $D' \in \bK_0$. Property (2) is immediate.
Property (1) is the one that needs work.
Let $D_0$ be a finite substructure of $D'$. Without loss of
generality assume that $X_{\new}\cup B\cup \{y_0\}\subset D_0$.
Applying property (1) on $C$, there exists a substructure $D_1$ of
$C$ with $D_1\in \bK_0$ and $D_0\cap C\subset D_1$. We claim that
$D_2=D_0\cup D_1$ is a substructure of $D'$ and is in $\bK_0$,
which proves the result.
We must show $D_2$ is closed under $g$. We follow the same case
structure as in the construction.
In the first case of Stage 1, where $(x,y) \in X^B\setminus X^A \times Y^{D_1}\setminus
Y^A$, $g^D(x,y)$ was defined to be either an element $w\in W^B_{
y}\subset Y^B \setminus Y^A$ or $y$. In either event it is in $D_2$.
Consider now the second case of Stage 1: $(x,y)\in X^{D_1}\setminus X^A \times
Y^B\setminus Y^A$. In either subcase (1) or (3) $g^{D'}(x,y) =y$ and
the result is immediate. In subcase (2) suppose $g^{D'}(x,y) =
g^C(x,y_0)=z'$. Then $z' \in D_1$ since $x,y_0$ are in the
substructure $D_1$. Any other $(x,y)$ with $x \not \in X_{\new}$ are
either both in $B$ or both in $D_1$ so closure under $g^{D'}$ follows
since $B$ and $D_1$ are in $\bK_0$.
And finally we consider the elements added in stage 2. If $(x,y)\in
X_{\new}\times Y^{D_1}$, then $g^{D'}(x,y)=y\in D_2$. If $(x,y)\in
X_{\new}\times Y^{B}$, then $g^{D'}(x,y)\in P_y\subset g^C(X^A,y_0)$.
Since $A\cup \{y_0\}\subset D_1$ and $D_1$ is closed under $g^{C}$,
$g^C(X^A,y_0)$ is a subset of $D_1$.
We have shown $D_2$ is closed under $g^{D'}$. It remains to prove
that $G^{D'}_n \restriction D_2 = G^{D_2}_n$ and $D_2 \in \bK_0$.
Suppose $z<y \in Y^{D_2}$; we must show $G^{D'}(\_,y,z) \restriction
D_2 = G^{D_2}(\_,y,z)$. If both $y,z$ are in $B$ or both are in $C$,
we showed this in showing $B,C$ substructures of $D'$ (since $D_1$ is
given to be a substructure of $C$).
Again we follow the case structure of the construction.
If $y\in Y^{D_1}\setminus Y^A$ and $z\in Y^B\setminus Y^A$, $y>z$,
then $g^{D'}(x,y) =z$ was defined in Stage 1 of the construction for
some $x \in X^B\setminus X^A$. So $\{x: x\in D'\ \& \ g^{D'}(x,y) =z\} = \{x:
x\in B \ \& \ g^{D'}(x,y) =z\}$ as required.
If $y\in Y^B\setminus Y^A$, $z\in Y^{D_1}\setminus Y^A$, $y>z$ and
$g^{D'}(x,y)=z$ for some $x$, then the value was defined either using
subcase (2) in Stage 1 or using the new elements $X_{\new}$ in Stage 2. If under subcase
(2), there are only finitely many $x\in X^C\setminus X^A$ such that
$g^C(x,y_0)=z$. Since $z,y_0\in D_1$ and $D_1\in \bK_0$, it follows
that all these $x$'s belong to $D_1$ and thus to $D_2$. If $z \in
P_y$, the Stage 2 construction showed $\{x: x\in D'\ \& \
g^{D'}(x,y) =z\} \subset X_{\new} \subset D_2$.
Overall, $\{x:g^{D_2}(x,y) =z\} = \{x:g^{D}(x,y) =z\}$ and $D_2$ is a
substructure of $D$.
Finally we must argue that $D_2 \in \bK_0$. But we constructed it so
that $g^D$ is total and each $g^{D'}_y = g^{D_2}_y$ maps onto
$W^{D_2}_y $, so $D_2 \in \bK_0$ and hence $D'\in \hat \bK$.
\end{proof}
\end{Thm}
\begin{Cor}\label{allcard} There are models of $\phi_M$ in all infinite cardinalities.
\begin{proof} Proceed by induction. The countable case has been established.
Let $N_0$ be a structure of size $\kappa$ that satisfies $\phi_M$.
Construct inductively a sequence of models $N_\alpha\in \hat \bK$ for $\alpha <
\kappa^+$, so that every $\alpha<\kappa^+$, $N_{\alpha+1}$ is the
amalgam given by Theorem \ref{Thm:AP} of $N_\alpha$ and
some $B\in \bK_0$ over a finite substructure $A\in \bK_0$ of $N_\alpha$ and take unions at limits.
Organize the induction so that for every $\alpha <\kappa^+$, every
finite $A \subset N_{\alpha}$ with $A \in \bK_0$ and every finite
extension $B \in \bK_0$ of $A$, at some stage $\beta > \alpha$, $B$
is amalgamated with $N_\beta$ over $A$. $N_{\kappa^+}$ is rich and so
is model of $\phi_M$.
\end{proof}
\end{Cor}
Theorem~\ref{CountableGeneric} and Corollary~\ref{allcard} complete
the first two parts of the proof of Theorem~\ref{knightgen}. The
models of $\phi_M$ of size $\kappa$ produced by Corollary
\ref{allcard} are of type $(\kappa,\kappa)$, i.e. both $|X|$, $|Y|$
have the same cardinality $\kappa$. We want to prove the analogue of
Corollary \ref{a1ok} for cardinals greater than $\aleph_1$.
The argument does not directly generalize because,
unlike in $\aleph_0$, the
$\phi_M$ is not uncountably categorical. We need a
little more work to overcome this difficulty.
\begin{Def}\label{filt} Let $C$ be a model of $\phi_M$ of size $\kappa$. Then $C$ \emph{admits a filtering} if there
exists a strictly increasing sequence $(C_\alpha)_{\alpha<\kappa}$ with $\bigcup_{\alpha<\kappa} C_\alpha=C$ that
satisfies
\begin{enumerate}
\item for all $\alpha$, $C_\alpha\in \hat \bK_0$;
\item for all successors $\alpha +1$, $C_{\alpha+1}$ is the
disjoint amalgam of $C_\alpha$ and some $B_\alpha\in \bK_0$
over a substructure $A_\alpha\subset C_\alpha$ with
$A_\alpha\in \bK_0$;
\item for all $\alpha$, the pair $(B_\alpha,A_\alpha)$ is a good pair (cf. Definition
\ref{gp}); and
\item for each limit $\alpha$, $C_\alpha=\bigcup_{\beta<\alpha} C_\beta$.
\end{enumerate}
If in addition the sequence $(C_\alpha)_{\alpha<\kappa}$ satisfies
the following property, then $C$ \emph{admits an ample filtering}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(5)]
For each good pair $(A,B)$ and each $\hat A \subset C_\alpha$
with $\hat A \cong A$, there are $\kappa$-many stages $\alpha$
such that $A_\alpha =\hat A$ and $B_\alpha\cong B$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Def}
All models of $\phi_M$ produced by Lemma \ref{allcard} admit a filtering and it is not hard to modify the
proof of the same lemma to produce models of $\phi_M$ of type $(\kappa,\kappa)$ that admit ample filtering.
In fact a stronger statement is true.
\begin{Lem}\label{AmpleFiltering} Let $C$ be a model of $\phi_M$ of size $\kappa$.
If $C$ admits a filtering, then there is some model $C'$ of $\phi_M$ such that $C\subset C'$ and $C'$ admits an ample
filtering.
\begin{proof} Let $(C_\alpha)_{\alpha<\kappa}$ be a filtering of $C$. If it is an ample filtering, then take $C'=C$.
If not, then proceed for another $\kappa$ more stages to construct an
extension of $(C_\alpha)_{\alpha<\kappa}$ to
$(C_\alpha)_{\alpha<\kappa\cdot 2}$ and take
$C'=\bigcup_{\alpha<\kappa\cdot 2}$. Iterate the argument of
\ref{allcard}, requiring now for every $A\subset C_\alpha$, $A \in
\bK_0$, $\alpha<\kappa\cdot2$, and every finite extension $B\in
\bK_0$ of $A$, there are $\kappa$-many stages
$\beta^{(\alpha)}_i>\alpha$, $i<\kappa$, and $\kappa$-many disjoint
isomorphic copies of $B$, $B_i$, such that $B_i$ is amalgamated with
$C_{\beta^{(\alpha)}_i}$ over $A$ at stage $\beta^{(\alpha)}_i$. The
construction can be carried through in $\kappa$ stages. It follows
that $C'$ is rich, and therefore, a model of $\phi_M$.
\end{proof}
\end{Lem}
The next theorem proves that under the assumption of ample filtering, a model $C$ of $\phi_M$ of type
$(\kappa,\kappa)$ can be properly extended to a model $D$ of $\phi_M$, while
$X^C=X^D$.
This means that we extend only the $Y$-sort. To motivate the
argument we note that the conclusion of the next theorem in fact
implies $Y^D$ is an end-extension of $Y^C$. Indeed, assume that there
exist points $y_0\in Y^C$ and $y_1\in Y^D\setminus Y^C$ such that
$y_0>y_1$. By Theorem \ref{CountableGeneric}, there must be some
$x\in X^D$ such that $g^D(x,y_0)=y_1$. Since we assumed that
$X^D=X^C$, $x$ must also belong to $X^C$. But then $g^C(x,y_0)$ is
defined and belongs to $Y^C$, which means that it can not equal
$y_1$. Because $C$ is a substructure of $D$, $g^D(x,y_0)=g^C(x,y_0)$
and we get a contradiction. Thus, under the assumption $X^D=X^C$, it
is necessary for $Y^D$ to be an end-extension of $Y^C$. Furthermore,
we also prove that the resulting model $D$ admits ample filtering,
which enables us to apply the theorem inductively.
\begin{Thm}\label{EndExtension} Assume $\kappa>\aleph_0$ and $C$ is a model of $\phi_M$ of type $(\kappa,\kappa)$ that
admits an ample filtering. Then there exists
a model $D$ of $\phi_M$ such that $C\subset D$, $X^C=X^D$, and $Y^D$
is an end-extension of $Y^C$. Furthermore, $D$ admits an ample
filtering.
\begin{proof} Fix a sequence $\langle C_\alpha, A_\alpha, B_\alpha :{\alpha<\kappa}\rangle$ witnessing that $C$
admits an ample filtering. In particular, at each stage $\alpha+1$,
$C_{\alpha+1}$ is the disjoint amalgam of $C_\alpha$ and $B_\alpha$,
over
$A_\alpha\subset C_\alpha$ with $A_\alpha, B_\alpha\in \bK_0$.
As in Corollary \ref{a1ok}, extend the vocabulary $\tau$ to $\tau'$
by adding a new predicate $Q$, and let $\bK'_0$ be the class of
finite $\tau'$-structures $N$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $N \restriction \tau \in \bK_0$;
\item $X^N \subset Q^N$; and
\item $Y^N\cap Q^N$ is an initial segment of $Y^N$.
\end{enumerate}
Similarly to Definition \ref{hat}, define that a finite $\tau'$-structure $N$ is in $\hat{ \bK'_0}$ if
\begin{enumerate}
\item for every finite $A\subset N$ there exists some finite
substructure $A'$ of $N$ with $A\subset A'$ and $A'\in
\bK'_0$.
\item $(Y^N,<)$ is a linear order without endpoints.
\end{enumerate}
We now create a new sequence $\langle D_\alpha, A'_\alpha, B'_\alpha
:{\alpha<\kappa}\rangle$ of $\tau'$-structures, so that the
restriction of this new sequence to the $Q$-sort, is the original
sequence $\langle C_\alpha, A_\alpha, B_\alpha
:{\alpha<\kappa}\rangle$. More precisely, $Q^{D_\alpha}\restriction
\tau= C_\alpha$, $Q^{A'_\alpha}\restriction \tau= A_\alpha$ and
$Q^{B'_\alpha}\restriction \tau= B_\alpha$. The relationship we will
require between the pairs $(A_\alpha,B_\alpha)$ and
$(A'_\alpha,B'_\alpha)$ is captured by the following definitions.
Recall Definition~\ref{gp} of a good pair.
\begin{Def} We call $A',B'\in \bK'_0$ a good
pair of $\tau'$-structures if $(A'\restriction \tau,B'\restriction
\tau)$ is a good pair of $\tau$-structures.
\end{Def}
If $A',B'\in \bK'_0$ is a good pair of $\tau'$-structures then
$(Q(A')\restriction\tau,Q(B')\restriction\tau)$s is a good pair of
$\tau$ structures since all of $X^{A'}$ satisfies $Q$.
\begin{Def} \label{tgp} Let $A,B\in \bK_0$ be a good pair of $\tau$-structures and let $A',B'\in \bK'_0$ be a good
pair of $\tau'$-structures. We call $(A',B')$ a {\em good extension}
of $(A,B)$, if $A',B'$ are extensions of $A,B$ respectively, and
$Q^{A'}\restriction \tau=A$ and $Q^{B'}\restriction \tau=B$. Call
$(A',B')$ a {\em good extension}, if it is a good extension of some
$(A,B)$.
\end{Def}
Note that if $(A',B')$ is a good extension, then $|(X^{B'} \cap Q^{B'})\setminus
(X^{A'}\cap Q^{A'})|\ge |(Y^{B'}\cap Q^{B'})\setminus (Y^{A'}\cap
Q^{A'})|$.
We construct a strictly increasing sequence
$(D_\alpha)_{\alpha<\kappa}$ of $\bK'_0$-structures with the
following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item for all $\alpha$, $D_\alpha\in \hat{ \bK'_0}$;
\item for all $\alpha$, $Q^{D_\alpha}\restriction \tau= C_\alpha$;
\item for all successors $\alpha +1$, $D_{\alpha+1}$ is a
disjoint amalgam of $D_\alpha$ and $B'_\alpha$ over
$A'_\alpha$, where $(A'_\alpha,B'_\alpha)$ is a good
extension of $(A_\alpha,B_\alpha)$;
\item for each limit $\alpha$, $D_\alpha=\bigcup_{\beta<\alpha} D_\beta$;
\item for each $\alpha$, if $A'\subset D_\alpha, B'$ and $A', B'\in \bK'_0$, there are $\kappa$-many stages $\alpha$
such that $A'_\alpha=A'$ and $B'_\alpha\cong B'$.
\end{enumerate}
Let $A\subset C$, $A\in \bK_0$, and $B\in \bK_0$ is an extension of
$A$. By assumption on the sequence $(C_\alpha)$, there are
$\kappa$-many stages such that $A_\alpha=A$ and $B_\alpha\cong B$.
Consider all possible $\tau'$-structures $A'\subset B'$ such that
$B=Q^{B'}\restriction \tau$ and $A=Q^{A'}\restriction \tau$. Organize
the induction so that there are $\kappa$-many stages such that
$A'_\alpha=A'$ and $B'_\alpha\cong B'$. Then use Theorem \ref{Thm:AP}
to disjointly amalgamate $D_\alpha$ and $B'_\alpha$ over $A'_\alpha$
to $D_{\alpha1} \in \bK'_0$, making sure that (a) in the amalgam
$Y\cap Q$ is an initial segment\footnote{This is easy to obtain as we
can place $Y^B \setminus Y^C$ at the end of $Y^C$.} of $Y$ and (b)
the amalgamation agrees with the amalgamation of $C_\alpha$ and
$B_\alpha$ over $A_\alpha$.
Let $D=\bigcup_{\alpha<\kappa} D_\alpha\restriction \tau$. Then $D$
is rich and it satisfies the conclusion of
Theorem~\ref{EndExtension}.
