2
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand\la{\langle}\newcommand\ra{\rangle}$Let $G=\mathbb{Z}/p^{i_1}\times\cdots\times\mathbb{Z}/p^{i_r}$ with $i_1\leq\ldots\leq i_r$ be a finite abelian $p$-group. Then there can be many choices of generators $\{x_1,\ldots,x_r\}$ such that the order of $x_j$ is $p^{i_j}$ and $G=\la x_1\ra\times\cdots\times \la x_r\ra$.

Let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$. Then $H$ is of the same form with less or equal number of factors.

Does there exist a choice of generators $\{x_1,\ldots,x_r\}$ of $G$ as above such that $H$ is a product of subgroups of $\la x_j\ra$?

If it is not true, is there an easy counterexample?

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ I've added the commutative algebra tag, as this might be a standard facts of f.g. modules over PIDs. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Jul 20 at 11:34
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ What about the subgroup of ${\mathbb Z}/2 \oplus {\mathbb Z}/8$ generated by $(1,2)$? $\endgroup$
    – Derek Holt
    Jul 20 at 11:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Derek Holt: You are right, that is a counterexample. I must be getting old(er): I was thinking of the structure theorem for (quotients by) subgroups of finitely generated free Abelian groups . $\endgroup$ Jul 20 at 13:09
  • $\begingroup$ Holt's example is a counterexample. Then where was Robinson confused? Is it related to the condition of generating set that I made? $\endgroup$
    – YJ Kim
    Jul 20 at 13:11
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I have to confess that when I was very much younger than I am now I made the same mistake and asserted somewhere (I think in a lecture to students) that the answer to this question is yes and easily proved. Fortunately a bright student found a counterexample, which explains why I remember it! $\endgroup$
    – Derek Holt
    Jul 20 at 13:13
6
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ = ${\mathbb Z}/2 \oplus {\mathbb Z}/8$, and let $H$ be the cyclic subgroup of order $4$ generated by the element $h = (\bar{1},\bar{2})$.

There is no element $g \in G$ with $2g = h$, and so $H$ cannot be a subgroup of a cyclic direct summand of $G$ of order $8$. And clearly it cannout be a subgroup of a summand of order $2$, so the answer to the question is no, and this is a counterexample.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ After first seeing the question, I thought that surely the Smith normal form somehow gives you a positive answer. Which is wrong, as this answer shows. $\endgroup$
    – spin
    Jul 20 at 14:19
  • $\begingroup$ @spin : I made that error in my (now deleted) comment. $\endgroup$ Jul 20 at 14:23
  • $\begingroup$ @DerekHolt Thanks for your easy and clear example! $\endgroup$
    – YJ Kim
    Jul 21 at 1:34

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.