9 views

Uploaded by Anonymous Tph9x741

Article

- Primera Parte
- Intuitionistic Neutrosphic Soft Set over Rings
- ON THE EXISTENCE OF STABLE RINGS
- SOME EQUIVALENT CONDITIONS OF SMARANDACHE - SOFT NEUTROSOPHIC-NEAR RING
- mathgen-130283249
- Rudiger Gobel and Saharon Shelah- Endomorphism Rings of Modules whose Cardinality is Cofinal to Omega
- chapter-0
- Solusi soal Rings
- Project Report.docx
- Exercises
- On the Diameter and Girth of an Annihilating-Ideal Graph
- Nonnegative Factorization of a Data Matrix as a Motivational Example for Basic Linear Algebra
- Differential Galois Theory
- Syllabus MSc Math Programme
- Gallian Ch 32
- Algebraic Structures
- Rudiger Gobel, Jose L. Rodroguez and Saharon Shelah- Large localizations of finite simple groups
- On Rosenbrock Models Over a Commutative Ring (Lomadze 2002)
- Algebras and Derivations
- Groebner Bases- A Tutorial

You are on page 1of 252

Leonid Bunimovich (Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta)

Benot Perthame (Ecole Normale Suprieure, Paris)

Gennady Samorodnitsky (Cornell University, Rhodes Hall)

Igor Shparlinski (Macquarie University, New South Wales)

Wolfgang Sprssig (TU Bergakademie Freiberg)

Leonid A. Kurdachenko

Javier Otal

Igor Ya. Subbotin

Artinian

Modules

over

Group

Rings

Birkhuser Verlag

Basel . Boston . Berlin

Authors:

Department of Algebra Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences

School of Mathematics and Mechanics National University

National University of Dnepropetrovsk Los Angeles Campus

Vul. Naukova 13 3DFLF&RQFRXUVH'ULYH

Dnepropetrovsk 49050 /RV$QJHOHV&$

Ukraine USA

e-mail: lkurdachenko@hotmail.com

e-mail: isubboti@nu.edu

Javier Otal

Departamento de Matemticas

Universidad de Zaragoza

Pedro Cerbuna 12

50009 Zaragoza

Spain

e-mail: otal@unizar.es

0DWKHPDWLFDO6XEMHFW&ODVVLFDWLRQ33(()))

))))

/LEUDU\RI&RQJUHVV&RQWURO1XPEHU

'LH'HXWVFKH%LEOLRWKHNOLVWVWKLVSXEOLFDWLRQLQWKH'HXWVFKH1DWLRQDOELEOLRJUDH

detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at <http://dnb.ddb.de>.

,6%1%LUNKlXVHU9HUODJ%DVHO%RVWRQ%HUOLQ

7KLVZRUNLVVXEMHFWWRFRS\ULJKW$OOULJKWVDUHUHVHUYHGZKHWKHUWKHZKROHRUSDUWRIWKHPDWHULDOLV

FRQFHUQHGVSHFLFDOO\WKHULJKWVRIWUDQVODWLRQUHSULQWLQJUHXVHRILOOXVWUDWLRQVUHFLWDWLRQEURDG-

FDVWLQJUHSURGXFWLRQRQPLFUROPVRULQRWKHUZD\VDQGVWRUDJHLQGDWDEDQNV)RUDQ\NLQGRIXVH

permission of the copyright owner must be obtained.

%LUNKlXVHU9HUODJ32%R[&+%DVHO6ZLW]HUODQG

Part of Springer Science+Business Media

&RYHUGHVLJQ%LUJLW%ORKPDQQ=ULFK6ZLW]HUODQG

3ULQWHGRQDFLGIUHHSDSHUSURGXFHGIURPFKORULQHIUHHSXOS7&)f

Printed in Germany

,6%1; H,6%1

,6%1H,6%1

To Tamara, Marisol, and Milla

Contents

Preface ix

2 Ranks of groups 13

viii Contents

Bibliography 227

Index 245

Preface

Let G be a group and suppose that G has an abelian normal subgroup A. If

H = G/A, then H acts on A by ah = ag , where h = gA H and a A, and this

action transforms A into a ZH-module (see all details below). If A is periodic, then

very often we may replace A by one of its primary pcomponents. This allows us

to assume that A is a p-subgroup, where p is a prime. This way we arrive at a

p-module over the ring ZH. In this case, the structure of the lower layer

P1 = 1 (A) = {a A | pa = 0}

of A has a signicant inuence on the structure of A. Since P1 is an elementary

abelian p-subgroup, we may think of P1 as a module over the ring Fp H, where Fp

is a prime eld of order p.

