← Back to arXiv
arXivLogicarXiv:2608.15044

$\omega_1$-anchored labels in minimal counterexamples to Vaught's conjecture: a per-witness trichotomy and an unconditional stationary dichotomy

Vaught's conjecture is a famous open problem in mathematical logic, asking whether any sentence in a certain formal language must have either countably many or uncountably many distinct models, with no middle ground possible. A "minimal counterexample" would be a sentence that, if the conjecture fails, witnesses that failure in the simplest possible way. This paper studies the structure of models of such a minimal counterexample, assuming one exists, without trying to resolve the conjecture itself.

The paper brings together two previously separate lines of research about these minimal counterexamples. One line, due to Gonzalez, Rossegger, and Turetsky, shows that at each countable level of complexity, essentially one large class of models dominates, and at special levels called fixed points, there is a distinguished "label" model of minimal complexity. The other line comes from higher computability theory and provides tools, due to Montalban and Sacks, for constructing models with prescribed properties related to the ordinal called omega-one. The main contribution is showing how these two bodies of work interact precisely and proving several structural theorems under this synthesis.

The central results include a trichotomy: at each relevant fixed-point level, any sufficiently complex model of the sentence either is exactly the label model at that level, or forces the existence of two genuinely different models at the next level up, or is the label at the next level and achieves a known complexity bound called the Nadel bound. The paper also proves that Sacks' construction fills each level with a model of prescribed properties and that the labels form the backbone of this construction. Finally, an unconditional dichotomy holds: at stationarily many levels, either two non-isomorphic models of the same complexity coexist, or stationarily many labels hit the Nadel bound. These results sharpen the known portrait of minimal counterexamples considerably, even though they say nothing about whether such counterexamples actually exist.

Read original →