MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In the paper

P.J. Webb: Bounding the ranks of ZG-lattices by their restrictions to elementary abelian groups. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 23 (3) (1982), 311-318.

the author writes in the introduction without giving any reference or explanation ($G$ denotes a finite group):

If $M$ is any $\mathbb{Z}G$-lattice, that is a $\mathbb{Z}G$-module which is a free abelian group of finite rank, we may write $M=\text{core}(M)\oplus \text{proj}(M)$ where $\text{proj}(M)$ is a projective module and $\text{core}(M)$ is a submodule of $M$ with no projective summands. In general the submodule $\text{core}(M)$ is not uniquely determined by these requirements, but all the possible choices for $\text{core}(M)$ will have the same ranks as an abelian group.

I managed to show that each lattice can be decomposed in the described way, but I'm not able to prove that all $\text{core}(M)$ have the same rank.

Question: Why is the rank of $\text{core}(M)$ uniquely determined ?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Even more is true: Two possible cores of $M$ lie in the same genus, i.e. they become isomorphic in the localization at any prime of $\mathbb Z$. However, I couldn't find an explicit proof of this anywhere in literature Edit: It's Proposition 5.4 in Gruenberg: "Relation Modules of Finite Groups" (though unfortunately there's apparently no online version of this book besides google books).

Assume you have two decompositions $M=C_1\oplus P_1 = C_2 \oplus P_2$ with $P_1$ and $P_2$ projective. Assume furthermore that one cannot split off any further non-zero projective summands from $C_1$ and $C_2$.

By a theorem of Swan (see Swan: Projective modules over finite groups) $\mathbb Q\otimes P_1$ and $\mathbb Q\otimes P_2$ are free, and therefore so is $\mathbb Z_{(p)} \otimes P_1$ and $\mathbb Z_{(p)}\otimes P_2$ ($\mathbb Z_{(p)}$ denotes the localization of $\mathbb Z$ at $p$; this simply uses the fact that since the columns of the decomposition matrix of a finite group are linearly independent, the isomorphism type of the $\mathbb Q$-span of a projective $\mathbb Z_{(p)}$-module determines the isomorphism type of the projective module; alternatively see Theorem (77.14) on p. 548 in Curtis, Reiner: Representation theory of finite groups and associative algebras).

So now apply cancellation for $\mathbb Z_{(p)}G$-lattices (see Corollary 1 in this paper of Reiner) to find that unless $P_1$ and $P_2$ have the same $\mathbb Z$-rank (in which case we would be done), either $C_1$ or $C_2$ (say, w.l.o.g. $C_1$) has a non-zero free summand in every localization. So if this is the case, then take for each prime $p_1,\ldots,p_n$ that divides $G$ an epimorphism $$ \phi_i: \mathbb Z_{(p_i)} \otimes C_1 \twoheadrightarrow \mathbb Z_{(p_i)}G \subset \mathbb QG $$ By multiplying each $\phi_i$ with a sufficiently large integer relatively prime to $p_i$ we may assume $\phi_i(C_1) \subseteq \mathbb Z G $ for each $i$. Now we get a map $$ \phi := \sum_{i=1}^n \left(\prod_{j\neq i} p_j \right)\cdot \phi_i|_{C_1} $$ $\phi$ is a homomorphism from $C_1$ to $\mathbb Z G$, which is an epimorphism in the localization at each $p_i$ (by construction: the factor $\prod_{j\neq i} p_j$ is a unit in $\mathbb Z_{(p_i)}$ and in the radical of each $\mathbb Z_{(p_j)}$. Hence the image of $\phi$ in the localization at $p_i$ is the same as the image of $\phi_i$). The image of $\phi$ in the localization at any other prime is projective anyways, since if $p$ doesn't divide the order of $G$, then any $\mathbb Z_{(p)}G$-lattice is projective. So now we have a homomorphism from $C_1$ onto the image of $\phi$, and the image of $\phi$ is projective in each localization. But then by Theorem (78.1) on p. 550 in Curtis&Reiner the image of $\phi$ is projective, and therefore the image of $\phi$ is a projective summand of $C_1$. This contradicts the assumption that we couldn't split off any further projective summands from $C_1$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Many thanks for your help. – Jeff Jul 30 '12 at 7:17

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.