CHAPTER V - BASIC SUBGROUPS

All groups herein are assumed to be abelian. It was not until the 1940's that it was known that a subgroup of an infinite direct sum of finite cyclic groups is again a direct sum of cyclics. This result rests on a general criterion due to Kulikov [7] for a primary abelian group to be a direct sum of cyclic groups. If G is p-primary, Kulikov's criterion presupposes that G has no elements (other than zero) having infinite p-height. For such a group G, the criterion is simply that G be the union of an ascending sequence of subgroups Hn where the heights of the elements of Hn computed in G are bounded by some positive integer λ(n). The theory of abelian groups has now developed to the point that totally projective groups currently play much the same role, at least in the theory of torsion groups, that direct sums of cyclic groups and countable groups played in combination prior to the discovery of totally projective groups and their structure beginning with a paper by R. Nunke [11] in 1967.

The study of effectiveness in classical mathematics is rapidly expanding, through recent research in algebra, topology, model theory, and functional analysis. Well-known contributors are Barwise (Wisconsin), Crossley (Monash), Dekker (Rutgers), Ershoff (Novosibirsk), Feferman (Stanford), Harrington (Berkeley), Mal′cev (Novosibirsk), Morley (Cornell), Nerode (Cornell), Rabin (Hebrew University), Shore (Cornell). Further interesting work is due to Kalantari (University of California, Santa Barbara), Metakides (Rochester), Millar (Wisconsin), Remmel (University of California, San Diego), Nurtazin (Novosibirsk). Areas investigated include enumerated algebras, models of complete theories, vector spaces, fields, orderings, Hilbert spaces, and boolean algebras.We investigate the effective content of the structure theory of p-groups. Recall that a p-group is a torsion abelian group in which the (finite) order of each element is some power of a fixed prime p. (In the sequel, “group” = “additively written abelian group”.)The structure theory of p-groups is based on the two elementary notions of order and height. Recall that the order of x is the least integer n such that nx = 0. The height of x is the number of times p divides x, that is, the least n such that x = pny for some y in the group but x ≠ pn+1y for any y. If for each n ∈ ω there is a “pnth-root” yn, so that x = pnyn, then we say that x has infinite height. In 1923, Prüfer related the two notions as criteria for direct sum decomposition, provingTheorem. Every group of bounded order is a direct sum of cyclic groups, andTheorem. Every countable primary group with no (nonzero) elements of infinite height is a direct sum of cyclic groups.

The study of Hopficity in Abelian groups has been largely motivated by the fundamental results of Baumslag, who proved that torsion groups are always Hopfian regardless of their cardinality, but left several questions open concerning torsion-free groups. Later, Corner addressed some of these questions by providing counterexamples showing that a direct sum of two Hopfian groups can be non-Hopfian, and that a group with an automorphism group of order two does not guarantee Hopficity. These results highlighted the need for new constructions to explore Hopficity in torsion-free Abelian groups. Our work introduces a new approach based on divisibility techniques, as it contributes to the understanding of free-torsion groups with respect to the Hopficity property, providing new insights into their structural properties and implications within group theory. Our analysis also demonstrates how divisibility properties, as well as the introduction of totally invariant subgroups and homomorphisms, can be used to establish Hopficity in specific Abelian groups, particularly those that are free-torsion. In order to reach all of this, we start by taking a group defined as an infinite direct sum of cyclic groups; then we construct a specific subgroup generated by two particular families of elements; and finally we show that this group is Hopfian through results from the theory of divisible subgroups.

The fundamental theorem of abelian groups states that any finitely generated abelian group is a direct sum of cyclic groups. This theorem plays a fundamental role in the structure theory of abelian groups. It has fascinated many algebraists to look at this theorem from different points of view:- (a) To find suitable generalizations of this theorem for modules over certain classes of rings, e.g. Dedekind domain, hereditary noetherian prime rings, valuation rings etc. (b) To create suitable versions of this theorem in some module categories and use such versions to develop the structure theory of such module categories. For example, torsion abelian group-like modules, modules with finitely generated submodules direct sums of multiplication modules. (c) To find those rings for which certain versions of the fundamental theorem of abelian groups hold. For example rings over which all finitely generated modules are direct sums of cyclic modules. (d) To examine the structure of certain classes of abelian groups and to try to find modules with similar structures. (e) To find roles of answers to some of above types of questions in the general theory of modules.