\end{proof}
\end{Thm}
\begin{Thm}\label{kplusok} For each $\kappa$, there exist a model of $\phi_M$ of type $(\kappa^+,\kappa)$.
\begin{proof} If $\kappa=\aleph_0$, the result holds true by Corollary \ref{a1ok}. Assume $\kappa$ is uncountable and let $C_0$ be a model of
type $(\kappa,\kappa)$ given by Corollary \ref{allcard}. By Lemma \ref{AmpleFiltering}, assume that $C_0$ admits ample filtering.
Construct a sequence $(C_\alpha)_{\alpha<\kappa^+}$ such that each $C_\alpha$ is a model of $\phi_M$ that admits ample
filtering,
$X^{C_\alpha}=X^{C_0}$ and $Y^{C_{\alpha+1}}$ is an end-extension of $Y^{C_{\alpha}}$. Use Theorem \ref{EndExtension} for the successor stages.
At limit stages take unions. The construction continues past the limit stages, because the union of models of the same cardinality that admit ample
filtering, also admits ample filtering.
\end{proof}
\end{Thm}
This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{knightgen}. We can actually
do a little better. We prove Theorem \ref{knightgen1} which is an
extension of Theorem \ref{knightgen}. We first state the useful
corollary Theorem~\ref{getabsind} of Theorem \ref{knightgen1}.
\begin{Thm}\label{getabsind} If $\kappa$ is homogeneously characterized by a complete $\lomegaone(\tau)$-sentence,
there is another complete
$\lomegaone$-sentence $\chi$ in a vocabulary $\tau'$ extending $\tau$
with a predicate $U$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\chi$ characterizes $\kappa^+$;
\item $U$ is a set of absolute indiscernibles for the countable
model of $\chi$; and
\item $U$ has size $\le\kappa$ in all models of $\chi$ with
maximum attained.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
The proof of this result is straightforward from the following
theorem.
\begin{Thm}\label{knightgen1}
There is a complete $\lomegaone$-sentence $\phi_{M'}$ in a vocabulary with unary
predicates $X, Y$ and a binary predicate $<$ such that any model of
$\phi_{M'}$ satisfies the first 3 conditions of
Theorem~\ref{knightgen}
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\phi_{M'}$ has arbitrarily large models,
\item if $M \models \phi_{M'}$, $|M| \leq |X^M|^+$,
\item for each $\kappa$, there exist a model of $\phi_{M'}$ of type
$(\kappa^+,\kappa)$;
\end{enumerate}
and also there is a unary predicate $U$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $M'$ is the countable model of $\phi_{M'}$, $U^{M'}$ is a set of absolute indiscernibles,
\item if $M \models \phi_{M'}$, $|U^M| \leq |X^M|$,
\item for each $\kappa$, there is a model $N$ of $\phi_{M'}$ with
$|N|= \kappa^+$ and $|U^{M'}|=\kappa$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Thm}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{knightgen1} mirrors the proof of Theorem \ref{knightgen} starting with Construction
\ref{Con:GenJuliasExample} up to Lemma \ref{kplusok}. Most of these proofs work with minor
modifications. We only outline the key differences here and leave the details to the reader.
\begin{Cons} Let $\tau'$ be union of $\tau\cup\{V,U,P\}$, where $\tau$ is the vocabulary from Construction
\ref{Con:GenJuliasExample}. Let $\bK_1$ be the collection of finite
$(\tau')$-structures $A'$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item $X,Y,U$ are disjoint;
\item $P$ defines a projection function from $X$ into $U$, and
$P$ is void everywhere else;
\item $(A'\setminus U)\restriction \tau$ is a structure $A$ in
$\bK_0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Cons}
Because $\bK_0$ satisfies disjoint amalgamation, the proof of Lemma
\ref{Lem:DAPForK0} can be used to prove that the same is true for
$\bK_1$; to amalgamate $B'$ and $C'$ over $A'$ first amalgamate the
associated $B$ and $C$ over $A$ in $\bK_0$ by \ref{Lem:DAPForK0},
then add the disjoint union of $U^{B'}$ and $U^{C'}$ over
$U^{A'}$ with the same values for $P$. This guarantees the following
analogue of Theorem \ref{CountableGeneric}; as usual the generic
model construction guarantees that $P$ is onto.
\begin{Thm}\label{CountableGeneric1}
There is a countable $\bK_1$-generic (and atomic) model $M'$ (with
Scott sentence $\phi_{M'}$) which is an expansion of the model $M$ from
Theorem~\ref{knightgen} by a set of absolute indiscernibles $U^{M'}$, and $P^{M'}$ defines a projection function from
$X^{M'}$ onto $U^{M'}$ with the set $\{x\in X^{M'}|P^{M'}(x,u)\}$ being infinite for every $u\in U^{M'}$.
Thus, if $N \models \phi_{M'}$, $|U^N|\le|X^N|$ and $|Y^N|\le |X^N|^+$.
\end{Thm}
To complete the proof of Theorem~\ref{knightgen1}, we can repeat the
proofs of Theorem \ref{Thm:AP} through Theorem \ref{kplusok} with
$\phi_{M'}$ replacing $\phi_{M}$. In the proof of the revised Theorem
\ref{Thm:AP}, to amalgamate $B'$ and $C'$ over $A'$ first amalgamate
the associated $B$ and $C$ over $A$ in $\bK_0$ by \ref{Thm:AP}, then
then add the disjoint union of $U^{B'}$ and $U^{C'}$ over $U^{A'}$
with the same values for $P$. If the amalgam contains new $X$-elements that are not in $X^{B'}\cup X^{C'}$,
e.g. elements introduced by Lemma \ref{Lem:bigX}, or elements in $X_{new}$, then expand the $U$-sort by adding a new
set $U_{new}$ of $U$-elements disjoint from $U^{B'}\cup U^{C'}$, and assign $P$-values for the new $X$-elements
in $U_{new}$.
The proofs of Corollary \ref{allcard}, Lemma \ref{AmpleFiltering} and
Theorem \ref{kplusok} require no changes. In the proof of the revised
Theorem \ref{EndExtension}, add to the requirement (ii) that
$X\subset Q$ that also $U\subset Q$ and then the same argument works.
This concludes the outline of the proof of Theorem \ref{knightgen1}.
Proof of Theorem~\ref{getabsind}. If $\theta$ homogeneously
characterizes $\kappa$ with the receptive pair $(\theta,Q)$, consider
the merger $\chi_{\theta,Q,\phi_{M'},X}$. This will restrict the size
of $X$ by the size of $Q$. The merger characterizes $\kappa^+$ and
has a set of absolute indiscernibles $U$ of size $\le\kappa$ with
maximum attained. $\qed_{\ref{getabsind}}$
Lastly, notice that if $\N'\models\phi_{M'}$, $|X^{\N'}|=\kappa$ and $|Y^{\N'}|=\kappa^+$, the size of the predicate
$U(\N')$ can not be of size $\kappa^+$. This makes it impossible to use this technique to homogeneously characterize
$\kappa^+$.
\section{Maximal models in $\kappa$ and $\kappa^\omega$}\label{sec:ltoomega}
\numberwithin{Thm}{section}
\setcounter{Thm}{0}
Working similarly to Section \ref{template} we construct a complete
$\lomegaone$-sentence that admits maximal models in $\kappa$ and
$\kappa^\omega$, and has no larger models. But we must define a
sentence that transfers from $\kappa$ to $\kappa^{\omega}$ rather
than $\kappa^+$.
\begin{Thm}\label{ltoomega} Let $\phi$ be a complete
$\lomegaone(\tau)$-sentence (in vocabulary $\tau$) with a set of absolute indiscernibles $U$. Then there is
a complete $\lomegaone(\tau')$-sentence $\phi^*$ (in vocabulary $\tau'\supset\tau$) with the property:
\begin{center}
If $\phi$ homogeneously characterizes $\kappa$, then $\phi^*$ homogeneously characterizes $\kappa^{\omega}$.
\end{center}
\end{Thm}
Proof sketch: Here is the basic idea of the construction.
Fix an infinite set $X$ and consider the structure $N$ with universe
the disjoint union of $\omega$, $X^{<\omega}$ and a subset of
$X^\omega$. Fix a vocabulary $\tau_1$ with unary predicates $K, V,
F$ denoting these sets, binary predicates $H,R$ and a ternary
predicate $E$. Interpret the `height' predicate $H(\cdot,\cdot)$ on
$K\times V$ so that $H(n,v)$ holds if and only if $v \in X^n$, and
the predicate $R(u,v)$ on $V^2$ which holds if $v$ is an immediate
successor of $u$, and the restriction function $E$ on $K \times
F\times V$ such that $E(k,f,v)$ holds if and only if $f\restriction k
= v$. Of course, by a sentence in $\lomegaone(\tau_1)$ we can require
that $K$ is the standard $\omega$ and each of $V$ and $F$ are sets of
functions.
If $X$ is countable and $F$ is also countable, the resulting structure has a Scott sentence $\mu$. Furthermore, if for
every $v\in X^n$ there exist infinitely many $f\in F$ with $f\restriction n=v$, by Theorem 3.4 of
\cite{SouldatosCharacterizableCardinals} this structure is back and forth
equivalent with the model where $X$ is countable and $F$ is the set of eventually constant
sequences.
Now using the $\tau$-sentence $\phi$ we are able (in an expanded
model $N_*$) to bound $|X| =|K^{N_*}|$ by $\kappa$ and $|V^{N_*}|$ by
$\kappa^\omega$. Form $\tau'$ by adding a binary symbol
$M(\cdot,\cdot)$ to $\tau_1 \cup \tau_2$ and predicates $S(x,\cdot)$
for each $\tau$-relation $S(\cdot)$.
Assert that the sets $M(u,\cdot)$
for $u \in V$ are disjoint and require that for each $u\in V$, the
set $M(u,\cdot)$ (under the relations $S(u,\cdot)$) is a model of
$\phi$. Require further that the set $R(u,\cdot)$ of the immediate
successors of $u$ is also the set $U(u,\cdot)$ of absolute
indiscernibles of the model $M(u,\cdot)$ of $\phi$. Since $\phi$
homogeneously characterizes $\kappa$, if $N_* \models \phi^*$,
$R^{N_*}(u,\cdot)$ cannot be larger than $\kappa$ so the number of immediate
successors of $u$ can not be more than $\kappa$. The resulting tree
has height $\omega$ and is $\le\kappa$-splitting. To prevent the
first level $V(0,\cdot)$ from growing arbitrarily we require that
$V(0,\cdot)$ has only one element (the root).
The detailed axiomatization of this structure by a complete sentence of
$\lomegaone$ and the proof that it characterizes $\kappa^\omega$
appear in \cite{SouldatosCharacterizableCardinals}.
\begin{Thm}\label{kkomega} Assume $\lambda\le \lambda^\omega<\kappa<\kappa^\omega$ and
$\phi_\kappa$ homogeneously characterizes $\kappa$.
