it is widely known that many classical results in model theory fail or become meaningless when considered at the finite level . an important class of such results are preservation theorems , which relate the form of syntactic expressions to the closure properties of classes they define .
classical preservation theorems are almost uniformly false when restricted to the class of all finite relational structures , but also tend to fail when restricted to the class all of finite algebras .
a key example is the os - tarski preservation theorem , which says that a first - order sentence is preserved under taking extensions if and only if it is equivalent to an existential sentence .
see tait  @xcite or gurevich and shelah  @xcite for a counterexample in the finite setting for relational structures , and clark , davey , jackson and pitkethly  ( * ? ? ?
* example @xmath0 ) for a counterexample in the finite setting for algebras . for some preservation theorems
only one side of the story is explained ; for example the @xmath1-preservation theorem , which asserts that a first - order formula is preserved under taking substructures and direct products if and only if it is equivalent to a universal - horn sentence , remains to be settled at the finite - level in the relational setting . in contrast ,
example 4.3 of @xcite also gives a counterexample for algebraic structures at the finite level . on the other hand , lyndon s positivity theorem , which says that a first - order sentence is preserved under taking surjective homomorphisms if and only if it is equivalent to a positive sentence , fails in the finite setting for relational structures ( see ajtai and gurevich  @xcite ) , while its status remains unknown in the algebraic setting .
a notable exception is rossman s celebrated finite homomorphism preservation theorem  ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 5.16 ) : a first - order sentence is preserved under homomorphisms on finite relational structures if and only if it is equivalent , amongst finite relational structures , to an existential positive sentence .
the question whether the classical homomorphism preservation theorem would continue to hold on finite relational structures was a long - standing one in finite model theory .
the analogous question for algebraic signatures remains unresolved .
the proof for the relational case is highly non - trivial and , as rossman suggests , the task of adjusting for function symbols is conceivably more difficult .
preservation theorems that hold for the class of all finite relational structures do not necessarily relativise to subclasses of this class , and moreover , while many classical preservation theorems fail amongst all finite relational structures , some preservation theorems are recovered in restricted classes of finite relational structures . in @xcite ,
atserias , dawar , and grohe show that the os - tarski preservation theorem is recovered in a number of classes of finite relational structures that are of interest from a computational point of view , including classes of finite acyclic graphs , classes of structures of bounded degree , and classes of structures of treewidth at most @xmath2 , for any positive integer @xmath2 . in @xcite , atserias , dawar and kolaitis
show that the homomorphism preservation property holds for a number of classes of finite relational structures , including classes of structures of bounded degree , classes of bounded treewidth , and more generally , classes of finite structures whose cores exclude at least one minor
. however these results are not implied by rossman s finite homomorphism preservation theorem .
furthermore , preservation theorems need not behave consistently when we restrict our attention to a particular subclass of the class of all finite relational structures : for example , the homomorphism preservation property holds for the class of all planar graphs , but in contrast , the extension preservation property fails in this setting .
relativising preservation theorems to restricted classes of finite structures appears to be completely independent of whether or not the corresponding preservation property holds amongst all finite relational structures .
on the other hand , relativisation of preservation theorems to restricted classes of finite algebras is not as well studied . in this paper
, we are able to give some insight into this topic .    1 .
[ item:1 ] we show that within the class of finite bounded lattices , there are many classes that demonstrate the failure of the homomorphism preservation property .
more specifically , we show that for a fixed finite bounded lattice @xmath3 , the class of finite bounded lattices admitting a homomorphism into @xmath3 is definable by a single first - order sentence , relative to the class of finite bounded lattices , but is not definable by universal sentences . see theorem  [ thm : algfail ] in section  [ section : sectionalg ] .
[ item:2 ] in contrast to ( [ item:1 ] ) , we establish a relativised homomorphism preservation theorem ( see theorem  [ thm : sausage ] in section  [ section : sectrelational ] ) for a wide range of classes of finite relational structures .
theorem  [ thm : sausage ] gives us a complete characterisation of first - order definable classes of relational structures admitting a homomorphism into a fixed finite relational structure , relative to classes @xmath4 definable by sentences of some general forms .
in theorem  [ thm : colourfam ] we extend this characterisation to classes of relational structures admitting a homomorphism into one of a finite number of relational structures .
we will see that theorem  [ thm : algfail ] mentioned in ( [ item:1 ] ) not only demonstrates the failure of the homomorphism preservation property for the class of finite bounded lattices , but also the failure of the extension preservation property ( os - tarski preservation theorem ) . so the extension preservation property , which fails for the class of all finite algebras and also the class of all finite relational structures , continues to fail when we restrict to the class of finite bounded lattices .
this result could be contrasted with the positive results of atserias , dawar and grohe  @xcite mentioned previously , which show that the extension preservation property is recovered in a number of restricted classes of finite relational structures .    when the class @xmath4 in theorem  [ thm : sausage ] is relaxed to include all finite relational structures , our result coincides with a well known one due to atserias , which says that first - order definable constraint satisfaction problems are precisely those with finite tree duality ( or equivalently , those definable by existential positive sentences ) , see theorem @xmath5 of @xcite .
it is also a consequence rossman s finite homomorphism preservation theorem , which holds for classes of relational structures admitting a homomorphism into one of _ any _ number of finite relational structures .
our proof , however , is independent of both atserias and rossman and relies mostly on some constructions borrowed from larose , loten and tardif given in  @xcite .
we remark that while it remains unclear if the homomorphism preservation property in its full generality holds in these classes , the restricted preservation property , nevertheless , covers many commonly encountered homomorphism - closed classes .
this article is comprised of three main sections .
we begin with some background and definitions that will be required for the remainder of the paper , we then investigate the status of relativised homomorphism preservation theorem  [ thm : relhompresthm ] at the finite level for both algebraic and relational signatures . in section  [ section : sectionalg ]
, we give counterexamples to the finite - level version of relativised homomorphism preservation theorem  [ thm : relhompresthm ] for algebraic structures .
moreover , we completely characterise those classes of finite lattices admitting a homomorphism into a fixed finite bounded lattice . in section  [ section :
sectrelational ] , we establish a restricted form of the finite - level version of relativised homomorphism theorem  [ thm : relhompresthm ] for relational structures .
the proof follows an ehrenfeucht - frass game argument on structures obtained by adjusting some constructions borrowed from larose , loten and tardif given in  @xcite .
a _ signature _ ( or _ language _ or _ type _ ) is a pair @xmath6 consisting of a set of relation symbols @xmath7 and a set of function symbols @xmath8 .
each relation and function symbol has an associated _ arity _ @xmath9 ; we do not allow for nullary relation symbols so @xmath9 is quantified over @xmath10 in this case ; we do however include the possibility of @xmath11-ary function symbols so @xmath9 is quantified over @xmath12 in this case .
an @xmath13-_structure _ @xmath14 consists of a universe @xmath15 together with an interpretation of    * each @xmath9-ary relation symbol @xmath16 as a subset @xmath17 of @xmath18 , * each @xmath9-ary function symbol @xmath19 as a function @xmath20 .
if @xmath21 , then @xmath22 is an _ algebra _ , if @xmath23 then @xmath22 is a _
relational structure_.    let @xmath24 be a structure in some signature @xmath13 consisting of possibly both relation and function symbols .
we let @xmath25 be the language obtained by adding a nullary function symbol @xmath26 to @xmath13 , for each @xmath27 .
let @xmath28 , let @xmath29 be a purely relational signature , and let @xmath30 .
weak substructure _ of @xmath31 is a structure @xmath32 , where @xmath33 and @xmath34 for each @xmath35 .
the weak substructure @xmath36 is _ proper _ if either @xmath37 or @xmath38 and there exists @xmath39 such that @xmath40 .
let @xmath13 be some signature consisting of possibly both relation and function symbols , and let @xmath41 be a class of @xmath13-structures .
