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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $B$ be a pure subgroup of an abelian group $A$. In his book "Infinite Abelian Groups", Academic Press, 2vols., Fuchs defines $A$ to be a pure-essential extension of $B$ if there is no nonzero subgroup $H$ of $A$ such that (i) $B \cap H = 0$ and (ii) $(B+H)/H$ is pure in $A/H$. In "Infinite Abelian Group Theory", University of Chicago Lectures, Griffiths makes the same definition with condition (ii) replaced by (ii)' $B+H$ is pure in $A$. Using standard facts about purity, I can see that the two definitions are equivalent if $H$ is pure in $A$, but not otherwise. Would someone be so kind as to point out what I am missing, or, if, in fact, the definitions are not equivalent?

share|cite|improve this question

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.