7
$\begingroup$

Take the integers $\mathbb{Z}$ and the addition \begin{align*} +: \mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z} &\to \mathbb{Z} \\ (a,b) &\mapsto a+b. \end{align*} Using the Stone-Čech compactification $\beta\mathbb{Z}$ in two steps, $A$ can be "continuously" extended to \begin{equation*} +: \beta\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z} \to \beta\mathbb{Z} \end{equation*} and then to \begin{equation*} +: \beta\mathbb{Z} \times \beta\mathbb{Z} \to \beta\mathbb{Z}. \end{equation*} The resulting operation $+$ is continuous in its right argument, and, when the right argument is an integer, it is continuous on its left argument.

Call $\mathbb{Z}^* := \beta\mathbb{Z} \setminus \mathbb{Z}$. For any $p \in \mathbb{Z}^*$, we have the right ideal $I_p := p + \beta\mathbb{Z}$.

Is it possible to partition $\mathbb{Z}^*$ in two (non trivial) pieces $A$ and $B$ such that \begin{equation*} p \in A \text{ and } q \in B \Rightarrow I_p \cap I_q = \emptyset? \end{equation*}

In other words, if I generate an equivalence relation based on $p \sim q$ whenever $I_p \cap I_q \neq \emptyset$, will this equivalence relation partition $\mathbb{Z}^*$ in more then one piece?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ What you are calling an ideal is really a right ideal. $\beta Z$ is a non commutative semigroup. Every right ideal contains a minimal right ideal. So every class contains a minimal right ideal. Minimal right ideals are disjoint. But your equivalence relation identifies two minimal right ideals if they have a common upper bound and is should be the last equivalence relation with this property. I don't know if there is more than one class. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 6, 2019 at 2:10
  • $\begingroup$ @BenjaminSteinberg: Thank you! I have fixed the post. It is very annoying that we, the mathematicians, have this inhabit of using adjectives to broaden instead of restricting... an ideal is a left ideal... and also a right ideal. But a right ideal might not be an ideal. Imagine how it would be if an open set was not a set! :-) Of course, it is natural that the initial concepts are simpler, and we go adding adjectives to make more complicated things... even if it is a generalization. What can we do? (rhetorical question) $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 6, 2019 at 5:44
  • $\begingroup$ I really wish I had some sort of intuition of $\beta\mathbb{N}$ (and $\beta\mathbb{Z}$) and its addition and its nonprincipal elements, that I could use to even begin to form an idea of what the answer to such a question could be. (So far, my intuition of $\beta\mathbb{N}$ does not go far.) $\endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    Commented Dec 6, 2019 at 10:24
  • $\begingroup$ @BenjaminSteinberg: The right ideal generated by two principal right ideals is principal in this case? Or maybe, the right ideal generated by two minimal right ideals... if it were principal... :-) $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 7, 2019 at 0:02
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think the right ideal generated by two elements is usually principal. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 7, 2019 at 1:26

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

Yes, this is possible.

First of all, let me suggest a way of thinking about the $+$ operation. If you're familiar with the idea of taking limits along an ultrafilter, then given $p,q \in \mathbb Z^*$, you can think of $p+q$ as $$p+q = q\text{-lim}_{n \in \mathbb Z} \ (p+n).$$ I tend to look at this dynamically: we have a map (the shift map) that sends an ultrafilter $p$ to $p+1$, and $p+q$ just represents one limit point of the set $\{p+n \,:\, n \in \mathbb Z\}$, the (full) orbit of $p$ under the shift map. Also, this makes it clear that $I_p = p+\beta \mathbb Z = \overline{\{p+n \,:\, n \in \mathbb Z\}}$ for any $p \in \mathbb Z^*$.

To answer your question, one partition of $\mathbb Z^*$ that does what you want is the partition into the two clopen sets $\mathbb N^*$ and $(-\mathbb N)^*$ (the ultrafilters concentrating on the positive and negative integers, respectively). If $p$ concentrates on the positive integers, then so does $p+n$ for any $n$. In other words, $p \in \mathbb N^*$ implies $p+n \in \mathbb N^*$ for all $n$. This means that $p+\beta \mathbb Z = \overline{\{p+n \,:\, n \in \mathbb Z\}} \subseteq \mathbb N^*$. Similarly, if $p \in (-\mathbb N)^*$ then $p+\beta \mathbb Z = \overline{\{p+n \,:\, n \in \mathbb Z\}} \subseteq (-\mathbb N)^*$.