we define @xmath42 to be the class of all @xmath13-structures admitting a homomorphism into some member of the class  @xmath41 .
let @xmath43 be a set and let @xmath44 be a set of structures in some signature @xmath13 .
we say that @xmath45 is a _ homomorphism - independent _ set if for all @xmath46 with @xmath47 , there is no homomorphism from @xmath48 to @xmath49 .
let @xmath50 and let @xmath51 be a finite set of finite structures in the purely relational signature @xmath52 .
we denote the finite models in @xmath53 by @xmath54 .
obstruction _ for the class @xmath55 is any finite @xmath7-structure not belonging to @xmath54 .
an obstruction @xmath56 for the class @xmath55 is _ critical _ if every proper weak substructure of @xmath56 belongs to @xmath54 .
we say that @xmath54 satisfies the _ finite duality property _ if there exists a finite set @xmath57 of finite structures with the following property : a finite @xmath7-structure @xmath58 belongs to the class @xmath54 if and only if @xmath58 avoids a homomorphism from every member of @xmath57 .
let @xmath24 be a finite structure in the purely relational signature @xmath7 .
the class of all finite @xmath7-structures admitting a homomorphism into @xmath24 is denoted @xmath59 .
the membership problem for @xmath59 is known as the _ constraint satisfaction problem _ over template @xmath24 .
note that @xmath60 .
let @xmath61 , let @xmath24 be a finite relational structure in the purely relational signature @xmath52 with @xmath62 of arity @xmath63 , for all @xmath64 .
the _ incidence multigraph _ of @xmath24 , denoted @xmath65 , is defined as the bipartite multigraph with parts @xmath15 and @xmath66 , where @xmath66 consists of all pairs @xmath67 such that @xmath68 and @xmath69 , and with edges @xmath70 joining @xmath27 to @xmath71 , when @xmath72 for some @xmath73 .
let @xmath26 and @xmath74 be two elements in @xmath15 .
then the _ distance between @xmath26 and @xmath74 in _
@xmath75 is defined to be half the number of edges in a shortest path connecting them in @xmath65 .
the _ girth _ of @xmath24 is defined to be half the shortest length of a cycle in @xmath65 .
the _ diameter _ of @xmath24 is defined to be @xmath76 .
let @xmath4 be a class of @xmath13-structures and let @xmath41 be a subclass of @xmath4 .
we define the following class : @xmath77 in the case where @xmath4 is the class of all @xmath13-structures we abbreviate @xmath78 to @xmath79 . in general , @xmath80 .
let @xmath81 , let @xmath82 , and let @xmath83 be a finite set of structures in @xmath4 .
we follow gorbunov  @xcite and refer to the class @xmath84 as a _ principal colour - family in @xmath4 _ , and we refer to the class @xmath85 as a _ colour - family in _ @xmath4 .
let @xmath86 and let @xmath61 .
a sentence @xmath87 is called an _ anti - identity _ if it is of the form @xmath88,\ ] ] where @xmath89 is an atomic formula for all @xmath90 .
let @xmath91 be a set of first - order sentences in some signature @xmath92 .
we let @xmath93 denote the class of all models of @xmath91 .    .
a subclass @xmath94 of a class @xmath95 is called _ strictly elementary relative to _
@xmath4 if there is a first - order sentence @xmath96 such that @xmath97 .    a subclass @xmath94 of a class @xmath95 is called an _ anti - variety relative to _
@xmath4 if @xmath98 where @xmath99 is a set of anti - identities .
the proof of the relativised homomorphism preservation theorem  [ thm : relhompresthm ] requires only standard applications of some model - theoretic fundamentals .
we have included its proof , however , for completeness sake .
we remark that the results of this paper are more easily formulated for classes that are complements of homomorphism closed classes .
such classes are closed under taking homomorphic pre - images : classes @xmath41 satisfying @xmath100 whenever @xmath58 admits a homomorphism to @xmath24 and @xmath101 . for this reason
, we work with the homomorphism preservation theorem in its complemented form .
[ thm : relhompresthm ] let @xmath91 be a set of sentences in the signature @xmath13 , let @xmath102 , and let @xmath41 be a subclass of  @xmath4 . then the class @xmath103 is an anti - variety relative to @xmath4 .
moreover , if @xmath103 is strictly elementary with respect to @xmath4 , then there is a sentence consisting of a finite conjunction anti - identities that is logically equivalent to @xmath104 modulo @xmath91 .
we first show that @xmath103 is axiomatisable by a set of anti - identities with respect to the class @xmath4 .
the second part of the theorem will follow by compactness .
let @xmath105 and let @xmath106 be the set of anti - identities true in @xmath41 . clearly , if @xmath107 , then @xmath108 , since anti - identities are preserved under taking homomorphic pre - images .
now let @xmath82 and suppose that @xmath108 .
let @xmath109 be the set of atomic sentences true in @xmath24 in the expanded signature @xmath25 , and let @xmath110 be the class of all @xmath25-structures whose @xmath13-reduct belongs to @xmath111 .
for any finite subset @xmath112 of @xmath109 , we have @xmath113 so , @xmath24 fails the sentence @xmath114.\ ] ] hence there is some structure @xmath115 that fails @xmath116 .
let @xmath117 be the elements of @xmath118 that witness the failure of the sentence @xmath116 .
now expand @xmath58 in the signature @xmath25 under the following interpretation : let @xmath74 be any element of @xmath118 , and define @xmath119 , if @xmath120 , and @xmath121 , otherwise .
then @xmath122 , and satisfies @xmath123 since @xmath4 is elementary and @xmath111 is first order definable relative to @xmath4 it follows , by compactness , that there is some @xmath124 such that @xmath125 .
now let @xmath126 be the map that sends each element @xmath127 of @xmath24 to its corresponding interpretation in @xmath128 .
then , for every atomic formula @xmath129 in @xmath13 and every @xmath9-tuple @xmath130 , we have @xmath131 thus , the map @xmath126 is a homomorphism from @xmath24 to @xmath132 . since @xmath133
, there exists a homomorphism @xmath134 from @xmath132 to some member @xmath135 of @xmath136 , and so @xmath137 is a homomorphism from @xmath24 to @xmath135 , thus @xmath138 .
hence we have shown that there is a set @xmath139 of anti - identities such that @xmath140 , namely @xmath141 .
now assume there is a single first - order sentence @xmath96 such that @xmath142 . then every model of @xmath143 is also a model of @xmath144 . by the completeness theorem of first - order logic , we get that @xmath145 .
it then follows , by compactness , that there is a finite ( possibly empty ) set of anti - identities @xmath146 such @xmath147 .
thus , the sentence @xmath96 is logically equivalent to the conjunction of anti - identities @xmath148 modulo @xmath91 .
we now show that the finite - level version of the relativised homomorphism preservation theorem  [ thm : relhompresthm ] fails for algebraic signatures .
if we restrict the class @xmath4 to all finite bounded lattices , then we can find many classes closed under taking homomorphic pre - images that are first - order definable relative to @xmath4 , but not definable by universal sentences .
[ thm : algfail ] let @xmath4 be the class of finite bounded lattices in the signature @xmath149 and let @xmath3 be any lattice in @xmath4 with @xmath150 .
the class @xmath151 of all finite bounded lattices admitting a homomorphism into @xmath3 is strictly first - order definable relative to @xmath4 but not definable by any universal sentence .
the class @xmath151 of all finite bounded lattices admitting a homomorphism into @xmath3 is definable by a @xmath152 sentence @xmath96 by ( * ? ? ?
* theorem  4.2 ) .
we will show that the class @xmath151 is not definable by any universal sentence .
specifically , we show that , for each @xmath153 , there exists a finite bounded lattice @xmath154 satisfying the following two conditions .
