Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I expect this question has a very simple answer.

We all know from primary school that there are no non-trivial continuous homomorphisms from $\hat{\mathbb{Z}}$ to $\mathbb{Z}$. What if we forget continuity: can anybody give an explicit example of a homomorphism?

Note that $\hat{\mathbb{Z}}$ is torsion-free, and not divisible (since it's isomorphic to $\prod_p \mathbb{Z}_p$ and $\mathbb{Z}_p$ is not divisible by $p$). There is the canonical injection $\mathbb{Z} \to \hat{\mathbb{Z}}$; is there some abstract reason why it ought to have a left inverse, and if so can we write it down?

share|improve this question
3  
The equation $(x^2−13)(x^2−17)(x^2−221)=0$ has a solution in $\hat{\mathbb{Z}}$ but not in $\mathbb{Z}$. See Page 3 of "Number Theory" by Borevich and Shafarevich. –  SJR May 24 '11 at 13:16
1  
$\hat{\mathbb Z}/\mathbb Z$ is a rational vector space (isomorphic to $\hat{\mathbb Z}\otimes\mathbb Q/\mathbb Z\otimes \mathbb Q$). –  Tom Goodwillie May 24 '11 at 13:16
1  
Perhaps someone should make the category clear in which we talk about homomorphisms (groups? rings?). Because the comment by SJR obviously makes use of the ring structure, but I think that groups are meant. –  Martin Brandenburg May 24 '11 at 13:26
    
@Martin: Indeed, I was thinking of group homomorphisms. But rings are interesting too... –  Martin Bright May 24 '11 at 13:33
5  
I would have given the question +1, except for the "We all know from primary school" affectation. I'm sure it's supposed to be funny, but it's a ridiculous exaggeration: probably the majority of research mathematicians have never learned what $\widehat{\mathbb{Z}}$ is. I would be willing to bet that at least one person read that sentence, didn't understand it, and felt at least a little bit bad about themselves because of it. There's really no need for this sort of schoolboy humor. –  Pete L. Clark May 24 '11 at 20:17
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 10 down vote accepted

The answer is that there are no such homomorphisms. See the following preprint of Nik Nikolov http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0244.

share|improve this answer
    
A perfect answer! Except that I was hoping to use $H^1(\mathbb{F}_p,\mathbb{Z})$ as an example to show why it's important to use continous cochains... –  Martin Bright May 24 '11 at 12:38
1  
I'm not sure an Annals paper, relying on the CFSG is quite necessary here. –  Junkie May 24 '11 at 13:54
    
Junkie you are right as you can see from Neil Strickland's answer. But the paper is of course much more general. –  Yiftach Barnea May 24 '11 at 15:50
1  
Although this is an excellent answer, Yiftach, this preprint of Nikolay and Dan Segal supercedes the above one arxiv.org/abs/1102.3037 –  Jonathan Kiehlmann May 24 '11 at 22:06
add comment

Let $\phi:\hat{\mathbb{Z}}\to\mathbb{Z}$ be a nontrivial homomorphism. As every nontrivial subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}$, we may suppose that $\phi$ is surjective, with kernel $K$ say. Now $\phi$ induces a surjective homomorphism $\phi_n:\hat{\mathbb{Z}}/n\hat{\mathbb{Z}}\to\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$, but it is standard that $\hat{\mathbb{Z}}/n\hat{\mathbb{Z}}$ has order $n$, so $\phi_n$ must be an isomorphism. This implies that $K\leq n\hat{\mathbb{Z}}$ for all $n$, but $\bigcap_n n\hat{\mathbb{Z}}=0$, so $\phi$ is injective, which is clearly impossible.

share|improve this answer
    
Very elegant. I would accept this answer as well if I could. –  Martin Bright May 24 '11 at 13:53
add comment

Let $\phi$ be such a homomorphism, on additive groups $\hat Z\rightarrow Z$. Write $(\vec x,\vec y)\in\hat Z$ for the element that is $x$ on primes that are 1 mod 3, and $y$ on primes that are 2 mod 3.

Then $\phi(\vec x,\vec 0)=0$ for all $x\in Z$, for $(\vec x,\vec 0)$ is $l$-divisible for any prime $l$ that is 2 mod 3. The symmetrical argument claims $\phi(\vec 0,\vec y)=0$ too.

Without loss of generality, we can assume that a preimage of $1$ is given by $(\vec 1,\vec 1)$.

Next, applying the group law and setting $\alpha=\phi(\vec 1,\vec{-1})$, we derive the system $$1+\alpha=\phi(\vec 1,\vec 1)+\phi(\vec 1,\vec{-1})=\phi(\vec 2,\vec 0)=0$$ $$1-\alpha=\phi(\vec 1,\vec 1)-\phi(\vec 1,\vec{-1})=\phi(\vec 0,\vec 2)=0$$ This is impossible, so $\phi$ does not exist.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.