Then there is a complete sentence
$\phi^*_\kappa$ that has maximal models in $\kappa$ and
$\kappa^\omega$, no maximal models in any other cardinality, and no models larger than $\kappa^\omega$.
\begin{proof} By Theorem~\ref{Thm:ManyMaximal}, we can assume
$\phi_\kappa$ has maximal models of type $(\kappa,\lambda)$ for all
$\lambda \leq \kappa$. Let $\phi^*_\kappa$ be the sentence from
Theorem \ref{ltoomega}. If for every $u\in V$, the set $M(u,\cdot)$
is a maximal model of $\phi_\kappa$ of type $(\kappa,\lambda)$, then
the resulting tree is $\lambda$-splitting and the associate model is
a maximal model of $\phi^*_\kappa$ of size
$\max\{\kappa,\lambda^\omega\}=\kappa$.
Further, if for every $u\in V$, the set $M(u,\cdot)$ is a maximal
model of $\phi_\kappa$ of type $(\kappa,\kappa)$, then the resulting
tree is $\kappa$-splitting and yields a maximal model of
$\phi^*_\kappa$ of size $\max\{\kappa,\kappa^\omega\}=\kappa^\omega$.
Finally notice that for all $\mu<\kappa$, if $\mu^\omega>\kappa$, then $\mu^\omega=\kappa^\omega$. So, we get maximal
models only in cardinality $\kappa$ and in cardinality $\kappa^\omega$.
\end{proof}
\end{Thm}
Replacing the construction that characterized $\kappa^\omega$ from \cite{SouldatosCharacterizableCardinals} with the
construction that characterized $\kappa^{\aleph_\alpha}$, $\alpha<\omega_1$, from \cite{Soul1} (cf. Theorem
\ref{SoulPow}) one can prove the following theorem.
\begin{Thm}\label{kkalpha} Assume $\alpha<\omega_1$, $\lambda\le
\lambda^{\aleph_\alpha}<\kappa<\kappa^{\aleph_\alpha}$ and there is a sentence
$\phi_\kappa$ that
homogeneously characterizes $\kappa$.
Then there is a
complete sentence $\phi^*_\kappa$ that has maximal models in $\kappa$ and $\kappa^{\aleph_\alpha}$, no maximal models in
any other cardinality, and no models larger than $\kappa^{\aleph_\alpha}$.
\end{Thm}
The next theorem describes where JEP holds/fails in the examples of
this section. Note that the notion of strong embedding $\prec_{\bK}$ specified below, maybe different than elementary
substructure in the fragment generated by $\phi^*_\kappa$.
Let $\phi_\kappa$ be a sentence that homogeneously characterizes $\kappa$ with $P$ a set of
absolute indiscernibles and let $\phi^*_\kappa$ be as in Theorem \ref{ltoomega}. Let $\bK$ be the
collection of models that satisfy $\phi^*_\kappa$ and let $\N_0\prec_{\bK}\N_1$ if $\N_0\subset\N_1$ and for each $u\in
V$, $M(u,\cdot)^{\N_0}\cup R(u,\cdot)^{\N_0}\prec M(u,\cdot)^{\N_1}\cup R(u,\cdot)^{\N_1}$,
where $\prec$ is understood as elementary substructure in the fragment generated by $\phi_\kappa$.
\begin{Thm}\label{JEP} If the models of $\phi_\kappa$ satisfy JEP($<\kappa$), then the same is true for
$(\bK,\prec_{\bK})$.
\begin{proof} Let $\N_0,\N_1\in \bK$ and $|\N_0|,|\N_1|<\kappa$. It follows that the tree contained in either $\N_0$
or $\N_1$ must satisfy $|V(0,\cdot)|=1$ and for each $u\in V(n,\cdot)$, $|M(u,\cdot)\cup R(u,\cdot)|<\kappa$. The goal
is to embed $\N_0,\N_1$ into a common $\N\in\bK$.
First embed the root $a_0$ of the tree in $\N_0$ and the root $a_1$ of the tree in $\N_1$ into the root of the
tree in $\N$, call it $a$. Since the models of $\phi_\kappa$ satisfy JEP$(<\kappa)$, joint embed
$M(a_0,\cdot)^{\N_0}\cup R(a_0,\cdot)^{\N_0}$ and $M(a_1,\cdot)^{\N_1}\cup R(a_1,\cdot)^{\N_1}$ to a common model
$M(a,\cdot)^\N\cup R(a,\cdot)^\N$, say through embeddings $f_0,f_1$. If $v\in R(a,\cdot)^\N$
and $v\notin range(f_0)\cup range(f_1)$, then attach a copy of $(\aleph_0)^\omega$ with root $v$ into $\N$.
If $v\in range(f_0)\setminus range(f_1)$, then embed $M(f_0^{-1}(v),\cdot)^{\N_0}\cup R(f_0^{-1}(v),\cdot)^{\N_0}$ into
$M(v,\cdot)^\N\cup R(v,\cdot)^\N$. Similarly work if $v\in range(f_1)\setminus range(f_0)$. If $v\in range(f_0)\cap
range(f_1)$, then joint embed the models $M(f_0^{-1}(v),\cdot)^{\N_0}\cup R(f_0^{-1}(v),\cdot)^{\N_0}$ and
$M(f_1^{-1}(v),\cdot)^{\N_1}\cup R(f_1^{-1}(v),\cdot)^{\N_1}$ into $M(v,\cdot)^\N\cup R(v,\cdot)^\N$. Then repeat by
induction the same process for each $u\in V(n,\cdot)$, and finally embed each $f\in F^{\N_0}$ and $f\in F^{\N_1}$ into
the corresponding branch in $F^\N$. The reader can verify that $\N_0,\N_1\prec_{\bK}\N$.
