3
$\begingroup$

Does $\mathrm{GL}(n,\mathbb{Z})$ contain torsion-free abelian subgroups that are not isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}^k$ for some $k$? Said otherwise (as suggested by comment below), does $\mathrm{GL}(n,\mathbb{Z})$ contain torsion-free abelian subgroups that are not finitely generated?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your question is equivalent (in view of the structure theorem of finitely generated abelian groups) to «does $GL(n,Z)$ contain non-finitely generated torsion free subgroups?» $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Aug 27 '13 at 15:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There is a more general result of Mal'cev that a soluble subgroup of ${\rm GL}(n,{\mathbb Z})$ is polycyclic. It's done in Chapter 2 of Segal's book on Polycyclic Groups. I would guess that the highest rank of a torsion-free abelian subgroup of ${\rm GL}(n,{\mathbb Z})$ is $n-1$, but I haven't found a reference for that. $\endgroup$ – Derek Holt Aug 28 '13 at 7:37
2
$\begingroup$

Sorry if this is ridiculous.

Let $A<GL_n(\mathbb{Z})$ be a torsion-free abelian subroup. Let $B$ be the Zariski closure of $A$ in $GL_n(\mathbb{C})$. Then $B$ is a group variety, so is of the form $B_1\times B_2$, with $B_1$ finite and $B_2$ connected. $A$ is torsion-free, so $A\subset B_2$. Since $B_2$ is connected, it remains connected in the complex topology (see A complex algebraic variety which is connected in the usual topology). If we put the complex topology on $B_2$, then forget the complex structure to view it as a real Lie group, $B_2\cong \mathbb{R}^n\times (S^1)^m$ for some integers $n,m$. $A$ is discrete in $B_2$, and one checks that every discrete subgroup of $\mathbb{R}^n\times(S^1)^m$ is finitely generated.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ why not $B_2 \cong \mathbb{R}^n \times (\mathbb{R}^{\times})^m$, where $\mathbb{R}^{\times}$ is the multiplicative group of $\mathbb{R}$? $\endgroup$ – user68316 Aug 27 '13 at 16:43
  • $\begingroup$ $\mathbb{R}^\times$ is not connected. $\endgroup$ – Julian Rosen Aug 27 '13 at 16:43
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't it connected in Zariski topology? $\endgroup$ – user68316 Aug 27 '13 at 16:46
  • $\begingroup$ @user68316 Oh yes, of course! I overlooked this, so my argument will need to be modified. $\endgroup$ – Julian Rosen Aug 27 '13 at 16:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You cannot conclude that $A$ is contained in $B_2$ from knowing that $A$ is torsion-free. $\mathbb R\times\mathbb Z_2$ has plenty of infinite cyclic subgroups which are not contained in the connected component of the unit elemet. $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Aug 27 '13 at 17:25

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.