The above approach allows one to employ module and ring-theoretical meth-

ods for the characterization of the groups considered. This relatively old idea has

shown itself to be very eective in the theory of nite groups. Progress in the study

of nite groups naturally led to the implementation of this approach in innite

groups that are closely related to nite groups, specically, in innite groups with

some niteness conditions. It is well known that in the theory of rings many signif-

icant results are related to niteness conditions, especially the classical conditions

of minimality and maximality. Thus, both artinian and noetherian rings are the

main subjects of the largest and the richest branches of the theories of commuta-

tive and non-commutative rings. The minimality and the maximality conditions

were introduced in groups side by side and played a crucial role in the development

of the theory of innite groups. The study of groups with the maximal condition

on all subgroups (the Max condition) led to the fundamental theory of polycyclic

groups and applications to other areas (see, [255]). On the other hand, the explo-

ration of groups with the minimal condition on all subgroups (the Min condition)

was extremely fruitful and generated among many other the research associated

with the well-known problems stated by O.Yu. Schmidt and S.N. Chernikov (see

[43, 311]).

After very detailed investigations, many group theorists conjectured that

groups with the Max condition should be polycyclic-by-nite and the groups with

the Min condition should be Chernikov. Refuting this, A.Yu. Olshanskii surpris-

ingly developed a series of his famous monsters ([208, Chapter 28]), emphasizing

the inexhaustible wealth of Innite Group Theory.

These examples also solved other famous problems in Group Theory. Other

innite, nitely generated, residually nite, periodic groups having many unusual

properties have been constructed by R. I. Grigorchuk (see, for example the survey

[93]). Observe that for his rst example [92], R.I. Grigorchuk produced a clear

and relatively simple construction which compares favorably with examples that

existed before. These brilliant creations of A.Yu. Olshanskii and R.I. Grigorchuk

show that methods and approaches that are traditional for the theory of general-

ized soluble groups do not work eectively beyond this theory. They developed a

x Preface

clear understanding that the theory of generalized soluble groups is just a proper

specic part of the general group theory. Along with other branches such as nite

groups, abelian groups, and linear groups, the theory of generalized soluble groups

has its own specic subject of research, rich history and sophisticated methodology.

Together with the ordinary maximal and minimal conditions on all sub-

groups, the maximal and minimal conditions on normal subgroups (Max-n and

Min-n) began to be studied. It turns out that in locally nilpotent groups these

latter conditions coincided with the respective ordinary conditions. However, even

soluble groups with Max-n and Min-n required new approaches. The classical pa-

pers of P. Hall [95, 96, 98] played a major role in the implementation of both

module and ring-theoretical methods in the study of soluble groups. The investi-

gation of abelian-by-nilpotent groups that satisfy the maximal condition on normal

subgroups led P. Hall to the consideration of noetherian modules over a ring of the

form ZH, where H is a nitely generated nilpotent group. The basis connection

here between groups, rings and modules is established by the remarkable theorem

due to P. Hall: If R is a noetherian ring and G is a polycyclic-by-nite group, then

the group ring RG is likewise noetherian. This result stimulated further develop-

ment of the theory of group rings of polycyclic- by-nite groups as well as the

theory of modules over polycyclic-by-nite groups (see, for example, C.J. Brookes

[28], K.A. Brown [30], S. Donkin [57, 58], D.R. Farkas [68], K.W. Gruenberg [94],

A.V. Jategaonkar [118, 120] , I.N. Musson [195, 196], D. Passman [216, 217, 218],

J.E. Roseblade [248, 249, 250, 251, 252], R.L. Snider [267, 268], and many others).

