Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I will ask a slightly more precise question then in the title.

Let $G$ be a finite abelian group, and $g_1, \ldots, g_n \in G$ such that the cyclic groups 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 pure subgroup of $G$?

(recall that a subgroup $H < G$ is pure if for all $h \in H$ and all $n \in \mathbb{N}$, if $h$ is $n$-divisible in $G$, it is also $n$-divisible in $H$).

Added: in this context, pure is a synonim for being a direct summand. In fact, the latter is the relevant property of the question.

share|improve this question
    
I believe so yes. (Someone feel free to write a nice answer.) Consider only $n=1$, and let $G$ be bounded (so $mG=0$ for some positive integer $m$), then an $h_1$ exists as you want, and must be a direct summand of $G$. Now work on $g_2$, etc. by working in a direct complement of $\langle h_1 \rangle$ containing the other $g_i$. The $h_i$ you produce will work for the original claim. –  Jack Schmidt Sep 20 '12 at 20:26
    
Trivially, $h_i=g_i$, $a_i=1$ will do. But what doe sthe question have to do with "smallest pure subgroup" and "containing a fixed subgroup"? –  Hagen von Eitzen Sep 20 '12 at 20:38
    
@HagenvonEitzen the choice you made does not seem to respect property 3, the 'pureness'. For example $G= \mathbb Z / n \mathbb Z$ where $n=p^2$ and choose $g=[p]$, then $h=g$ is $p$-divisible in $G$ but not in $H$. –  Niccolò Sep 20 '12 at 20:58
    
@Hagen von Eitzen, the intersection of pure subgroups is not pure, so the title is a bit misleading. What I mean more precisely with "smallest" is explained in the question. –  calc Sep 20 '12 at 21:26
    
@Jack Schmidt Can you say something more on how you find this $h_1$? Moreover, how do we know that $g_2 \notin \langle h_1 \rangle$ ? –  calc Sep 21 '12 at 6:58

1 Answer 1

Incomplete answer:

Suppose $G$ is an abelian group and $m$ is a positive integer such that $mG=0$. For instance, if $G$ is finite, then one could take $m=|G|$.

Let $g$ be an element of $G$ and let $H_0$ be a subgroup of $G$ that intersects $\langle g\rangle$ only in 0. Consider the collection of all subgroups of $G$ containing $H_0$ that intersect $\langle g\rangle$ trivially. It is non-empty (containing $H_0$) and closed under unions of chains, so Zorn's lemma guarantees a maximal element, $H$.

Now consider the collection of subgroups of $G$ that contain $g$ but intersect $H$ only in 0. The collection is non-empty, containing $\langle g\rangle$, and closed under unions of chains, so Zorn's lemma guarantees a maximal element, $K$.

Clearly $H+K$ is a direct sum. Let $x \in G$ have order $a$. If $\langle x \rangle \cap \langle g \rangle = 0$, then clearly $H+\langle x \rangle$ is a larger element of the first collection, contradicting the definition of $H$ unless $x$ is already in $H$. So we may assume $\langle bx \rangle \cap \langle g \rangle \neq 0$, in particular, we can choose $b$ so that $a/b$ is prime. Then if $a \neq 1$, $(\langle x \rangle +K)\cap H \neq 0$, so $0 \neq cx \in H$ for some $c$ dividing $a$. If $a$ is a prime power, then $\langle bx \rangle \leq \langle cx \rangle$, a contradiction.

In general (non $p$-group), I'm not sure why this is a contradiction, but I'm fairly sure that $H$ and $K$ are the summands if they exist.

At any rate: Take $g$ to be $g_1$, $H_0 = \langle g_2, \ldots, g_n\rangle$, then $h_1$ is a generator of $K$ (which is cyclic since $G$ is bounded) and $G=H\oplus K$.

I suggest trying to prove $H$ and/or $K$ is pure more directly. A bounded pure submodule is a direct summand, so everything works.

share|improve this answer
    
I asked the same question on MO before you gave this argument, and it turns out that the answer is negative. Here is the link with a counterexample mathoverflow.net/questions/107768/… –  calc Sep 21 '12 at 19:07
    
Thanks. Most of my argument is fine; in the "at any rate" K need not be cycic. In Derek's example H=0, K=G. –  Jack Schmidt Sep 21 '12 at 19:11

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.