Introduction.Given a field k and a fc-algebra A, Gerstenhaber has introduced the concept of a deformation of A [8] which is a [[/]]-algebra structure on the module A [[/]].One of the main problems of the theory of deformations is to determine those algebras for which the only deformation (modulo an equivalence relation) is the usual A-[[r]]-algebra structure on .4[[*]].Such algebras are said to be rigid.If A is a commutative /c-algebra, we may restrict our attention to those deformations of A which are commutative.This leads us to consider the commutative cohomology groups of A, Hn(A, M)s, defined by Harrison [11].The principal purpose of this paper is to investigate the following conditions on a commutative algebra A over a field k:(1) H2(A, M)s = 0 for all ^-modules M.(2) H\A,f=0.(3) A is a rigid /r-algebra in the commutative deformation theory.(4) The module of differentials of A over k is a projective /4-module.(5) A is a finite product of (not necessarily algebraic) separable extension fields of k.We may show that (1) implies (4) [9, Theorem (20.4.9)] and that (2) implies (3) [8, p. 65].Condition (1) may be expressed by saying that A is a formally smooth fc-algebra [9, 19.4.4].When A is a field, Gerstenhaber has shown that (1), (2), and ( 5) are equivalent and he conjectured that these conditions were equivalent to (3).We show that (1), ( 2), (3), and (5) are equivalent even for A semisimple (Theorem 6.5).Moreover, if A is artinian, then (1) and ( 5) are equivalent (Proposition 5.9).In another direction, if A is a geometric complete intersection, then (1), (2), and (3) are equivalent (Theorem 6.8a).If in addition A is an integral domain with a separable quotient field, then (1), ( 2), (3), and (4) are equivalent (Theorem 6.8c).In the final section, we investigate the above conditions for the group algebra B[G] of an abelian group G which is a direct sum of cyclic groups with B a commutative algebra over a field k of positive characteristic p.In addition, we consider the following condition on G and k:(6) G has no element of order p = char (k).

For a given family (Gi)i∈N of finitely generated abelian groups, we construct a Dedekind domain D having the following properties.(1)Pic(D)≅⨁i∈NGi.(2)For each i∈N, there exists a submonoid Si⊆D• with Pic(DSi)≅Gi.(3)Each class of Pic(D) and of all Pic(DSi) contains infinitely many prime ideals. Furthermore, we study orders as well as sets of lengths in the Dedekind domain D and in all its localizations DSi.

Suppose that G is a p-primary abelian group. The subgroup G[p] = {x∈G:px=0} is called the socle of G and any subgroup S of G[p] is called a subsocle of G. If each subsocle of G supports a pure subgroup, then G is said to be pure-complete [1]. It is well known that, if G a direct sum of cyclic groups, then G is necessarily pure-complete. Further results about pure-complete groups are contained in [1] and [3].

A cotorsion hull of the separable 𝑝-group 𝑇 is considered when 𝑇 is a direct sum of torsion-complete groups. It is proved that in the considered case its cotorsion hull is fully transitive if and only if 𝑇 is a direct sum of cyclic groups or is a torsion-complete group.