Exploration of the dual condition that is, investigation of groups with the

minimal condition on normal subgroups began signicantly later. The rst in-

vestigations showed that there exist metabelian groups satisfying the minimal con-

dition on normal subgroups that are not Chernikov. Investigation of such groups

determined the necessity of the study of artinian modules over rings of type ZH,

where H is an abelian Chernikov group. The excellent paper by B. Hartley and D.

McDougall [110] contains the description of such modules and groups. This paper

was also a starting point for the investigation of artinian modules over group rings.

It is worth noting here that the situation with artinian modules is rather dier-

ent. Actually, the group ring of a group that is not polycyclic-by-nite loses the

valuable property of being noetherian. Therefore, we have no well-developed deep

theory of the respective group rings, and we need to build one. At rst glance, the

criteria of complementability of modules, which arise from the classical theorems

of Maschke and Fitting, seem as likely candidates for this. A result of L.G. Kovacs

and M.F. Newman [137] is one of the rst important generalizations of Maschkes

Theorem on innite groups. Since then, the following steps of the theory were cor-

related with the criteria of semisimplicity of artinian modules, which are related

to conditions of injectivity of simple modules. Investigation of the questions men-

tioned above developed approaches to the description of some artinian modules

over a ring of the form F G, where F is a eld. Note that the transition from a

scalar eld to a ring signicantly complicates the problem because there are not

Preface xi

too many situations in which one can get a good description of artinian modules

over group rings. Sometimes it is only possible to obtain the description of their

injective envelopes, and just in the cases in which they are also artinian modules.

This way we arrive at the following important problem: to nd conditions under

which an injective envelope of an artinian module is likewise artinian.

At present the theory of modules over group rings is a very well developed

algebraic theory that is rich in many important results and has its own goals and

themes of a dierent nature. Many famous algebraists have made their contribu-

tions to this theory. The main aim of this book is to highlight some important

results within the framework of the described circle of issues outlined above. Be-

cause of the voluntarily limited scope of this book, we were unable to include

all valuable accomplishments. We focused our study on artinian modules because

noetherian modules are presented well enough elsewhere. The last chapter is ded-

icated to some group theoretical results about the splitting of a group over its lo-

cally nilpotent residual. Such theorems about splitting of a group over its abelian

generalized nilpotent radical are very useful in many dierent investigations. In

particular, we found them to be very eective in the study of just non-X-groups

(see L. A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157] ). Among these results

we chose a general theorem proven by D.J.S. Robinson [246]. In [246] the authors

proof is based on homological methods. In the current book we develop a new

proof having applied only results pertaining groups and artinian modules. This

aptly illustrates the eectiveness of the artinian condition.

We want to note that originally many important results have been obtained

for integral group rings. However, quite often in the applications, one needs to

deal with other group rings RG. For example, the cases in which R = F x is the

group ring of an innite cyclic group over a (nite) eld F , or R = Zp is the ring

of integer p-adics, or R = F [[X]] is the ring of the power series over a (nite) eld

F frequently occur. Therefore, in the majority of situations, we consider artinian

modules over a group ring DG, where the ring D of scalars is a Dedekind domain.

This requires the insertion of some valuable results of the theory of modules over

Dedekind domains.

Of course, the choice of content has also been determined by the interests

and tastes of the authors. Our selections have been inuenced by the work of many

people, and the authors especially owe their gratitude to B. Hartley and D.I. Za-

itsev. The contribution of B. Hartley to the development of the theory of artinian

modules over group rings is dicult to overestimate. His well-known papers in this

and other areas, as well as the work of his numerous students and collaborators

around the world, have been incredibly inuential. Many of his important contri-

butions are mentioned in this book, but many others are not. For example, we

have omitted the detailed construction of the fundamental important counterex-

amples of uncountable artinian modules over certain nilpotent and soluble groups.

D.I. Zaitsevs interest in the implementation of ring and module-theoretical re-

sults to groups, and his outstanding achievements in this area, inspired a series of

xii Preface

works dedicated to the development of his productive methods (see the survey L.S.

