6
$\begingroup$

In his paper A. L. S. Corner, A note on rank and direct decompositions of torsion-free abelian groups, Camb. Phil. Soc. Proc. 57, (1961), 230--233, in which the late Prof. Corner proves various criteria for a finite rank torsion--free abelian group to have non--isomorphic indecomposable decompositions, he writes

It can be shown quite readily that an equation such as $1 + 1 + 2 = 1 + 3$ cannot be realized in terms of direct sums of indecomposable groups.

By this he means that there is no abelian group $A=B_1\oplus B_2\oplus B_3=C_1\oplus C_2$ with indecomposable summands of rank $(B_1)=$rank $(B_2)=$ rank $(C_1)=1$, rank $(B_3)=2$ and rank $(C_2)=3$.

This result does not follow from anything else in the paper nor any of the references to the paper and I am unable to prove it either readily or otherwise.

Can anyone suggest a suitable approach?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think this follows from the structure theorem for finitely generated abelian groups. I could only find part II of the paper, which deals with groups of infinite rank; I can hardly imagine what can be written about torsion-free abelian groups of finite rank. $\endgroup$ – Alex Degtyarev Oct 28 '16 at 8:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Alex Deglyarev: The groups in question are not finitely generated. There are several examples of torsion-free finite rank groups which have non-isomorphic indecomposable decompositions in Chapter 13 of Vol.2 of Fuchs Infinite Abelian Groups, including an exposition of Corner's results, but not the question I asked. Incidentally, this is not simply an isolated problem, but part of a general program to describe sets of partitions of $n$ which can be realised by a rank $n$ torsion-free abelian group. $\endgroup$ – Phill Schultz Oct 28 '16 at 9:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @AlexDegtyarev In the world of abelian groups, the "rank" of a group $A$ usually means the dimension of $A\otimes_\mathbb{Z}\mathbb{Q}$, not the size of a generating set. $\endgroup$ – Jeremy Rickard Oct 28 '16 at 9:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ OK, I've retracted my close vote :) $\endgroup$ – Alex Degtyarev Oct 28 '16 at 10:18
2
$\begingroup$

I switch notation to make it intuitive (at least for me): assume by contradiction that $G$ is a torsion abelian free group of rank 4 (i.e., isomorphic to a subgroup of $\mathbf{Q}^4$ containing $\mathbf{Z}^4$) and $$A_1\oplus A_2\oplus B=G=A\oplus C,$$ with $A_1,A_2,A$ subgroups of rank 1, $B$ of rank 2, $C$ of rank 3 and $B,C$ indecomposable.

Then $A$ cannot be contained in $A_2\oplus B$ because otherwise we would have $G/A\simeq A_1\oplus (A_2\oplus B)/A\simeq C$, contradicting that $C$ is indecomposable, and similarly $A$ is not contained in any of $A_1\oplus B$, $A_1\oplus A_2$. Again similarly, $A_1\oplus A_2$ is not contained in $C$ since this would imply $G/(A_1\oplus A_2)\simeq B\simeq A\oplus C/(A_1\oplus A_2)$, contradicting that $B$ is indecomposable.

Write $\{1,2\}=\{i,j\}$. Then $A$ being a subgroup of $A_i\oplus (A_j\oplus B)$ not contained in $A_j\oplus B$, it is isomorphic to a subgroup of $A_i$. So $A$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of both $A_1$ and $A_2$.

Also, $A_1\oplus A_2$ being not contained in $C$, there exists $i$ in $\{1,2\}$ such that $A_i$ is not contained in $C$; we assume $i=2$ up to switching notation. Since $A_2\subset G=A\oplus C$, we deduce that $A_2$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $A$.

If $U,V$ are subgroups of $\mathbf{Q}$, $U$ and $V$ are isomorphic if and only if $U\cap V$ has finite index in both $U$ and $V$ (simple consequence of classification, or easy exercise). In particular, if $U$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $V$ and $V$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $V$, then $U,V$ are isomorphic.

So $A$ and $A_2$ are isomorphic, and are isomorphic to a subgroup of $A_1$. We now distinguish two cases.

(a) $A_1$ is contained in $C$. Then $C=A_1\oplus ((A_2\oplus B)\cap C)$: indeed, first it's clear that the sum is direct, and if $c\in C$, write it as $a_1+x$ with $a_1\in A_1$ and $x\in A_2\oplus B$: since $a_1\in C$, we deduce that $x\in C$. So we contradict that $C$ is indecomposable.

(b) $A_1$ is also not contained in $C$. Then, for the same reason as previously (when we checked that $A$ and $A_2$ are isomorphic), $A$ and $A_1$ are isomorphic. Therefore the group $\mathrm{GL}_2(\mathbf{Z})$ acts on $A_1\oplus A_2\simeq A\oplus A$ in the standard way, and this action is transitive on the set of maximal rank 1 subgroups, and also it extends to an action on $G$ (because $A_1\oplus A_2$ is a direct factor in $G$). Therefore, if $A'$ is the projection of $A$ on $A_1\oplus A_2$ modulo $B$, we can use such an automorphism and change $A_1$ and $A_2$ so as to assume that $A'\subset A_1$. This means that $A\subset A_1\oplus B$, and we have shown that this cannot be the case.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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