\end{proof}
\end{Thm}
Notice that disjoint-JEP fails for $(\bK,\prec_{\bK})$. One reason is that the root of the tree in $\N_0$ and the
root of the tree in $\N_1$ must embed into the same element, namely the root of the tree in $\N$.
\section{An example with maximal models in countably many cardinalities}\label{ManyCardinalities}
\numberwithin{Thm}{section}
\setcounter{Thm}{0}
In this section we construct a complete $\lomegaone$-sentence that admits maximal models in countably many
cardinalities.
We adapt ideas from \cite{Hjorthchar} and \cite{Souldatoscharpow} to
characterize pairs of cardinals $\kappa, 2^{\kappa}$. Combining this
result with our basic technique we are able to construct sentences
with maximal models in cardinalities $2^{\lambda}$, for all $\lambda\le\kappa$, where $\kappa$ is a homogeneously
characterizable cardinal; this is
interesting when $\kappa <2^{\lambda}$. The following version of
Theorem 4.29 of \cite{Souldatoscharpow} establishes the necessary
transfer result.
\begin{Thm}\label{Thm:CharPowerset}
There is a complete $\lomegaone$-sentence $\phi(X,Y)$ such that if
$M\models
\phi(X,Y)$ and $|X| =\kappa$ then $|Y| \leq 2^{\kappa}$;
the maximum is attained.
\end{Thm}
Proof Sketch: Fix a set $X$ and a binary relation on $X$ which
defines a dense linear order. As in Section 4 of
\cite{Souldatoscharpow}, the key idea is the following condition
crystallizes the property of the meet function on $2^X$. Construct
(via a generalized Fra{\"i}ss{\'e} construction) a map $f$ from $Y^2$
to $X$ such that for distinct\footnote{For further restrictions see
Definition 4.6 of \cite{Souldatoscharpow}.} $a_0, a_1, a_2 \in Y$,
if $f(a_0,a_1) \neq f(a_0,a_2)$ then $f(a_1,a_2) =\min\{f(a_0,a_1),
f(a_0,a_2)\}$. But if $f(a_0,a_1) = f(a_0,a_2)$ then $f(a_1,a_2)>
f(a_0,a_1) = f(a_0,a_2)$. The resulting structure has a Scott
sentence $\phi'$ in $\lomegaone$ such that if $\M\models \phi'$,
$|Y^\M|\leq 2^{|X^\M|}$ and $2^{|X^\M|}$ is possible. Namely, the
maximum is achieved if $(X,<)$ has a $<$- cofinal sequence of
length $\kappa$.
\begin{Thm}\label{Cor:CharPowerset2} Suppose that $\psi$ is a complete $\lomegaone$-sentence that
homogeneously
characterizes $\kappa$ with absolute indiscernibles in the predicate
$P$. Then there is a complete $\lomegaone$-sentence $\psi'$
that characterizes $2^\kappa$.
Furthermore for every $\lambda\le\kappa$, there exists a maximal
model of $\psi'$ of size $\max\{\kappa,2^\lambda\}$.
\end{Thm}
\begin{proof} By Theorem \ref{Thm:ManyMaximal}, we can assume $\psi$ has
maximal models of type $(\kappa,\lambda)$, for all
$\lambda\le\kappa$.
Merge $\psi$ with the complete sentence $\phi$ from Theorem \ref{Thm:CharPowerset} identifying $X$ with $P$. Let
$\psi'=\chi_{\psi,P,\phi,X}$. By Fact \ref{mergeprop} (1), $\psi'$ is a complete sentence.
Now suppose $M$ is a maximal model of $\psi$ of type $(\kappa,\lambda)$. Linearly order $P^M$ so that $(P^M,<)$ is a
dense linear order with a $\lambda$-cofinal sequence. Then by
Theorem~\ref{Thm:CharPowerset} we get a maximal model of $\psi'$ with
cardinality $\max\{\kappa,2^\lambda\}$.
\end{proof}
Exactly what this says about the cardinality of maximal models
depends on the cardinal arithmetic. We just give some sample
applications of Theorem~\ref{Cor:CharPowerset2} with various choices
of the $\lambda$.
\begin{Thm}\label{Thm:MaximalModels} Assume $\kappa$ is a homogeneously characterizable cardinal and for simplicity let
$2^{\aleph_0}\ge\kappa$.
Then there is a complete $\lomegaone$-sentence $\phi_\kappa$ with maximal models in cardinalities
$2^\lambda$, for all $\lambda\le\kappa$.
\end{Thm}
\begin{Thm}\label{Thm:MaximalModels2} Assume for simplicity that $2^{\aleph_0}>\aleph_\omega$. For each $n\in\omega$,
there is a complete $\lomegaone$-sentence $\phi'_n$ with maximal models in cardinalities
$2^{\aleph_0},2^{\aleph_1},\ldots,2^{\aleph_n}$.
%\begin{proof} Apply Theorems \ref{Thm:BKLExamples} and \ref{Thm:MaximalModels}.