Kazarin and L.A. Kurdachenko [132]). In many cases, his inuence determined the

content of this book. For the rst author, D.I. Zaitsev was a mentor and a good

friend. Unfortunately, the Chernobyl Nuclear Catastrophe undermined his health,

and D.I. Zaitsev passed away in 1990 at the age of forty eight. This catastrophe

was also an original cause of death of our friends and colleagues V.E. Goretsky,

S.S. Levishenko and V.V. Pylaev, who were at the top of their careers when pass-

ing away due to dierent medical complications brought on by this disaster. The

stress experienced during the Chernobyl Catastrophe was the main reason for the

heart attack that took away the life of one of the main founders of Innite Group

Theory and the head of the Kiev Group Theory School, S.N. Chernikov. This

great mathematician was a teacher for many Ukranian algebraists, including the

authors of this book. His inuence on the development of Innite Group Theory

could not be overestimated.

We, with genuine gratitude, remember another brilliant algebraist, whose

extremely various scientic interests and personality made a great impact on the

forming of the rst and the third authors, namely Z.I. Borevich. He was a profes-

sor of St Petersburg University, but he was born in Ukraine and was interested

in the development of Ukrainian algebra and greatly supported many Ukrainian

mathematicians, who have became leading researches nowadays.

We would like to express our great appreciation to the ocial research com-

mittees of Spain (CICYT) and Arag on (CONSI+D) for the nancing of this

project. We also are extremly grateful to the National University (California,

USA), and to the University of Zaragoza (Spain) for their thorough support of

the authors work.

Chapter 1

Finiteness conditions in Algebra play a key role in the evolution from nite to

innite objects. Historically, these conditions have been introduced in rings and

modules where they have shown their eectiveness. At the beginning, the niteness

conditions have been most fruitfully used as the minimal and maximal conditions.

They shaped the development of modern Algebra, and still have a signicant value

today. The maximal condition under the form of the ascending chain condition was

initially used by R. Dedekind [51], who introduced this subject in his study of ide-

als in algebraic numbers elds. On the other hand, the descending chain condition

was introduced by J.M. Wedderburn [279], and explicitly dened by W. Krull, E.

Noether and E. Artin. Their applications have been decisive in studying maxi-

mal and minimal conditions in groups, modules, Lie algebras, and other algebraic

structures. The investigation of dierent algebraic systems satisfying maximal and

minimal conditions still remains very active.

An ordered set M = (M, ) is said to satisfy the maximal condition if

every non-empty subset of M has a maximal element. It is rather easy to see that

M satises the maximal condition if and only if M satises the ascending chain

condition, that is, given an ascending chain

a1 a2 an

Dually, M satises the minimal condition if every non-empty subset of M

has a minimal element, which is equivalent to M satises the descending chain

condition, that is, given a descending chain

a1 a2 an

Throughout, unless specied otherwise, module means right module. We re-

call that any assertion about right modules has a similar assertion for left modules.

2 Chapter 1. Modules with chain conditions

For a ring R and an R-module A, we consider the lattice LR (A) consisting of all

R-submodules of A ordered by inclusion. We say that A is a noetherian R-module

or it satises the maximal condition on its submodules if LR (A) satises the maxi-

mal condition, and similarly A is an artinian R-module or A satises the minimal

condition on its submodules if LR (A) satises the minimal condition. As we men-

tioned above, this is equivalent to the members of LR (A) satisfying the ascending

chain condition (and the descending chain condition respectively).

A ring R is called right noetherian (in short, R satises Max-r) if the right

R-module R is noetherian, and R is called right artinian (R satises Min-r) if

the right R-module R is artinian (note, that a ring means a ring with identity).

Similarly, we dene left noetherian and left artinian modules and the conditions

Max-l or Min-l. Since in this book we consider modules rather than rings, it is

worth noting that we shall use the terms noetherian and artinian rings to denote

right noetherian and right artinian rings. Modules with chain conditions are stan-

dard topics of many books, such as F. Anderson and K. Fuller [2], M. Atiyah and

I.G. MacDonald [3], N. Bourbaki [15, 16, 19], A.W. Chatters and C.R. Hajarmavis

[41], C. Faith [66, 67], J.S. Golan and T. Head [85], B. Hartley and T.O. Hawkes

[109], T. Hungerford [114], A. Kertesz [136], A.G. Kurosh [177], T.Y. Lam [178],

S. Lang [179], J.C. MacConnel and J.C. Robson [190], D.G. Northcott [207], D.S.

Passman [219], and R. Sharp [263], for example. For the readers convenience, we

will review some elementary results on them, which we will freely use in what

follows.

Every eld and the ring Z of all integers are examples of noetherian rings.

By Hilberts Basis Theorem the ring of polynomials R[X] over a commutative

noetherian ring is likewise noetherian. As a consequence we obtain that a com-

mutative ring R such that R is nitely generated over its noetherian subring S

with the same identity is noetherian. Moreover, the ring of formal power series

R[[X]] over a commutative noetherian ring is likewise noetherian. There are dis-

tinct generalizations of Hilberts Basis Theorem on non-commutative noetherian

rings. For example: let R be a ring and S be a subring of R with the same identity.

If U (R) (the group of all invertible elements of R) includes a polycyclic-by-nite

subgroup G such that S = S G and G generates R over S, then R is noetherian

[217, Theorem 10.2.7]. The famous Halls theorem follows from this: the group ring

RG over a noetherian ring R is also noetherian [95]. By Hopkins theorem (see,

for example, [136, Corollary 59.3]) every artinian ring is noetherian. It follows that

every artinian ring has a nite composition series of (right) ideals. In particular, a

direct sum of nitely many division rings is artinian; a matrix ring over a division

ring is artinian.

Let R be a ring, and let A be an R-module. If B is a subset of A, by denition

the R-annihilator of B is the left ideal of R

Chapter 1. Modules with chain conditions 3

AnnR (A) = AnnR (a).

aA

(1) If A is noetherian and B A, then B and A/B are noetherian.

(2) If B is a submodule of A such that B and A/B are noetherian, then A is

noetherian.

(3) If A has a nite series of submodules

0 = A0 A1 An = A,

(4) If A = A1 + + An and A1 , . . . , An are noetherian, then A is noetherian.

(5) A is noetherian if and only if every submodule of A is nitely generated.

(6) If R is a noetherian ring, then any nitely generated R-module is noetherian.

Proof. (1) is obvious and (3) is an immediate consequence of (2).

(2) Let

A1 A2 An

be an ascending chain of submodules of A. Since B and A/B are noetherian, there

is some m N such that Am B = Am+n B and Am + B = Am+n + B for all

n N. Therefore

= Am + (Am+n B) = Am + (Am B) = Am

(4) We proceed by induction on n. Assume that B = A1 + + An1 is

noetherian. Then by (1) A/B = (An + B)/B = An /(An B) is also noetherian.

By (2), A is noetherian.

(5) Suppose that A is noetherian, and let B be a non-zero submodule of A.

Pick 0 = b1 B, and put B1 = b1 R. If B1 = B, then pick 0 = b2 B \ B1 , and

put B2 = b1 R + b2 R. Since b1 B1 we have that B2 = B1 . Proceeding in this way,

we construct an ascending chain of nitely generated submodules of A,

B1 B2 Bn ,

that Bk = Bk+m for all m N. It follows that B = Bk , and thus B is nitely

generated.

4 Chapter 1. Modules with chain conditions

Conversely, let

A1 A2 An

be an ascending chain of submodules. If B = nN An , then there exist b1 , . . . , bm

A such that B = b1 R + + bm R. Choose r N such that b1 , . . . , bm Ar . We

have that B = Ar , and then Ar = An for all n r so that A is noetherian.

(6) Let A = a1 R + + at R. Given 1 i n, since ai R = R/AnnR (ai ),

each ai R is noetherian by (1). By (4), A is also noetherian.

The corresponding result for artinian modules is similar.

Lemma 1.2. Let R be a ring and A an R-module.

(1) If A is artinian and B is a submodule of A, then B and A/B are artinian.

(2) If B is a submodule of A such that B and A/B are artinian, then so is A.

(3) If A has a nite series of submodules

0 = A0 A1 An = A,

(4) If A = A1 + + An , where Ai is artinian for 1 i n, then A is artinian.