1 .   @xmath155 ; 2 .
every @xmath9-generated sublattice of @xmath154 belongs to @xmath151 .    for each @xmath153 ,
let @xmath154 be the lattice depicted in figure  [ figure : a_n ] .
the lattice @xmath154 is a `` stack '' of @xmath9 copies of @xmath156 , where @xmath2 is a natural number strictly greater than @xmath157 .
( @xmath158 ) : let @xmath153 . the smallest lattice that @xmath154 collapses to , without identifying @xmath11 and @xmath158 , is isomorphic to the lattice @xmath156 . since @xmath156 is simple ( as @xmath159 ) , every congruence on @xmath156 collapses everything or collapses nothing .
thus if @xmath154 is to map homomorphically into @xmath3 , then @xmath3 must contain a sublattice isomorphic to @xmath156 , but this is not possible since @xmath156 contains more elements than @xmath3 . hence @xmath160 .
( @xmath161 ) : we will show that every @xmath9-generated sublattice of @xmath154 has a homomorphism onto the two - element lattice @xmath162 , and therefore has a homomorphism into @xmath3 .
assume that we are selecting @xmath9 generators from the lattice @xmath163 . in order to generate a sublattice of @xmath154 that does not admit a homomorphism onto @xmath162 ( or equivalently , a sublattice that does not contain a prime ideal ) , we would need to select _ at least _
three elements from each of the @xmath9 maximal anti - chains in @xmath154 .
thus , the lattice @xmath164 given in figure  [ figure : p ] is the smallest sublattice of @xmath154 that does not admit a homomorphism onto @xmath162 .
but this lattice is @xmath165-generated and not generated by fewer than @xmath165 elements .
hence every @xmath9-generated a sublattice of @xmath154 admits a homomorphism onto @xmath162 , and therefore into @xmath3 .
notice that within the class of finite bounded lattices , the ( first - order definable ) property of admitting a homomorphism onto @xmath166 is preserved by taking sublattices , and so the above examples also give us a counterexample to the finite - level relativised os - tarski preservation theorem for algebraic signatures .    also notice that the proof of theorem  [ thm : algfail ] works for the class @xmath167 , where @xmath168 is any class of finite bounded lattices containing at least one non - trivial lattice , and for which there exists @xmath159 such that @xmath169 .
the proof of theorem [ thm : algfail ] also works with @xmath4 replaced by any class of finite lattices containing the lattices in figure [ figure : a_n ] ( for each @xmath170 ) . as the lattice
@xmath154 is modular , the class @xmath4 in theorem  [ thm : algfail ] could be taken to be the class of all finite bounded modular lattices .
alternatively , @xmath4 could to be the finite part of the variety generated by the bounded lattices @xmath154 .
this variety can be shown to coincide with the variety generated by @xmath171 .
[ unshaded/.style = draw , shape = circle , fill = white , inner sep=1.5pt , order/.style = very thin ]    label at ( 0,0 ) ; ( bot ) at ( 0,0 ) ; ( 2 ) at ( -2,1 ) ; ( 8) at ( -4,1 ) ; at ( 2.8,1 ) @xmath172 ; at ( -2.8,1 ) @xmath172 ; ( 3 ) at ( 2,1 ) ; ( 9 ) at ( 4,1 ) ; ( 5 ) at ( -1,1 ) ; ( 6 ) at ( 0,1 ) ; ( 7 ) at ( 1,1 ) ; ( top ) at ( 0,2 ) ; ( half1 ) at ( -1.9,1.35 ) ; ( half2 ) at ( 1.9,1.35 ) ; ( half3 ) at ( -1.9,.65 ) ; ( half4 ) at ( 1.9,.65 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 2 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 3 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 5 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 6 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 7 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 8) ; ( bot ) to ( 9 ) ; ( bot ) to ( half3 ) ; ( bot ) to ( half4 ) ; ( 2 ) to ( top ) ; ( 3 ) to ( top ) ; ( 5 ) to ( top ) ; ( 6 ) to ( top ) ; ( 7 ) to ( top ) ; ( 8) to ( top ) ; ( 9 ) to ( top ) ; ( half1 ) to ( top ) ; ( half2 ) to ( top ) ;    ( bot ) at ( 0,0 ) ; ( 2 ) at ( -2,1 ) ; ( 8) at ( -4,1 ) ; at ( 2.8,1 ) @xmath172 ; at ( -2.8,1 ) @xmath172 ; ( 3 ) at ( 2,1 ) ; ( 9 ) at ( 4,1 ) ; ( 5 ) at ( -1,1 ) ; ( 6 ) at ( 0,1 ) ; ( 7 ) at ( 1,1 ) ; ( top ) at ( 0,2 ) ; ( half1 ) at ( -1.9,1.35 ) ; ( half2 ) at ( 1.9,1.35 ) ; ( half3 ) at ( -1.9,.65 ) ; ( half4 ) at ( 1.9,.65 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 2 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 3 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 5 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 6 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 7 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 8) ; ( bot ) to ( 9 ) ; ( bot ) to ( half3 ) ; ( bot ) to ( half4 ) ; ( 2 ) to ( top ) ; ( 3 ) to ( top ) ; ( 5 ) to ( top ) ; ( 6 ) to ( top ) ; ( 7 ) to ( top ) ; ( 8) to ( top ) ; ( 9 ) to ( top ) ; ( half1 ) to ( top ) ; ( half2 ) to ( top ) ;    at ( 0,5 ) @xmath173 ;    ( bot ) at ( 0,0 ) ; ( 2 ) at ( -2,1 ) ; ( 8) at ( -4,1 ) ; at ( 2.8,1 ) @xmath172 ; at ( -2.8,1 ) @xmath172 ; ( 3 ) at ( 2,1 ) ; ( 9 ) at ( 4,1 ) ; ( 5 ) at ( -1,1 ) ; ( 6 ) at ( 0,1 ) ; ( 7 ) at ( 1,1 ) ; ( top ) at ( 0,2 ) ; ( half1 ) at ( -1.9,1.35 ) ; ( half2 ) at ( 1.9,1.35 ) ; ( half3 ) at ( -1.9,.65 ) ; ( half4 ) at ( 1.9,.65 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 2 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 3 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 5 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 6 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 7 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 8) ; ( bot ) to ( 9 ) ; ( bot ) to ( half3 ) ; ( bot ) to ( half4 ) ; ( 2 ) to ( top ) ; ( 3 ) to ( top ) ; ( 5 ) to ( top ) ; ( 6 ) to ( top ) ; ( 7 ) to ( top ) ; ( 8) to ( top ) ; ( 9 ) to ( top ) ; ( half1 ) to ( top ) ; ( half2 ) to ( top ) ;    ( 0,7.8)(0,0 ) node[midway , right , xshift=10pt ]  * n copies * ;    [ unshaded/.style = draw , shape = circle , fill = white , inner sep=1.5pt , order/.style = very thin ]    ( bot ) at ( 0,0 ) ; ( 1 ) at ( -1,1 ) ; ( 2 ) at ( 0,1 ) ; ( 3 ) at ( 1,1 ) ; ( top ) at ( 0,2 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 1 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 2 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 3 ) ; ( 1 ) to ( top ) ; ( 2 ) to ( top ) ; ( 3 ) to ( top ) ;    ( bot ) at ( 0,0 ) ; ( 1 ) at ( -1,1 ) ; ( 2 ) at ( 0,1 ) ; ( 3 ) at ( 1,1 ) ; ( top ) at ( 0,2 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 1 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 2 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 3 ) ; ( 1 ) to ( top ) ; ( 2 ) to ( top ) ; ( 3 ) to ( top ) ;    at ( 0,5 ) @xmath173 ;    ( bot ) at ( 0,0 ) ; ( 1 ) at ( -1,1 ) ; ( 2 ) at ( 0,1 ) ; ( 3 ) at ( 1,1 ) ; ( top ) at ( 0,2 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 1 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 2 ) ; ( bot ) to ( 3 ) ; ( 1 ) to ( top ) ; ( 2 ) to ( top ) ; ( 3 ) to ( top ) ;    ( 0,7.8)(0,0 ) node[midway , right , xshift=10pt ]  * n copies * ;
we now turn to the purely relational side of things . in this section ,
we establish a finite - level version of the relativised homomorphism preservation theorem for relational signatures .