Necessary conditions are given in order that Tor(Λ, B) be a direct sum of cyclic groups for abelian groups A and B. Sufficient conditions are also given that compare with the necessary conditions.They are only slightly stronger if at all, and the two are equivalent for groups of cardinality not exceeding K 2 * Due to the complexity of the problem, these conditions are not absolute, but constitute a reduction to smaller cardinality.The results generalize earlier results of R. Nunke.What is known of the structure and properties of Tor(^4, B) for abelian groups A and B is primarily due to R. Nunke.The main results appear in [4], [5], and [6].Contributions of other authors, however, were manifested in [2] and [3].This note generalizes the results of Nunke published in [4] and [6] concerning a basic question: When is Tor(^4, B) a direct sum of cyclic groups?Nunke has provided a completely satisfactory answer when neither the cardinality of A nor B exceeds 8j and in certain other cases, as well, allowing A and B to be arbitrarily large.However, the general case where A or B has cardinality greater than # λ was deferred.In this paper, we settle the question for cardinality X 2 .For the general case, we give necessary conditions in order that Ύoτ{A, B) be a direct sum of cyclic groups, and \γe also give sufficient conditions that are very close to the necessary ones, but the gap is not bridged completely.Since Tor(^4, B) is not affected by the nontorsion portions of A and 5, we can assume without loss of generality that A and B are torsion.Further, we can specialize, as usual, to the case that A and B are both /7-primary.Therefore, all groups are assumed to be/^-primary.The following three theorems summarize the major known results concerning the question of when Tor(^4, B) is a direct sum of cyclic groups.Following [6], we say that G is Σ-cyclic if G is a direct sum of cyclic groups.THEOREM A {Nunke [4, Corollary 3.5]).If p ω A φ 0, then Tor(^, B) is Σ-cyclic only if B is Έ-cyclic.The preceding result also appears in [6] as Theorem 12(i).

On the computational complexity of the theory of Abelian groups

Primary decomposition of the J-groups of complex projective and lens spaces

In this chapter, we are going to discuss a basic concept: pure subgroup. This concept has been one of the most fertile notions in the theory since its inception in a paper by the pioneer H. Prufer. The relevance of purity in abelian group theory, and later in module theory, has tremendously grown with time. While abelian groups have been major motivation for a number of theorems in category theory, purity has served as a prototype for relative homological algebra, and has played a significant role in model theory as well.

We shall characterize the complete first order theories of torsion free abelian groups having algebraically prime models, elementarily prime models, minimal models, etc., using the well known invariants from [9], [3]. This study was suggested by the questions raised in [2]. Group here will always mean abelian group. For reference on groups see Fuchs [5], [6], for model theory Chang-Keisler [1]. All theories considered are theories in the first order language of group theory. A group G is minimal (strictly minimal) if H < G implies H = G (H-= G), and elementarily prime (algebraically prime) if G is elementarily (algebraically) embeddable in every H G. p, q always denote prime numbers, P the set of all primes. The p-rank of a group G, p-rk(G), is the dimension of G/pG as a vector space over Z/pZ. We define tf(p, G): = min {p-rk(G), ~o}. By the results of [9], [3], two nontrivial torsion free abelian groups G and H are elementarily equivalent iff for all primes p tf(p, G) = tf(p, H). This gives a natural 1-1 correspondence between the complete theories of nontrivial torsion free abelian groups and the functions /3 : P --~ ~o + 1. /3 will always stand for such a function, and the corresponding complete theory will be denoted by T 0. S o is the set of primes p for which/3(p) ~ 0. For more definitions see section 3. Let 13 be a function from P to o) + 1. We shall study the following questions: Does T o have an elementarily (algebraically) prime model? Does T o have a minimal (strictly minimal) model, and if this is the case, how many such models does T o have? Do the minimal and strictly minimal models of T o coincide? These questions have been studied for the special case of the theory of the

The design of decision procedures for combinations of theories sharing some arithmetic fragment is a challenging problem in verification. One possible solution is to apply a combination method à la Nelson-Oppen, like the one developed by Ghilardi for unions of non-disjoint theories. We show how to apply this non-disjoint combination method with the theory of abelian groups as shared theory. We consider the completeness and the effectiveness of this non-disjoint combination method. For the completeness, we show that the theory of abelian groups can be embedded into a theory admitting quantifier elimination. For achieving effectiveness, we rely on a superposition calculus modulo abelian groups that is shown complete for theories of practical interest in verification.

In the theory of abelian groups, the study of relations between an abelian group and its endomorphism group is an important problem. The question arises on conditions under which an abelian group and its endomorphism group are isomorphic ([1], Problem 31). The answer to this question has been obtained in the classes of completely decomposable abelian groups [2], vector groups [3], in the classes of periodic abelian groups, divisible abelian groups, nonreduced abelian groups, reduced algebraically compact abelian groups [4]. A group A is called an E+-group if it is isomorphic to its endomorphism group End(A). Clearly, if an abelian group A is an E+-group, then its endomorphism group End(A) is also an E+-group. In this paper, we show that the converse statement holds not always. A group A is called an End-group if the following implication takes place: