We give definitions that distinguish between two notions of indiscernibility for a set {aη∣η∈ω>ω}\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\{a_{\eta} \mid \eta \in ^{\omega>}\omega\}}$$\end{document} that saw original use in Shelah [Classification theory and the number of non-isomorphic models. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990], which we name s- and str−indiscernibility. Using these definitions and detailed proofs, we prove s- and str-modeling theorems and give applications of these theorems. In particular, we verify a step in the argument that TP is equivalent (...) to TP1 or TP2 that has not seen explication in the literature. In the Appendix, we exposit the proofs of Shelah [Classification theory and the number of non-isomorphic models. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990, App. 2.6, 2.7], expanding on the details. (shrink)

In this paper, we study the notions related to tree property 1 , or, equivalently, SOP2. Among others, we supply a type-counting criterion for TP1 and show the equivalence of TP1 and k- TP1. Then we introduce the notions of weak k- TP1 for k≥2, and also supply type-counting criteria for those. We do not know whether weak k- TP1 implies TP1, but at least we prove that each weak k- TP1 implies SOP1. Our generalization of the tree-indiscernibility results in (...) Džamonja and Shelah [5] is crucially used throughout the paper. (shrink)

We show that if T is any geometric theory having the NTP2 then the corresponding theories of lovely pairs of models of T and of H‐structures associated to T also have the NTP2. We also prove that if T is strong then the same two expansions of T are also strong.