A definable set is strongly minimal if every definable subset is either finite or has finite complement. The theory of strongly minimal sets provides a geometric framework where dimension is well-defined and obeys matroid laws like linear algebra. ACF (algebraically closed fields) exemplifies strongly minimal geometry where geometry corresponds to algebraic geometry.
From stability theory, you know that stable theories have well-controlled type spaces — types do not "branch" in the way they do in unstable theories, and this constrains how models can differ from one another. Strongly minimal theories push stability to an extreme: not only is type behavior controlled, but every definable set is as simple as possible. A set D is strongly minimal if for every formula φ(x, ā) with parameters ā from D, the set φ(D, ā) is either finite or cofinite (has finite complement). There is no "middle ground" — no definable subset can have both infinite size and infinite complement. This rigidity is what makes strongly minimal sets amenable to geometric analysis.
The canonical example is ℂ as an algebraically closed field (or more precisely, the theory ACF₀ or ACFₚ). The strongly minimal set is the universe itself: any definable subset of an algebraically closed field is a Boolean combination of zero sets of polynomials, and by the Nullstellensatz, a polynomial in one variable has finitely many roots — so any quantifier-free definable subset of the line is finite or cofinite. This is not a coincidence: it reflects a deep connection between model-theoretic simplicity and the algebraic geometry of varieties. Your prerequisite on definability and algebraic applications showed how definable sets correspond to algebraic sets; strong minimality sharpens this to a precise tameness condition.
The geometric framework comes from the notion of algebraic closure internal to the model. In a strongly minimal structure, define acl(A) — the algebraic closure of a parameter set A — as the set of all elements satisfying a formula with finitely many solutions over A. This is analogous to the algebraic closure of a field, but defined purely model-theoretically. The operation acl satisfies the matroid axioms (exchange principle, monotonicity, finite character), so it defines a genuine pregeometry on the strongly minimal set. Dimension in this pregeometry is well-defined: the dimension of a tuple ā over a set B is the size of a maximal subset of ā that is "independent" over B (no element is in the algebraic closure of B and the others).
This dimension theory is what makes strongly minimal sets so powerful. Just as in linear algebra over a field, where dimension classifies vector spaces up to isomorphism and the dimension of a subspace plus the dimension of the quotient equals the total, strongly minimal structures are classified by dimension. Two models of a strongly minimal theory with the same uncountable cardinality κ are isomorphic: they are both just "κ-dimensional" copies of the pregeometry. This gives strongly minimal theories a categorical structure at uncountable cardinals — a property called uncountable categoricity (ℵ₁-categoricity and beyond) — which Morley's theorem characterizes as equivalent to ω-stability over the whole theory.
The deeper significance is that strong minimality provides a model of pure geometric abstraction: a structure where "independence" and "dimension" have clear meanings, combinatorial geometry controls the model-theoretic behavior, and algebraic geometry is a special case. From here, the study of o-minimality (where definable sets are finite unions of intervals rather than finite/cofinite sets) generalizes the same geometric intuition to ordered structures, and the applications to algebraically closed fields connect model theory directly to algebraic geometry and number theory.