Now we focus our study on two topics. The rst one is the establishment of

the existence and the uniqueness of direct decompositions of certain modules. To

do so, we consider endomorphisms of modules with chain conditions.

Lemma 1.3. Let R be a ring and A an R-module. If is an endomorphism of A

and n 1, we put En = Im n and Rn = Ker n . Then:

(1) If E1 = E2 , then R1 + E1 = A.

(2) If R1 = R2 , then R1 E1 = 0.

(3) If A is artinian, then there is some n N such that A = Rn + En .

Proof. (1) If E1 = E2 , then for every a A there is some b A such that

a = b2 . It follows that a b Ker = R1 , and so a E1 + R1 . Consequently,

A = E1 + R1 .

(2) Let R1 = R2 . If a R1 E1 , then a = 0, and there is some b A such

that a = b. It follows that b Ker 2 = R2 = R1 , and hence a = b = 0.

(3) If A is artinian, then there is some m 1 such that Em = E2m , and

therefore A = En + Rn by (1).

Corollary 1.4. Let R be a ring and A an R-module, and let be an endomorphism

of A.

(1) If A is artinian, then is an automorphism if and only if Ker = 0.

(2) If A is noetherian, then is an automorphism if and only if Im = A.

Chapter 1. Modules with chain conditions 5

for every m N, that is, Ker m = 0 for m N. By Lemma 1.3, there is some

n N such that A = Im n . Then A = Im , i.e. is an automorphism.

Suppose that A is noetherian, and A = Im . Then A = Im m for every

m N. By the niteness of ascending chains, there is some n N such that

Ker n = Ker n+1 . Taking reciprocal images, we obtain that

(Ker )(n )1 = Ker n+1 = Ker n = {0}(n )1 .

Since n is an epimorphism,

and so is an automorphism.

Proposition 1.5 (Fitting lemma). Let A be an artinian and noetherian module

over a ring R. If is an endomorphism of A, then A = B C, and the following

conditions hold:

(1) B B and C C.

(2) The restriction of on B is an automorphism of B.

(3) The restriction of on C is nilpotent.

Proof. Since the chains

A A Ak

and

0 Ker Ker k

have to be nite, there exists some r 1 such that Ar = Am , and Ker r =

Ker m for all m r. Put B = Ar , and C = Ker r . Then

B = (Ar ) = Ar+1 = Ar = B,

Let 1 (respectively 2 ) be the restriction of on B (respectively on C). By

Corollary 1.4, 1 is an automorphism of B since it is clearly surjective. Moreover

Cr = (0 (r )1 )r = 0 ,

If b B C, then br = 0. Since br = b(1 )r and 1 is an automorphism

of B, (1 )r is also an automorphism. It follows that b = 0; that is, B C = 0.

Finally, applying Lemma 1.3 we obtain that

A = Im r + Ker r = B + C.

6 Chapter 1. Modules with chain conditions

decompositions; that is, if A = B C, then either B = 0 or C = 0. Otherwise

A is said to be decomposable. As a consequence of Proposition 1.5, we have

Corollary 1.6. Let A be an indecomposable R-module over a ring R, and let

be an endomorphism of A. If A is noetherian and artinian, then either is an

automorphism of A or is nilpotent.

A non-zero R-module A is said to be simple if A has no non-zero proper sub-

modules. For an arbitrary R-module A, the intersection of all non-zero submodules

of A is called the R-monolith of A, and denoted by R (A). If R (A) = 0 , then

A is said to be monolithic. In this case, it is clear that R (A) is the unique simple

R-submodule of A.

Theorem 1.7. Let A be an artinian R-module, where R is a ring. If

A = A1 An = B1 Br

are two direct decompositions of A, and all the submodules Ai and Bj are R-

monolithic, then n = r, and there are a permutation Sn , and an automorphism

of A such that (Bj ) = Aj for 1 j n.

Proof. For every 1 i n and 1 j r, let i : A Ai and j : A Bj be

the canonical projections. It will suce to prove the following assertion:

There are an injective mapping

(t) : {1, . . . , t} {1, . . . , r},

We proceed by induction on t. If t = 1, then it suces to take 1 = A , the

identity automorphism of A. Suppose that t > 1, and we are given an injective

mapping (t 1), and an automorphism t1 , which satisfy the above conditions.

