Israel Journal of Mathematics

, Volume 167, Issue 1, pp 91–109 | Cite as

Modules with absolute endomorphism rings

Article

Abstract

Eklof and Shelah [8] call an abelian group absolutely indecomposable if it is directly indecomposable in every generic extension of the universe. More generally, we say that an R-module is absolutely rigid if its endomorphism ring is just the ring of scalar multiplications by elements of R in every generic extension of the universe. In [8] it is proved that there do not exist absolutely rigid abelian groups of size ≥ κ(ω), where κ(ω) is the first ω-Erdős cardinal (for its definition see the introduction). A similar result holds for rigid systems of abelian groups. On the other hand, recently Göbel and Shelah [15] proved that for modules of size < κ(ω) this phenomenon disappears. Their result on R ω -modules (i.e. on R-modules with countably many distinguished submodules) that establishes the existence of ‘well-behaving’ fully rigid systems of abelian groups of large sizes < κ(ω) will be extended here to a large class of R-modules by proving the existence of modules of any sizes < κ(ω) with endomorphism rings which are absolute. In order to cover rings as general as possible, we utilize a method developed by Brenner, Butler and Corner (see [2, 3, 5]) to reduce the number of distinguished submodules required in the construction from ℵ0 to five.

We give several applications of our results. They include modules over domains with four pairwise comaximal prime elements, and modules over quasi-local rings whose completions contain at least five algebraically independent elements.

Keywords

Abelian Group Commutative Ring Generic Extension Endomorphism Ring Indecomposable Module 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    C. Böttinger and R. Göbel, Endomorphism algebras of modules with distinguished partially ordered submodules over commutative rings, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 76 (1991), 121–141.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Brenner, Endomorphism algebras of vector spaces with distinguished sets of subspaces, Journal of Algebra 6 (1967), 100–114.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    S. Brenner and M. C. R. Butler, Endomorphism rings of vector spaces and torsion free abelian groups, Journal of the London Mathematical Society 40 (1965), 183–187.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    J. P. Burgess, Forcing, in Handbook of Mathematical Logic, J. Barwise ed., North Holland, Amsterdam-New York-Oxford, 1977, pp. 403–452.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    A. L. S. Corner, Endomorphism algebras of large modules with distinguished submodules, Journal of Algebra 11 (1969), 155–185.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    A. L. S. Corner, Fully rigid systems of modules, Rendiconti del Seminario Matematico della Universitá di Padova 82 (1989), 55–66.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    P. Eklof and A. Mekler, Almost Free Modules, Set-theoretic Methods, revised edition, North-Holland publishing Co., Amsterdam, 2002.MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    P. Eklof and S. Shelah, Absolutely rigid systems and absolutely indecomposable groups, in Abelian Groups and Modules, Trends in Mathematics, Birkh«user, Basel, 1999, pp. 257–268.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    B. Franzen and R. Göbel, The Brenner-Butler-Corner theorem and its applications to modules, in Abelian Group Theory, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1987, pp. 209–227.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    L. Fuchs, Infinite Abelian Groups, vol. 2, Academic Press, New York-London 1973.MATHGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    L. Fuchs and L. Salce, Modules over non-Noetherian Domains, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 84, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    R. Göbel, Vector spaces with five distinguished subspaces, Results in Mathematics 11 (1987), 211–228.MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    R. Göbel and W. May, Independence in completions and endomorphism algebras, Forum Mathematicum 1 (1989), 215–226.MATHMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    R. Göbel and W. May, Four submodules suffice for realizing algebras over commutative rings, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 65 (1990), 29–43.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    R. Göbel and S. Shelah, Absolutely Indecomposable Modules, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 135 (2007), 1641–1649.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    T. Jech, Set Theory, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Berlin, 2000.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    C. M. Ringel and H. Tachikawa, QF-3-rings, Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik 272 (1975), 49–72.MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    S. Shelah, Better quasi-orders for uncountable cardinals, Israel Journal of Mathematics 42 (1982), 177–226.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    D. Simson, On pure global dimension of locally finitely presented Grothendieck categories, Fundamenta Mathematicae 46 (1971), 91–116.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    D. Simson, Linear Representations of Partially Ordered Sets and Vector Space Categories, Algebra, Logic and Applications, vol. 4, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Montrenx, 1992.MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Hebrew University Magnes Press 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsTulane UniversityNew OrleansUSA
  2. 2.Fachbereich MathematikUniversität Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations