4
$\begingroup$

This question is related to this mathoverflow question that I've asked recently.

The question rose while I prepared my lectures on Profinite Groups in an advance course in Tel Aviv University. Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a family of finite groups, and $F$ a free pro-$\mathcal{C}$ group on a basis $X$. I always assume that $\mathcal{C}$ is closed to taking quotients and to taking fiber products (the latter can be reformulated as if $N_1,N_2$ are normal subgroups of some group $G$ and if $G/N_1,G/N_2\in \mathcal{C}$, then $G/N_1\cap N_2\in \mathcal{C}$). Also, to avoid trivialities, we assume that $\mathcal{C}$ contains a group generated by at most $|X|$ elements.

In the literature I find this theorem:

Theorem. In the above notation and assumption, if $\mathcal{C}$ is closed to taking normal subgroups and extensions, then every open pro-$\mathcal{C}$ subgroup $H$ of $F$ is free pro-$\mathcal{C}$.

In the proof the extra closeness conditions are crucially used, so it seems that the proof can't be (easily) modified to relax the conditions on $\mathcal{C}$.

On the other hand if $\mathcal{C}$ is, for example, the family of finite abelian groups, then $\mathcal{C}$ is not closed to extensions, but still satisfies the theorem.

My question is

For which $\mathcal{C}$ the theorem above holds true? Does it suffice that $\mathcal{C}$ is closed to quotients, fiber products, and subgroups?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ @Lior, as soon as you lose closure under extensions open subgroups of free discrete groups don't inherit their pro-C topology from the ambient. This is a problem. $\endgroup$ – Benjamin Steinberg Apr 29 '12 at 16:02
5
$\begingroup$

No, it does not hold if $C$ is a class of finite nilpotent groups.

$\endgroup$
0

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.