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

Let $G$ be a finite abelian group, and $g_1, \ldots, g_n \in G$ such that the cyclic groups that they generate are in direct sum $\langle g_1 \rangle \oplus \ldots \oplus \langle g_n \rangle$. Is it always possible to find elements $h_1, \ldots, h_n \in G$ and integers $a_1, \ldots, a_n$ such that the following three facts hold

1) $g_i= a_i h_i$, for all $1 \leq i \leq n$,

2) the cyclic subgroups generated by the $h_i$ are in direct sum, $H:=\langle h_1 \rangle \oplus \ldots \langle h_n \rangle$.

3) $H$ is a direct summand of $G$?

(I asked this question on math.stackexchange, see http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/199928/smallest-pure-subgroup-containing-a-fixed-subgroup)

share|improve this question
    
Do you really mean that the $g_i$'s generate a cyclic group $C$? if so, why can't you take all of the $h_i$ to be the same element, a generator of the largest cyclic group containing $C$. My first thought is that this solution would satisfy (1), (2) and (3)... But I could be wrong. –  Nick Gill Sep 21 '12 at 13:04
    
No, I have edited my question. "The cyclic groupS that they generate" insted of "The cyclic group that they generate" –  calc Sep 21 '12 at 13:17
1  
It should be obvious. Your $H$ is the pure subgroup generated by $g_i$-s, and in finite groups, pure subgroups should be the same as direct summands. –  Bugs Bunny Sep 21 '12 at 13:21
    
@Bugs Bunny Can you give a reference for the "pure subgroup generated by"? Also, how do you find the generators $h_i$ each dividing $g_i$? –  calc Sep 21 '12 at 13:23
    
show 6 more comments

1 Answer

up vote 8 down vote accepted

I am not convinced that this is true, because the pure subgroup generated by the $g_i$ might not have the stipulated form as a direct sum of the $h_i$.

Let $G = {\mathbb Z}/16{\mathbb Z} \oplus {\mathbb Z}/4{\mathbb Z}$, $n=1$, and $g_1=(4,2)$. What could $h_1$ be?

We can prove that there is no such $h_1$ as follows. For any $g \in G$ of order 16, we have $8g = (8,0)$. Since $(8,0) \in \langle h_1 \rangle$, $\langle h_1 \rangle$ cannot be a direct summand of $G$ of order 4. So $\langle h_1 \rangle$ would have to be a direct summand of order 16. But then $4h_1 = (4,0)$ or $(12,0)$ and so $g_1 \not\in \langle h_1 \rangle$.

share|improve this answer
    
I think you mean $8g = (8,0)$... –  Arturo Magidin Sep 21 '12 at 17:02
    
Thanks but there is something I am missing. Why do you not start with $g_1=(2,1)$? –  calc Sep 21 '12 at 17:03
    
Anyway I am still not convinced about the pure subgroup generated by the $g_i$. What is it? You generate a subgroup with the $g_i$. Then you take the roots. Then? Is this a subgroup at all? Or do you have to still take the subgroup generated and continue? –  calc Sep 21 '12 at 18:41
    
@calc: A pure subgroup $S$ of $G$ is a subgroup such that $nG\cap S=nS$ for all $n$. You may not need to take roots; for example, in $G=\mathbf{Z}_4\times\mathbf{Z}_2$, $S=\langle (1,1)\rangle$ is pure: $2G\cap S = \{(0,0),(2,0)\} = 2S$, and that's the only one you need to worry about. Even though $2(1,0)\in S$, you do not need $(1,0)$ in $S$ for $S$ to be pure, you just need $2(1,0)$ to be twice something in $S$. –  Arturo Magidin Sep 21 '12 at 21:27
    
@Calc: But if you have a subgroup $S$ of $G$, and you let $H=\{g\in G\mid ng\in S, ng\neq 0\}$ (which I suspect is what you mean; otherwise, in a torsion group, adding "all roots" would mean adding the entire thing), then $H$ need not be a subgroup; e.g., with $G$ and $S$ as above, $(1,0)\in H$ (since $2(1,0)=(2,0)\in S$ is nonzero), and $(1,1)\in H$ (since it is in $S$), but $(1,1)-(0,1)\notin H$. –  Arturo Magidin Sep 21 '12 at 21:31
show 7 more comments

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.