3
$\begingroup$

Let $G = \prod_p \mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$, where $p$ ranges over all primes, considered as an abelian group. What does $\text{Aut}(G)$ (or even $\text{End}(G)$) look like?

I know that that if we take $t(G) = \oplus_p \mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$, then $\text{Aut}(t(G)) = \prod_p (\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})^\times$ (can be thought of as infinite diagonal matrices), but I am more interested in the product.

More generally, if $G = \prod_{i \in I} G_i$, where each $G_i$ is fully invariant (embedded in the obvious way), what can we say about $\text{Aut}(G)$?

EDIT: I do apologize for the imprecision of the question, but anything would be helpful, and an exact description, as in the case for the direct sum, would be fantastic.

$\endgroup$
10
$\begingroup$

Put $A_p=\mathbb{Z}/p$ and $B_p=\prod_{q\neq p}A_q$ so $G=A_p\times B_p$. Multiplication by $p$ acts as zero on $A_p$ and as an automorphism on $B_p$ so $pG=0\times B_p$ and $G/pG\simeq A_p$. Put $U_p=\text{Aut}(A_p)=(\mathbb{Z}/p)^\times$. There is an evident homomorphism $\phi:\prod_pU_p\to\text{Aut}(G)$. Any automorphism $\alpha\in\text{Aut}(G)$ induces an automorphism $\alpha_p\in\text{Aut}(G/pG)=\text{Aut}(A_p)=U_p$. In more detail, the projection $\pi_p:G\to A_p$ is surjective, and $\ker(\pi_p)=0\times B_p=pG$, which implies that $\alpha(\ker(\pi_p))\leq\ker(\pi_p)$. From this it follows that there is a unique homomorphism $\alpha_p:A_p\to A_p$ with $\alpha_p\pi_p=\pi_p\alpha$, or in other words $\alpha(g)_p=\alpha_p(g_p)$ for all $g\in G$.

We thus have a map $\psi:\text{Aut}(G)\to\prod_pU_p$ sending $\alpha$ to $(\alpha_p)_{p\in\text{Primes}}$. If $\psi(\alpha)=1$ then for all $g\in G$ we have $\alpha(g)_p=\alpha_p(g_p)=g_p$ for all $p$, which means that $\alpha(g)=g$; this means that $\psi$ is injective. Given this, it is not hard to check that $\phi$ and $\psi$ are inverse to each other. Thus, $\text{Aut}(G)$ is the same as $\text{Aut}(t(G))$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ ... and the same argument works for "End". $\endgroup$ Jul 1 '11 at 1:41
  • $\begingroup$ This seemed clear to me last week, but there is one detail here which still bothers me. Why can you claim that $\alpha(g)_p = \alpha_p(g_p)$? This would certainly work for a direct sum of invariant subgroups, but I don't see why it works for the product. $\endgroup$ Jul 8 '11 at 3:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Iian: I have edited the answer to clarify this point. $\endgroup$ Jul 8 '11 at 9:57

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.