we present this result as theorem  [ thm : sausage ] below .
we first prove the non - relativised version of theorem  [ thm : sausage ] , namely theorem  [ thm : atserias ] , from which theorem  [ thm : sausage ] will follow almost immediately .
the proof requires three constructions given in definition  [ defn : nlink ] , definition  [ defn : unpinch ] and definition  [ defn : npinch ] below , borrowed from @xcite .
the quotient structure given in definition  [ defn : npinch ] , will play a key role in establishing theorem  [ thm : sausage ] .
we follow jackson and trotta  @xcite and refer to this quotient structure as the _ @xmath9-pinch _ over @xmath24 . in @xcite ,
larose , loten and tardif show that , for a relational structure @xmath24 , demonstrating membership of the @xmath9-pinch in @xmath59 , for some natural number @xmath9 , is equivalent to @xmath59 admitting the finite duality property .
this fact will be crucial in the proof of theorem  [ thm : sausage ] .
we conclude the section by extending theorem  [ thm : sausage ] .
more specifically , we obtain a complete characterisation of not only first - order definable principal colour - families but also first - order definable colour - families in classes @xmath4 closed under forming the @xmath9-pinch construction and taking disjoint unions ; see theorem  [ thm : colourfam ] .
[ defn : unpinch ] let @xmath153 and let @xmath24 be a structure in the signature @xmath52 . consider the product structure @xmath179 .
we define an equivalence relation @xmath180 on @xmath179 as follows : @xmath181          observe that the first coordinate of the elements in @xmath179 is constant on each of the @xmath183-equivalence classes .
in other words , the first coordinate is unchanged by the formation of the quotient structure @xmath184 .
we therefore use the first coordinate as a means for specifying the position of an element in a copy of @xmath24 or @xmath185 in the @xmath9-pinch : notationally , we define a function @xmath186 by @xmath187 .
we refer to the copy of @xmath24 in @xmath184 at position @xmath188 as the _ left pinch _ of @xmath184 , and we refer to the copy of @xmath24 at position @xmath189 as the _ right pinch _ of @xmath184 .
we denote the substructures of @xmath184 induced by the sets @xmath190 and @xmath191 as @xmath192 and @xmath193 , respectively .
we refer to the copy of @xmath185 in @xmath192 at position @xmath194 as the _ right slice _ of @xmath192 , and we refer to the copy of @xmath185 in @xmath193 at position @xmath195 as the _ left slice _ of @xmath193 .            1 .
( @xcite , lemma  @xmath199 ) for each natural number @xmath9 , the substructures @xmath192 and @xmath193 of @xmath184 admit homomorphisms into @xmath24.[itm : part1 ] 2 .
( @xcite theorem  @xmath200 and theorem  @xmath201)[itm : pinchequiv ] the following are equivalent : * @xmath59 satisfies the finite duality property ; * there exists some natural number @xmath9 such that @xmath184 admits a homomorphism to @xmath24 .
[ itm : pinchsurjhom](@xcite lemma  @xmath202 ) for each @xmath153 , there exists a surjective homomorphism from @xmath203 to @xmath204 .    for ( @xmath158 )
, it is routine to check that the map @xmath205 defined by @xmath206 is a homomorphism from @xmath192 to @xmath24 and similarly , that the map @xmath207 defined by @xmath208 is a homomorphism from @xmath192 to @xmath24 , see the proof of lemma  @xmath199 in @xcite .
the proof of ( @xmath161 ) depends mostly on the observation that there are only finitely many critical obstructions of a given diameter ( see lemma  @xmath209 of @xcite . for ( @xmath210 ) , the map defined by @xmath211 is easily shown to be a surjective homomorphism , see the proof of lemma  @xmath202 in @xcite .
let @xmath4 be a class of @xmath7-structures and let @xmath55 be a subclass of @xmath4 .
we say that @xmath4 is _ closed under forming the @xmath9-pinch construction over @xmath55 _ , if for every @xmath28 and every @xmath212 , we have that @xmath213 and its substructures @xmath192 and @xmath193 belong to the class @xmath4 .
[ thm : sausage ] let @xmath4 be a class of finite @xmath214-structures and let @xmath82 .
if @xmath4 is closed under forming the @xmath9-pinch construction over @xmath24 and taking disjoint unions , then @xmath215 is equal to @xmath216 for some first order sentence @xmath96 if and only if there is a finite conjunction of anti - identities @xmath87 such that @xmath217 .
we now prove ( @xmath210 ) @xmath218 ( @xmath158 ) by establishing the contrapositive .
we show that for a finite relational structure @xmath24 , if the class @xmath59 fails the finite duality property , then the property of admitting a homomorphism to @xmath24 is not expressible by a first - order sentence .
the proof follows an ehrenfeucht - frass game arguement ; we show that , for each non - negative integer @xmath2 , there are two structures @xmath219 and @xmath220 such that :      if @xmath59 does not satisfy the finite duality property , then theorem  [ thm : sausagefacts ] tells us that for each natural number @xmath9 , there exists no homomorphism from @xmath184 to  @xmath24 , but the substructures @xmath192 and @xmath193 of @xmath184 admit homomorphisms to @xmath24 .
this suggests that we construct our structures @xmath219 and @xmath220 using combinations of @xmath184 and its substructures @xmath192 and @xmath193 , where @xmath9 is some number defined in terms of @xmath2 .
let @xmath2 be a non - negative integer and assume that @xmath221 is an integer strictly greater than @xmath222 .
now consider @xmath223 and the disjoint union @xmath224 .
we build @xmath219 and @xmath220 in the following way .
let @xmath220 be the structure obtained by taking the disjoint union of @xmath225 copies of @xmath224 , and let @xmath219 be @xmath226 .
see figure  [ figure : sausies ] for an abstract depiction of the structures @xmath219 and @xmath220 .