No other partition of $\mathbb Z^*$ into clopen sets has the property you want. (I'll sketch a proof of this below.)

But there are other, more interesting partitions of $\mathbb Z^*$ that do what you want. Recall that $X \subseteq \mathbb Z^*$ is a weak $P$-set if $X \cap \overline{D} = \emptyset$ for any countable $D \subseteq \mathbb Z^* \setminus X$. In this paper, Jonathan Verner and I show that there is a minimal right ideal $R$ of $\mathbb Z^*$ that is also a weak $P$-set. This means that if $p \in R$, then $p + \beta \mathbb Z = R$ (because it's a minimal right ideal), and if $p \notin R$ then $p+\beta \mathbb Z = \overline{\{p+n \,:\, n \in \mathbb Z\}} \subseteq \mathbb Z^* \setminus R$ (because $R$ and its complement are both shift-map-invariant, and because $R$ is a weak $P$-set). Therefore the partition of $\mathbb Z^*$ into $R$ and $\mathbb Z^* \setminus R$ has the property you want. In fact, the proof in my paper with Jonathan shows that there are $2^{\mathfrak{c}}$ distinct right ideals of this kind; because each minimal right ideal that is a weak $P$-set constitutes an equivalence class, it follows that the equivalence relation you describe has the maximum possible number of equivalence classes, namely $2^{\mathfrak{c}}$.

(Suppose $\mathcal P$ is a partition of $\mathbb Z^*$ into clopen sets other than the one described above. Some $A^* \in \mathcal P$ has the property that either (1) $\mathbb N^* \cap A^* \neq \emptyset$ and $\mathbb N^* \setminus A^* \neq \emptyset$, or else (2) $(-\mathbb N^*) \cap A^* \neq \emptyset$ and $(-\mathbb N^*) \setminus A^* \neq \emptyset$. Without loss of generality, let us say $\mathbb N^* \cap A^* \neq \emptyset$ and $\mathbb N^* \setminus A^* \neq \emptyset$. This means that the set $E$ of $n \in \mathbb N$ such that $n \in A$ but $n+1 \notin A$ must be infinite. If $p$ is an ultrafilter that concentrates on $E$, then we have $p \in A^*$ while $p+1 \notin A^*$. Thus $p$ and $p+1$ are in different partition elements, but clearly $p + \beta \mathbb Z = \overline{\{p+n \,:\, n \in \mathbb Z\}} = \overline{\{(p+1)+n \,:\, n \in \mathbb Z\}} = (p+1)+\mathbb Z^*$. Therefore this partition does not have the property you want.)

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I might be missing something... but I do not understand why the sets on the partition need to be open or closed. I understand $p + \beta \mathbb{Z}$ is closed, but the elements on the partition could be made from an infinite union of them. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 9, 2019 at 22:41
  • $\begingroup$ You might not be missing anything. They do not need to be open or closed -- they just happen to be so in both of the examples I give. As you say, one could come up with a partition into neither-open-nor-closed sets by taking unions of the kinds of right ideals I describe. Probably there are other ways to do it too. The last paragraph (the one in parentheses) is just meant to show that there's only one non-trivial partition into clopen sets that works -- is this what's not clear? $\endgroup$
    – Will Brian
    Commented Dec 9, 2019 at 23:06
  • $\begingroup$ You made lots of things clear to me! I have learned a lot! I found out that I really wanted to partition $\mathbb{N}^*$ using sets of the kind $p + \beta \mathbb{Z}$. Fortunately, you answered a little more then I asked, and showed this wonderful $R$ set. I understood that every minimal right $P$-ideal [I just invented this name :-)] is one equivalence class, and those sets are very abundant per your work with Verner. $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 9, 2019 at 23:55
  • $\begingroup$ Also, I concluded that if I have a continuous function from $\mathbb{N}^*$ that is constant over the sets $p + \beta \mathbb{Z}$, then, its image should be connected. Right? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 10, 2019 at 10:02
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that's right. If $f: \mathbb N^* \rightarrow X$ is constant on sets of the form $p+\beta \mathbb Z$, then its image is connected. Furthermore, as a sort of converse, if $X$ is a connected space of weight $\leq\! \aleph_1$, then there is a continuous surjection $\mathbb N^* \rightarrow X$ that is constant on sets of the form $p+\beta \mathbb Z$. $\endgroup$
    – Will Brian
    Commented Dec 10, 2019 at 13:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .