12
$\begingroup$

Is there a surjective morphism $\mathbb{Z}^I\to \mathbb{Z}^{(J)}$ for some $I,J$?

i) I'm asking about group morphisms

ii) $\mathbb{Z}^{(J)}$ denotes the direct sum of $J$ copies of $\mathbb Z$

iii) Of course, I want $J$, and thus $I$ to be infinite, otherwise it's trivial.

I want to know if there is such a surjection for any $J$, so it suffices to find one $J$ with no such surjection and it'll be done. However it seems that the answer won't really depend on $J$.

Thoughts : I think there is no surjective morphism, and so was trying to find a contradiction. Of course such a morphism is split, so I was trying to analyze summands of $\mathbb{Z}^I$ but got essentially nowhere. I also tried studying maps $\mathbb{Z}^I \to \mathbb{Z}$, to study the projections. I know that if such a map vanishes on almost zero sequences, then it vanishes, so I was trying to prove that it would do that here, but with no success.

I don't really know how to proceed further.

EDIT: the link that was given in the comments can help. Indeed, if there were such a surjection, then by passing to hom's into $\mathbb{Z}$, we would have an injection $\mathbb{Z}^J \to \hom (\mathbb{Z}^I, \mathbb{Z})$. Now I don't know how general the quoted Baer's result is, but if it generalizes to any exponent, then this would provide an injection $\mathbb{Z}^J\to \mathbb{Z}^{(I)}$, which is clearly contradictory, by looking for instance at "almost" $2^\infty$-divisible elements of $\mathbb{Z}^J$ (if this isn't clear I can sketch the proof here, but it's not that complicated)

Alternatively, if Baer's result isn't that general, it might be possible to use some trickery to reduce to $I= \mathbb{N}$, at least when assuming that $J=\mathbb{N}$.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Have you tried looking at the problem from a categorical perspective? $\endgroup$ – Shaun Apr 1 '19 at 16:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You defined $\mathbb{Z}^{(J)}$, but not $\mathbb{Z}^{I}$. Are they the same thing, or do your brackets have a meaning? $\endgroup$ – user1729 Apr 1 '19 at 16:07
  • $\begingroup$ @Shaun it depends on what you mean, but I have tried to think categorically about it. I do think it's something specifically group-theoretic though $\endgroup$ – Maxime Ramzi Apr 1 '19 at 16:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Okay (but call it "the direct product" or something, rather than just "the power" :-p) $\endgroup$ – user1729 Apr 1 '19 at 16:13
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @user1729 : it is split because $\mathbb{Z}^{(I)}$ is free $\endgroup$ – Maxime Ramzi Apr 1 '19 at 16:27
12
$\begingroup$

By the Łoś–Eda Theorem, $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{Z}^I,\mathbb{Z})$ is a free abelian group for any set $I$ (namely, it is free on the homomorphisms given by the countably complete ultrafilters on $I$). If a surjective homomorphism $\mathbb{Z}^I\to\mathbb{Z}^{(J)}$ existed, it would induce an injective homomorphism $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{Z}^{(J)},\mathbb{Z})\to\operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{Z}^I,\mathbb{Z})$, and so $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{Z}^{(J)},\mathbb{Z})$ would be free since $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{Z}^I,\mathbb{Z})$ is free. But $\operatorname{Hom}(\mathbb{Z}^{(J)},\mathbb{Z})\cong\mathbb{Z}^J$ is not free if $J$ is infinite, so this is a contradiction.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I have a problem : this paper seems to state that $\hom (\mathbb{Z}^I, \mathbb{Z}) = \mathbb{Z}^{(I)}$, no matter what $I$ is, which seems to contradict the Los-Eda theorem you are quoting (though it is enough to conclude as well) $\endgroup$ – Maxime Ramzi Apr 1 '19 at 21:19
  • $\begingroup$ What paper are you referring to? $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Apr 1 '19 at 21:20
  • $\begingroup$ Of course I forgot to paste the link, here it is : lms.ac.uk/sites/lms.ac.uk/files/… $\endgroup$ – Maxime Ramzi Apr 1 '19 at 21:25
  • $\begingroup$ Actually the paper uses an axiom of "accessibility of ordinals", which forbids inaccessible cardinals hence measurable cardinals. $\endgroup$ – Maxime Ramzi Apr 1 '19 at 21:40
  • $\begingroup$ But I thought I had a proof of the result stated there so I'll have to find where it goes wrong $\endgroup$ – Maxime Ramzi Apr 1 '19 at 21:41

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.