node[coordinate , label = below:@xmath15 ] ( v16 ) at ( -2,0.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v17 ) at ( -3,3.5 ) ; ( v16)(v17 ) ; node[coordinate , label = below:@xmath228 ( v0 ) at ( 0,0 ) node[coordinate ] ( v1 ) at ( 1,3 ) node[coordinate ] ( v2 ) at ( 0,6 ) node[coordinate ] ( v3 ) at ( -1,3 ) ; ( v0)(v1)(v2)(v3)(v0 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v4 ) at ( 1,0.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v5 ) at ( 2,3.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v6 ) at ( 1,6.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v7 ) at ( 0,3.5 ) ; ( v4)(v5)(v6)(v7)(v4 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v8 ) at ( 4,2 ) node[coordinate ] ( v9 ) at ( 5,5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v10 ) at ( 4,8 ) node[coordinate ] ( v11 ) at ( 3,5 ) ; ( v8)(v9)(v10)(v11)(v8 ) ; node[coordinate , label = below:@xmath228 ( v12 ) at ( 5,2.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v13 ) at ( 6,5.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v14 ) at ( 5,8.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v15 ) at ( 4,5.5 ) ; ( v12)(v13)(v14)(v15)(v12 ) ; node[coordinate , label = below:@xmath15 ] ( v18 ) at ( 7,4.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v19 ) at ( 8,7.5 ) ; ( v18)(v19 ) ; ( v17)(v2)(v6)(v10)(v14)(v19 ) ; ( v17)(v3)(v7)(v11)(v15)(v18 ) ; ( v16)(v0)(v4)(v8)(v12)(v18 ) ; ( v16)(v1)(v5)(v9)(v13)(v19 ) ;    node[coordinate ] ( v16 ) at ( -2,0.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v17 ) at ( -3,3.5 ) ; ( v16)(v17 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v0 ) at ( 0,0 ) node[coordinate ] ( v1 ) at ( 1,3 ) node[coordinate ] ( v2 ) at ( 0,6 ) node[coordinate ] ( v3 ) at ( -1,3 ) ; ( v0)(v1)(v2)(v3)(v0 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v4 ) at ( 0.6,0.3 ) node[coordinate ] ( v5 ) at ( 1.6,3.3 ) node[coordinate ] ( v6 ) at ( 0.6,6.3 ) node[coordinate ] ( v7 ) at ( -0.4,3.3 ) ; ( v4)(v5)(v6)(v7)(v4 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v8 ) at ( 4.4,2.2 ) node[coordinate ] ( v9 ) at ( 5.4,5.2 ) node[coordinate ] ( v10 ) at ( 4.4,8.2 ) node[coordinate ] ( v11 ) at ( 3.4,5.2 ) ; ( v8)(v9)(v10)(v11)(v8 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v12 ) at ( 5,2.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v13 ) at ( 6,5.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v14 ) at ( 5,8.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v15 ) at ( 4,5.5 ) ; ( v12)(v13)(v14)(v15)(v12 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v20 ) at ( 3.4,1.7 ) node[coordinate ] ( v21 ) at ( 4.4,4.7 ) node[coordinate ] ( v22 ) at ( 3.4,7.7 ) node[coordinate ] ( v23 ) at ( 2.4,4.7 ) ; ( v20)(v21)(v22)(v23)(v20 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v24 ) at ( 1.6,0.8 ) node[coordinate ] ( v25 ) at ( 2.6,3.8 ) node[coordinate ] ( v26 ) at ( 1.6,6.8 ) node[coordinate ] ( v27 ) at ( 0.6,3.8 ) ; ( v24)(v25)(v26)(v27)(v24 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v18 ) at ( 7,4.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v19 ) at ( 8,7.5 ) ; ( v18)(v19 ) ; ( v17)(v2)(v6)(v26 ) ; ( v22)(v10)(v14)(v19 ) ; ( v17)(v3)(v7)(v27 ) ; ( v23)(v11)(v15)(v18 ) ; ( v16)(v0)(v4)(v24 ) ; ( v20)(v8)(v12)(v18 ) ; ( v16)(v1)(v5)(v25 ) ; ( v21)(v9)(v13)(v19 ) ;    node[coordinate ] ( v16 ) at ( -2,0.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v17 ) at ( -3,3.5 ) ; ( v16)(v17 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v0 ) at ( 0,0 ) node[coordinate ] ( v1 ) at ( 1,3 ) node[coordinate ] ( v2 ) at ( 0,6 ) node[coordinate ] ( v3 ) at ( -1,3 ) ; ( v0)(v1)(v2)(v3)(v0 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v4 ) at ( 0.6,0.3 ) node[coordinate ] ( v5 ) at ( 1.6,3.3 ) node[coordinate ] ( v6 ) at ( 0.6,6.3 ) node[coordinate ] ( v7 ) at ( -0.4,3.3 ) ; ( v4)(v5)(v6)(v7)(v4 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v8 ) at ( 4.4,2.2 ) node[coordinate ] ( v9 ) at ( 5.4,5.2 ) node[coordinate ] ( v10 ) at ( 4.4,8.2 ) node[coordinate ] ( v11 ) at ( 3.4,5.2 ) ; ( v8)(v9)(v10)(v11)(v8 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v12 ) at ( 5,2.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v13 ) at ( 6,5.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v14 ) at ( 5,8.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v15 ) at ( 4,5.5 ) ; ( v12)(v13)(v14)(v15)(v12 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v20 ) at ( 3.4,1.7 ) node[coordinate ] ( v21 ) at ( 4.4,4.7 ) node[coordinate ] ( v22 ) at ( 3.4,7.7 ) node[coordinate ] ( v23 ) at ( 2.4,4.7 ) ; ( v20)(v21)(v22)(v23)(v20 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v24 ) at ( 1.6,0.8 ) node[coordinate ] ( v25 ) at ( 2.6,3.8 ) node[coordinate ] ( v26 ) at ( 1.6,6.8 ) node[coordinate ] ( v27 ) at ( 0.6,3.8 ) ; ( v24)(v25)(v26)(v27)(v24 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v18 ) at ( 7,4.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v19 ) at ( 8,7.5 ) ; ( v18)(v19 ) ; ( v17)(v2)(v6)(v26 ) ; ( v22)(v10)(v14)(v19 ) ; ( v17)(v3)(v7)(v27 ) ; ( v23)(v11)(v15)(v18 ) ; ( v16)(v0)(v4)(v24 ) ; ( v20)(v8)(v12)(v18 ) ; ( v16)(v1)(v5)(v25 ) ; ( v21)(v9)(v13)(v19 ) ;      node[coordinate ] ( v16 ) at ( -2,0.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v17 ) at ( -3,3.5 ) ; ( v16)(v17 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v0 ) at ( 0,0 ) node[coordinate ] ( v1 ) at ( 1,3 ) node[coordinate ] ( v2 ) at ( 0,6 ) node[coordinate ] ( v3 ) at ( -1,3 ) ; ( v0)(v1)(v2)(v3)(v0 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v4 ) at ( 0.6,0.3 ) node[coordinate ] ( v5 ) at ( 1.6,3.3 ) node[coordinate ] ( v6 ) at ( 0.6,6.3 ) node[coordinate ] ( v7 ) at ( -0.4,3.3 ) ; ( v4)(v5)(v6)(v7)(v4 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v8 ) at ( 4.4,2.2 ) node[coordinate ] ( v9 ) at ( 5.4,5.2 ) node[coordinate ] ( v10 ) at ( 4.4,8.2 ) node[coordinate ] ( v11 ) at ( 3.4,5.2 ) ; ( v8)(v9)(v10)(v11)(v8 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v12 ) at ( 5,2.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v13 ) at ( 6,5.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v14 ) at ( 5,8.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v15 ) at ( 4,5.5 ) ; ( v12)(v13)(v14)(v15)(v12 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v20 ) at ( 3.4,1.7 ) node[coordinate ] ( v21 ) at ( 4.4,4.7 ) node[coordinate ] ( v22 ) at ( 3.4,7.7 ) node[coordinate ] ( v23 ) at ( 2.4,4.7 ) ; ( v20)(v21)(v22)(v23)(v20 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v24 ) at ( 1.6,0.8 ) node[coordinate ] ( v25 ) at ( 2.6,3.8 ) node[coordinate ] ( v26 ) at ( 1.6,6.8 ) node[coordinate ] ( v27 ) at ( 0.6,3.8 ) ; ( v24)(v25)(v26)(v27)(v24 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v18 ) at ( 7,4.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v19 ) at ( 8,7.5 ) ; ( v18)(v19 ) ; ( v17)(v2)(v6)(v26 ) ; ( v22)(v10)(v14)(v19 ) ; ( v17)(v3)(v7)(v27 ) ; ( v23)(v11)(v15)(v18 ) ; ( v16)(v0)(v4)(v24 ) ; ( v20)(v8)(v12)(v18 ) ; ( v16)(v1)(v5)(v25 ) ; ( v21)(v9)(v13)(v19 ) ;      node[coordinate ] ( v16 ) at ( -2,0.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v17 ) at ( -3,3.5 ) ; ( v16)(v17 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v0 ) at ( 0,0 ) node[coordinate ] ( v1 ) at ( 1,3 ) node[coordinate ] ( v2 ) at ( 0,6 ) node[coordinate ] ( v3 ) at ( -1,3 ) ; ( v0)(v1)(v2)(v3)(v0 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v4 ) at ( 0.6,0.3 ) node[coordinate ] ( v5 ) at ( 1.6,3.3 ) node[coordinate ] ( v6 ) at ( 0.6,6.3 ) node[coordinate ] ( v7 ) at ( -0.4,3.3 ) ; ( v4)(v5)(v6)(v7)(v4 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v8 ) at ( 4.4,2.2 ) node[coordinate ] ( v9 ) at ( 5.4,5.2 ) node[coordinate ] ( v10 ) at ( 4.4,8.2 ) node[coordinate ] ( v11 ) at ( 3.4,5.2 ) ; ( v8)(v9)(v10)(v11)(v8 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v12 ) at ( 5,2.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v13 ) at ( 6,5.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v14 ) at ( 5,8.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v15 ) at ( 4,5.5 ) ; ( v12)(v13)(v14)(v15)(v12 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v20 ) at ( 3.4,1.7 ) node[coordinate ] ( v21 ) at ( 4.4,4.7 ) node[coordinate ] ( v22 ) at ( 3.4,7.7 ) node[coordinate ] ( v23 ) at ( 2.4,4.7 ) ; ( v20)(v21)(v22)(v23)(v20 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v24 ) at ( 1.6,0.8 ) node[coordinate ] ( v25 ) at ( 2.6,3.8 ) node[coordinate ] ( v26 ) at ( 1.6,6.8 ) node[coordinate ] ( v27 ) at ( 0.6,3.8 ) ; ( v24)(v25)(v26)(v27)(v24 ) ; node[coordinate ] ( v18 ) at ( 7,4.5 ) node[coordinate ] ( v19 ) at ( 8,7.5 ) ; ( v18)(v19 ) ; ( v17)(v2)(v6)(v26 ) ; ( v22)(v10)(v14)(v19 ) ; ( v17)(v3)(v7)(v27 ) ; ( v23)(v11)(v15)(v18 ) ; ( v16)(v0)(v4)(v24 ) ; ( v20)(v8)(v12)(v18 ) ; ( v16)(v1)(v5)(v25 ) ; ( v21)(v9)(v13)(v19 ) ;          we begin by defining a notion of what it means for two elements in @xmath219 or @xmath220 to be  close to " or  far away " from each other ; but first we need to give a concrete definition of distance between two elements in @xmath219 or @xmath220
. we will refer to a copy of @xmath223 or @xmath230 or @xmath231 in @xmath219 or @xmath220 as a _ block - component_. every element @xmath232 in @xmath219 or @xmath220 is a copy of one of the form @xmath233 , thus we may unambiguously extend the function @xmath234 to both @xmath219 and @xmath220 .
now define the distance between two elements within @xmath219 by @xmath235 with @xmath236 defined identically on @xmath220 .
the subscripts @xmath219 or @xmath220 are dropped when no ambiguity arises .
note that these `` distances '' are not metrics in the strict sense , as distinct points may have distance @xmath11 ( if they lie in the same block component and have the same @xmath237 value ) .    at each round @xmath238
, we will say that the distance between two elements @xmath232 and @xmath239 in @xmath219 or @xmath220 is @xmath240 if it at least @xmath241 .
note that this also includes the case where the distance between @xmath232 and @xmath239 is infinite .
assume that spoiler and duplicator have played @xmath242 rounds of the @xmath2 round game and have selected some elements @xmath243 and @xmath244 .
let @xmath245 .
if the distance between @xmath232 and @xmath239 is greater than or equal to @xmath246 and there are no previously played elements between them , then @xmath247 is large enough so that spoiler can not connect @xmath232 and @xmath239 . more precisely : at each round of play , spoiler may halve the distance between @xmath232 and @xmath239 ; the value of @xmath240 is chosen such that all further plays ( to the @xmath248 round ) will result in a gap of distance at least @xmath249 somewhere `` between '' @xmath232 and @xmath239 .
see libkin @xcite for very similar arguments .
the  board " on which spoiler and duplicator will play the @xmath2-round ehrenfeucht - frass game essentially consists of lots of copies of @xmath24 and @xmath250 ( some of which are connected to one another ) .
of course , the orientation of @xmath250 is interchangeable , because @xmath250 admits a natural automorphism given by @xmath251 .
however it is convenient for our discussion to fix the ordering on these coordinates , so that we make think of  pinching " the second coordinate on the left side and the first coordinate on the right side . in the same way
, @xmath230 is in fact isomorphic to @xmath231 , but it is convenient for us to visualize them with their pinches in dual orientation .    we can use the following assumption to shed some light on duplicator s strategy to win the @xmath2-round game . we can assume that spoiler s first move in the @xmath2-round ehrenfeucht - frass game will be in @xmath223 in @xmath219 , since @xmath252 is isomorphic to @xmath220 and so a first move made by spoiler outside of @xmath253 is a wasted one .
assume that spoiler chooses an element @xmath254 that is distance @xmath255 strictly less than @xmath256 to the left pinch in @xmath253 ( the case for the right pinch is symmetric ) . since @xmath255 is small enough so that , after round @xmath2 , it is possible for spoiler to `` connect '' two elements and because the orientations at the left and right pinches differ , duplicator must choose an element @xmath257 from @xmath220 that is a copy of the element @xmath254 and in the exact corresponding position , that is , exactly distance @xmath255 from a left pinch .
now assume that spoiler chooses an element @xmath254 that is @xmath256 from both the left and right pinch in @xmath253 .
again , duplicator is forced to choose an element from a copy of @xmath192 or @xmath193 in @xmath220 and she must select an element @xmath257 that is also distance @xmath256 from any right or left pinch in @xmath220 . she can achieve this by selecting an exact corresponding element to @xmath254 that is somewhere around the middle of a copy of @xmath192 or @xmath193 ( her choice of @xmath192 or @xmath193 does not matter since they both have diameter greater than or equal to @xmath240 ) .      1 .   if @xmath260 , then @xmath261 ; 2 .   if @xmath262 , then @xmath263 ; 3 .
if @xmath264 is of distance @xmath265 from a left pinch , then @xmath266 is of distance @xmath255 from left pinch ; 4 .
if @xmath264 is of distance @xmath265 from a right pinch , then @xmath266 is of distance @xmath255 from right pinch ; 5 .
if @xmath264 is of distance @xmath265 from a left slice , then @xmath266 is of distance @xmath255 from a left slice ; 6 .
if @xmath264 is of distance @xmath265 from a right slice , then @xmath266 is of distance @xmath255 from a right slice ; 7 .
the dual conditions to the above ( in other words , switching the roles of @xmath134 and @xmath267 ) .
the base case holds vacuously . for the induction step ,
suppose that duplicator has survived @xmath268 rounds of the game by maintaining the above conditions to the completion of round @xmath268 .
assume that spoiler is making his @xmath269st move in @xmath219 ( the case for @xmath220 is symmetric ) . if spoiler s selection for @xmath270 is equal to some previously played element @xmath271 , where @xmath272 , then duplicator s response should be @xmath273 .
case @xmath158 : spoiler chooses @xmath270 so that it has distance greater than or equal to @xmath274 from any other previously played element in @xmath219 . + case @xmath158(a ) : spoiler chooses @xmath270 to be distance greater than or equal to @xmath274 from any pinch or slice in @xmath219 .
duplicator must select @xmath275 so that it is also distance greater than or equal to @xmath274 from any other previously played element and from any pinch or slice in @xmath220 .
duplicator can always find a copy of @xmath230 or @xmath231 in @xmath220 that contains no previously played points : after round @xmath268 there are at least @xmath276 unplayed copies ( each of length @xmath277 ) remaining in @xmath220 .
if duplicator selects @xmath275 to be as close as possible to the middle of one of these intervals , then we ensure that the @xmath278 property and all other conditions of the hypothesis are carried through to the ( @xmath279)st round .
case @xmath158(b ) : spoiler chooses @xmath270 so that it is distance @xmath280 from a pinch or slice in @xmath219 . without loss of generality ,
suppose spoiler chooses @xmath270 so that it is distance @xmath280 from a left pinch in @xmath219 .
duplicator must select an element @xmath275 in @xmath220 that is exactly distance @xmath255 from a left pinch in @xmath220 and such that @xmath275 is distance greater than or equal to @xmath274 from any other previously played element .
duplicator can always find a copy of @xmath231 in @xmath220 that contains no previously played elements : after round @xmath268 there are at least @xmath281 copies remaining in @xmath220 . now
duplicator should select an element @xmath275 in one of these copies corresponding to the element that spoiler chose in his copy of @xmath231 ( or @xmath253 ) relative to the natural embedding of @xmath231 into @xmath253 , and so that it has distance exactly @xmath280 from the left pinch .
then all the conditions of hypothesis are preserved to the ( @xmath282)st round in this case .
case @xmath161(a ) : spoiler chooses @xmath270 to be distance greater than or equal to @xmath274 from any pinch or slice in @xmath219 . without loss of generality assume that spoiler has selected @xmath270 to be to the right of @xmath271 .
there are two sub - cases to consider , however duplicator s strategy is the same in each case : she should select @xmath275 in @xmath220 to be an exact copy of the element @xmath270 , and exactly distance @xmath283 to the right of @xmath273 .
we only need to check that conditions @xmath284 and @xmath285 are maintained in this case .
+ case @xmath161(a)(i ) : if there exists a previously selected element @xmath264 to the right of @xmath270 that is distance strictly less than @xmath274 , then @xmath260 , and so condition ( @xmath161 ) hypothesis tells us that @xmath261
. hence duplicator s selection of @xmath275 at exactly distance @xmath283 to the right of @xmath273 ensures that @xmath286 and @xmath287 .
hence all conditions of the hypothesis are maintained in this case .
+ case @xmath161(a)(ii ) : if the distance of any other previously played element to the right of @xmath270 is greater than or equal @xmath274 .
then , at round @xmath268 , the distance of any previously played element to the right of @xmath271 was greater than or equal to @xmath241 , so condition ( @xmath158 ) of the hypothesis tells us that the distance of any previously played element to the right of @xmath273 in @xmath220 is @xmath241 .
hence duplicator s selection of @xmath275 at exactly distance @xmath283 to the right of @xmath273 ensures that @xmath286 and the distance of any other previously played element to the right of @xmath270 is greater than or equal @xmath274 .
hence all conditions of the hypothesis are maintained in this case .
+ case @xmath161(b ) spoiler chooses @xmath270 to be distance strictly less than @xmath274 from any pinch or slice in @xmath219 .
without loss of generality assume that spoiler chooses @xmath270 to be distance strictly less than @xmath274 from a left pinch .
+ case @xmath161 ( b)(i ) : if spoiler chooses @xmath270 to be to the right of @xmath271 at distance @xmath288 , then at round @xmath268 , the distance @xmath289 between @xmath271 and the left pinch must have been strictly less than @xmath241 .
so condition ( @xmath210 ) of the hypothesis ensures that @xmath273 is also distance @xmath289 from a left pinch .
if duplicator selects @xmath275 to be distance @xmath288 to the right of @xmath273 , then @xmath275 is exactly the same distance ( @xmath290 ) as @xmath270 from a left pinch , so condition ( @xmath210 ) of the hypothesis is maintained to this round .
it remains to check conditions ( @xmath158 ) and ( @xmath161 ) : applying the arguments given in case @xmath161(a)(i ) and case @xmath161(a)(ii ) , respectively guarantees that all the conditions of the hypothesis are maintained in this case .
+ case @xmath161 ( b)(ii ) : if spoiler chooses @xmath270 to be to the left of @xmath271 at distance @xmath291 strictly less than @xmath274 , then @xmath271 must be distance @xmath292 strictly less than @xmath241 from the left pinch , and so the hypothesis ensures that @xmath273 is also distance @xmath292 from a left pinch .
duplicator should select @xmath275 to be distance @xmath291 to the right of @xmath273 , then @xmath275 is exactly the same distance ( @xmath293 ) as @xmath270 from a left pinch , and so condition ( @xmath210 ) of the hypothesis is maintained to this round .
this selection also guarantees that condition ( @xmath158 ) is maintained in this case .
if there is no previously played element further to the left of @xmath270 , then we are done .
if on the other hand , there exists a previously played element @xmath264 further to the left of @xmath270 , we know that @xmath294 , and so we need to check condition ( @xmath158 ) of the hypothesis . at round @xmath268 , we had @xmath295 , and so the hypothesis tells us that @xmath296 , and hence duplicator s selection ensures that @xmath297 .
we prove the contrapositive .
assume that @xmath298 is not definable by a finite conjunction of anti - identities modulo @xmath299 .
then @xmath298 fails the finite duality property relative to the class @xmath4 ( clearly , ( @xmath158 ) @xmath218 ( @xmath161 ) of theorem  [ thm : atserias ] relativises to any class ) .
hence @xmath59 fails the finite duality property and so for every natural number @xmath9 , the structure @xmath184 does not admit a homomorphism to @xmath24 . now
since the class @xmath4 is closed under forming the @xmath9-pinch construction over @xmath24 and taking disjoint unions , the proof of ( @xmath210 ) @xmath218 ( @xmath158 ) of theorem  [ thm : atserias ] relativises to @xmath4 : we have found , for each non - negative integer @xmath2 , two structures @xmath219 and @xmath220 in @xmath4 such that :        we now complete this section by extending theorem  [ thm : sausage ] .
the proof follows a similar structure : we first prove a non - relativised version , namely theorem  [ thm : genrlsdsausagefacts ] , from which the extended result will follow almost immediately .
the following three results given in lemma  [ lem : erdos ] , corollary  [ cor : extendederdos ] and lemma  [ lem : finiteduality ] are required .
the first lemma appears as lemma  @xmath301 in @xcite , and is proved by a probabilistic argument based on that originally given by erds to show the existence , for each non - negative @xmath2 , of a graph with chromatic number greater than @xmath2 and no cycles of length less than or equal to @xmath2 .
see the proof given in theorem  @xmath302 of @xcite .
[ lem : erdos ] let @xmath24 and @xmath58 be @xmath7-structures . if there exists no homomorphism from @xmath58 to @xmath24 , then for every natural number @xmath9 there exists an @xmath7-structure @xmath303 of girth at least @xmath9 such that the following conditions hold :        [ cor : extendederdos ] let @xmath61 , let @xmath304 be a finite set of @xmath7-structures and let @xmath58 be an @xmath7-structure .
if @xmath58 does not admit a homomorphism to @xmath48 , for each @xmath178 , then for any natural number @xmath9 , there exists an @xmath7-structure @xmath303 of girth at least @xmath9 such that the following conditions hold :      let @xmath90 .
since @xmath58 does not admit a homomorphism to @xmath48 , we can use lemma  [ lem : erdos ] , to find a structure @xmath305 of girth at least @xmath9 that admits a homomorphism to @xmath58 but does not admit one to @xmath48 . define @xmath303 to be the disjoint union of the @xmath305 .
clearly , the structure @xmath303 has girth at least @xmath9 and does not admit a homomorphism to @xmath48 , for all @xmath178 .
the proof of the next lemma is identical , up to replacing lemma  @xmath301 of @xcite with its extended version corollary  [ cor : extendederdos ] , to the proof of lemma  @xmath209 in @xcite .
we refer the reader to the proof there .
let @xmath55 be a class of finite @xmath214-structures , let @xmath56 be a critical obstruction for the class @xmath307 and let @xmath308 .
we let @xmath309 denote the substructure of @xmath56 induced by the set @xmath310 .
[ lem : hom2npinch ] let @xmath311 , let @xmath304 be a finite set of homomorphism - independent @xmath7-structures and let @xmath56 be a critical obstruction for the class @xmath54 with diameter at least @xmath312 .
assume that there are @xmath313 and @xmath314 with @xmath232 and @xmath315 distance @xmath312 apart and with both @xmath309 and @xmath316 admitting a homomorphism to @xmath317 .
then there exists a homomorphism from @xmath56 to @xmath318 .
the lemma is essentially borrowed from @xcite , so we give only a proof sketch .
let @xmath232 and @xmath315 be elements in @xmath56 at distance @xmath312 and let @xmath319 and @xmath320 be homomorphisms .
the maps @xmath321 and @xmath96 defined below are shown to be homomorphisms in the proof of proposition  @xmath306 in  @xcite .
define @xmath322 by @xmath323          1 .
@xmath54 is definable by a first - order sentence ; 2 .   for each @xmath178 ,
the class @xmath329 satisfies the finite duality property ; 3 .
@xmath54 satisfies the finite duality property ; 4 .
@xmath54 is definable by a finite conjunction of anti - identities .
( @xmath158 ) @xmath218 ( @xmath161 ) : we prove the contrapositive .
assume that @xmath330 fails to satisfy the finite duality property .
for each @xmath331 , define @xmath332 and let @xmath333 be the @xmath334-pinch over @xmath317 .
let @xmath192 and @xmath193 be the substructures of @xmath333 induced by the sets @xmath335 and @xmath336 , respectively . from part ( [ itm : part1 ] and
[ itm : pinchequiv ] ) of theorem  [ thm : sausagefacts ] , we have that , for all @xmath337 , the structure @xmath338 does not admit a homomorphism to @xmath317 , but the substructures @xmath192 and @xmath193 both admit homomorphisms to @xmath317 .
now consider the disjoint union @xmath339 .
since @xmath304 is a homomorphism independent set , it follows that , for all @xmath340 , the structure @xmath341 does not belong to the class @xmath54 . for each @xmath340 let @xmath220 be the structure obtained by taking the disjoint union of @xmath49 with @xmath225 copies of @xmath224 , and
let @xmath342 .
then , for each @xmath340 , we have @xmath343 , while @xmath344 .
now apply the argument given in theorem  [ thm : sausage ] with the extra condition that whenever spoiler selects an element @xmath134 from @xmath219 in the extra copy of @xmath49 , then duplicator selects the corresponding element @xmath267 from the extra copy of @xmath49 in @xmath220 , and vice - versa .
hence , for each non - negative integer @xmath2 , duplicator has a winning strategy in the @xmath2-round ehrenfeucht - frass game played on @xmath219 and @xmath220 , and so the property of admitting a homomorphism to @xmath55 is not definable by a first - order sentence .
( @xmath161 ) @xmath218 ( @xmath210 ) : we will show that there is a bound on the the diameter of the critical obstructions for @xmath54 .
the required result will then follow by lemma  [ lem : finiteduality ] .
assume that , for each @xmath178 , the class @xmath345 satisfies the finite duality property .
then , for each @xmath346 , there exists a natural number @xmath347 with @xmath348 admitting a homomorphism to @xmath349 , by part ( [ itm : pinchequiv ] ) of theorem  [ thm : sausagefacts ] .
let @xmath56 be any critical obstruction for @xmath54 .
of course , for any element @xmath350 , the substructure @xmath351 admits a homomorphism to at least one of the @xmath349 .
now let @xmath2 be the diameter of @xmath56 , and let @xmath232 and @xmath315 be elements in @xmath324 at distance @xmath2 .
we need to consider two cases .
_ case @xmath158 _ : there exists @xmath314 with @xmath352 and @xmath353 admitting homomorphisms to @xmath317 . lemma  [ lem : hom2npinch ] tells us that @xmath56 admits a homomorphism to @xmath354 .
but since @xmath355 admits a homomorphism to @xmath317 , and therefore @xmath356 admits a homomorphism to @xmath49 , for all @xmath357 ( by part  [ itm : pinchsurjhom ] of theorem  [ thm : sausagefacts ] ) , we must have that @xmath2 is strictly less than @xmath358 .
_ case @xmath161 _ : there exists @xmath359 with @xmath360 and with @xmath352 admitting a homomorphism to @xmath361 and @xmath353 admittng a homomorphism to @xmath362 . we will show that @xmath2 is less than or equal to @xmath363 . if there exists @xmath364 and @xmath314 with @xmath365 and @xmath366 admitting homomorphisms to @xmath367 , then from case @xmath158 , the maximum distance between @xmath239 and @xmath368 in @xmath56 is strictly less than @xmath358 . thus , since @xmath352 admits a homomorphism to @xmath361 , any element @xmath350 with @xmath351 admitting a homomorphism to @xmath361 must be at most distance @xmath369 from @xmath232 .
therefore any element @xmath370 with distance exactly @xmath371 from @xmath232 must have @xmath372 admitting a homomorphism to @xmath373 , where @xmath374 and @xmath375 .
then any element @xmath376 with distance @xmath377 from @xmath378 ( and distance @xmath379 from @xmath232 ) must have @xmath380 admitting a homomorphism to @xmath381 , for some @xmath382
. we can continue this process until we run out of @xmath383 s .
it follows that the diameter @xmath2 of @xmath56 is at most @xmath384 .
[ thm : colourfam ] let @xmath386 .
let @xmath4 be a class of finite relational structures in the signature @xmath7 and let @xmath304 be a finite set of homomorphism - independent structures in @xmath4 . if @xmath4 is closed under forming the @xmath9-pinch construction over @xmath55 and taking disjoint unions , then @xmath387 is equal to @xmath216 for some first order sentence @xmath96 if and only if there is a finite conjunction of anti - identities @xmath87 such that @xmath388 .
we prove the contrapositive .
assume that @xmath389 is not definable by a finite conjunction of anti - identities modulo @xmath299 .
then @xmath389 fails the finite duality property relative to the class @xmath4 , and therefore @xmath390 fails the finite duality property .
so there is some @xmath314 with @xmath330 failing to satisfy the finite duality property , using ( @xmath161 ) @xmath218 ( @xmath210 ) of theorem  [ thm : genrlsdsausagefacts ] .
now since the class @xmath4 is closed under forming the @xmath9-pinch construction over @xmath55 and taking disjoint unions , the proof of ( @xmath158 ) @xmath218 ( @xmath161 ) of theorem  [ thm : genrlsdsausagefacts ] relativises to @xmath4 .
hence the property of admitting a homomorphism into @xmath55 relative to the class @xmath4 is not definable by a first - order sentence .
we have made multiple references to closure under formation of the @xmath9-pinch and taking disjoint unions .
we conclude this section with some examples of sentences that are closed under these constructions .
[ eg : examplelaws ] let @xmath391 be a relational signature
. then a class of @xmath214-structures @xmath55 is closed under forming the @xmath9-pinch ( for sufficiently large @xmath9 ) and disjoint unions if it is definable by sentences of any of the following forms :      closure under disjoint unions is obvious in each case ; in case ( 3 ) this uses the fact that the conclusion of the implication involves variables only appearing in the premise .
we now discuss the formation of @xmath9-pinches ( for sufficiently large @xmath9 ) .
case ( 1 ) is trivial , while case ( 2 ) follows from the fact that for @xmath396 , the @xmath289-vertex substructures of the @xmath9-pinch over @xmath397 admit a homomorphism into @xmath397 ( by theorem  [ thm : sausagefacts](1 ) ) , and hence the @xmath9-pinch will satisfy any anti - identity in at most @xmath289 variables that is true on @xmath397 .    for case
( 3 ) , let @xmath398 .
we have @xmath399 .
if @xmath400 , then from the definition of @xmath401 , for each @xmath402 , there exists @xmath403 satisfying @xmath404 .
it follows that @xmath69 and @xmath405 .
note that here we are implicitly using the condition that @xmath395 ; if @xmath406 contained repeated elements then we could not guarantee repeated elements in @xmath407 . now interpreting in @xmath24 ,
gives @xmath408 and @xmath409 , where @xmath410 .
it follows that @xmath411 .
a similar argument works for @xmath412 and even easier argument works for @xmath413 .