%\end{proof}
\end{Thm}
\begin{Thm} Let $(\kappa_i|i\le n)$ be an increasing sequence of cardinals such that $cf(\kappa_i)>\aleph_i$. It is consistent that there is a
complete sentence with maximal models in cardinalities $\kappa_0,\kappa_1,\ldots,\kappa_n$.
\begin{proof}
By Easton's Theorem, there is model of ZFC where $2^{\aleph_i}=\kappa_i$. Then apply Theorem \ref{Thm:MaximalModels2}.
\end{proof}
\end{Thm}
\section{Conclusion}\label{Sec:Conclusion}
The examples from \cite{Soul1} and \cite{SouldatosCharacterizableCardinals} have the maximal number of models in the
cardinals they characterize, namely $\kappa^\omega$ and $\kappa^{\aleph_\alpha}$ respectively. As a consequence, the
sentence $\phi_\kappa^*$ in Theorem \ref{kkomega} has the maximal number of maximal models in
$\kappa$ and $\kappa^\omega$, and the sentence $\phi_\kappa^*$ in Theorem \ref{kkalpha} has the maximal number of maximal
models in $\kappa$ and $\kappa^{\aleph_\alpha}$.
This motivates the following question.
\begin{question}\label{OpenQuestion1} Is there a complete $\lomegaone$-sentence $\phi$ which has at least one maximal
model in an uncountable
cardinal $\kappa$, but less than $2^\kappa$ many models?
\end{question}
In particular, a negative answer to Open Question \ref{OpenQuestion1} implies a negative answer to the following Open
Question \ref{OpenQuestion2}, which was asked in \cite{BKL} and which in return relates to old conjectures
of S. Shelah.
\begin{question}[\cite{BKL}]\label{OpenQuestion2} Is there a complete $\lomegaone$-sentence which characterizes an uncountable
cardinal
$\kappa$ and it has less than $2^\kappa$ many models in cardinality $\kappa$?
\end{question}
Finally, we want to stress the differences in techniques of this paper from \cite{BKSoul}. The main idea behind
\cite{BKSoul} is certain combinatorial properties of bipartite graphs. Here the main construction is a refinement of
the construction from \cite{Knightex} combined with repeated use of sets of absolute indiscernibles.
All the examples presented here are \emph{complete} sentences with maximal models in more than one cardinality,
which \emph{do not} have arbitrarily large models. In \cite{BKSoul} the examples are \emph{incomplete} sentences with
maximal
models in more than one cardinality, which \emph{do} have arbitrary large models. The following question
arises naturally:
Find examples of complete $\lomegaone$-sentences with maximal models in more than one cardinality, which also have
arbitrarily large models. Also, in \cite{BKSoul}, the JEP- and AP-spectra of the sentences presented there are precisely
calculated. The JEP- and AP-spectra of our examples seem harder to calculate and the question remains open.
\bibliography{ssgroups}
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
\end{document}
Submit!
\begin{thebibliography}{BFKL13}
\bibitem[{Bau}74]{BaumgartnersHanfNumber}
James~E. {Baumgartner}.
\newblock {The Hanf number for complete $L_{\omega_1,\omega}$-sentences
(without GCH).}
\newblock {\em {J. Symb. Log.}}, 39:575--578, 1974.
\bibitem[BFKL13]{BFKL}
J.T. Baldwin, Sy~Friedman, M.~Koerwien, and C.~Laskowski.
\newblock Three red herrings around {V}aught's conjecture.
\newblock preprint, 2013.
\bibitem[BKL14]{BKL}
J.T. Baldwin, M.~Koerwien, and C.~Laskowski.
\newblock Amalgamation, characterizing cardinals, and locally finite aec.
\newblock
preprint:\url{http://homepages.math.uic.edu/~jbaldwin/pub/LS-2014-03-10jb.pdf},
2014.
\bibitem[BKS09]{BKS}
J.T. Baldwin, A.~Kolesnikov, and S.~Shelah.
\newblock The amalgamation spectrum.
\newblock {\em Journal of Symbolic Logic}, 74:914--928, 2009.
\bibitem[BKS15]{BKSoul}
J.T. Baldwin, M.~Koerwien, and I.~Souldatos.
\newblock The joint embedding property and maximal models.
\newblock preprint, 2015.
\bibitem[Hjo02]{Hjorthchar}
Greg Hjorth.
\newblock Knight's model, its automorphism group, and characterizing the
uncountable cardinals.
\newblock {\em Journal of Mathematical Logic}, pages 113--144, 2002.
\bibitem[Kni77]{Knightex}
J.F. Knight.
\newblock A complete ${L}_{\omega_1,\omega}$-sentence characterizing
$\aleph_1$.
\newblock {\em Journal of Symbolic Logic}, 42:151--161, 1977.
\bibitem[Sou12]{Soul1}
Ioannis Souldatos.
\newblock Linear orderings and powers of characterizable cardinals.
\newblock {\em Annals of Pure and Applied Logic}, 163:225--237, 2012.
\bibitem[Sou13]{Souldatoscharpow}
Ioannis Souldatos.
\newblock Characterizing the powerset by a complete (scott) sentence.
\newblock {\em Fundamenta Mathematica}, 222:131--154, 2013.
\bibitem[Sou14]{SouldatosCharacterizableCardinals}
Ioannis Souldatos.
\newblock Notes on cardinals that are characterizable by a complete (scott)
sentence.
\newblock {\em Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic}, 55(4):533--551, 2014.
\end{thebibliography}