Reordering if necessary, and replacing Bj by an isomorphic image, we may assume

that B1 = A1 , . . . , Bt1 = At1 . Given a A, we have that a = a1 + + an .

It follows that

at = (a1 )t + + (an n )t

and so

t = 1 t + + n t .

We note that the restriction of t on Bt is the identity automorphism of Bt . On the

other hand, if the kernel of an endomorphism of a monolithic module is non-zero,

this kernel must include the monolith. It follows that the sum of nitely many

endomorphisms with non-zero kernels has a non-zero kernel.

Since Bt is monolithic, there is some 1 m n, such that the kernel of the

restriction of m t on Bt is zero. By Corollary 1.4, this restriction is in fact an

Chapter 1. Modules with chain conditions 7

means that m t.

Dene

j, if 1 j t 1,

j(t) =

m, if j = t,

and

t = eA t + t m .

If a Ker t , then

= at at + (at )m t = (at )m t .

a = at + at (at )m = at = 0

phism. Since

A = (Bt )t ( Bj )t and (Bt )t Am ,

j=t

we conclude that

Am = (Bt )t (Am ( Bj )t ).

j=t

(Bt )t . Taking t = n, we obtain the required result.

Let A be a group with a set of (multiplicative) operators . This means that

with each there is associated a certain endomorphism of A so that to each

a A there corresponds a A such that (ab) = a b for all a, b A. We say

that A is a -operator group or A is a -group. Note that dierent operators of

can correspond to the same endomorphism, that is, it can be = and a = a

for every a A. This is the great advantage of considering groups with operators

instead of groups with a xed set of endomorphisms. A subgroup B of A is called

-invariant if for every b B and , we have b B. It follows that we

can consider -invariant subgroups of a group A as groups with the same set

of operators.

Suppose that A is a normal subgroup of a group G. If = G, we may consider

A as a -operator group dening an action of G on A by (a, g) g 1 ag = ag ,

a A, g G. In this case, the -invariant subgroups are called G-invariant.

If A is an abelian -group and = R is a ring, then a typical example

here is a module over the ring R. In this case -invariant subgroups are exactly

R-submodules.

8 Chapter 1. Modules with chain conditions

invariant subgroups (in short Min-) if the ordered-by-inclusion set of its -

invariant subgroups satises the minimal condition. Dually, A is said to satisfy the

maximal condition on its -invariant subgroups (in short Max-) if the ordered-

by-inclusion set of its -invariant subgroups satises the maximal condition.

Suppose that A is a normal subgroup of a group G, = G and G acts on

A by conjugation. If A satises Min- (respectively Max-), then we say that A

satises the condition Min-G (respectively Max-G). In particular, if A = G, then

we obtain the minimal condition for normal subgroups (Min-n) and the maximal

condition for normal subgroups ( Max-n).

The case when A = G and = {G } is opposite. If A satises Min- (respec-

tively Max-), then in this case G satises the minimal condition for all subgroups

or the condition Min (respectively, the maximal condition for all subgroups or the

condition Max). We also say that a group G is artinian (respectively noetherian), if

G satises Min (respectively Max). We will denote by M the class of all artinian

groups and by M the class of all noetherian groups.

As we already noted above, the minimal and the maximal conditions have

been introduced by German algebraists. The study of groups satisfying these con-

ditions was initiated later than the corresponding investigations in rings and mod-

ules. It is not hard to see that a locally (soluble-by-nite) groups satisfying Max

is polycyclic-by-nite. Distinct characteristics of noetherian groups have been ob-

tained by R. Baer [6]. In connection with this R. Baer formulated the following

problem:

Is every noetherian group polycyclic-by-nite?

A prominent Soviet algebraist S.N. Chernikov was a pioneer in investigation

of artinian groups. He was a student of the famous founders of the Soviet Algebra

School A.G. Kurosh and O.Yu. Schmidt. It is worth noting, that after WW I,

fruitful and cross inuential connections between German and Soviet algebraists

were established. Some Soviet researchers visited Germany at that time and many

prominent German algebraists, including E. Noether, delivered lectures at Moscow

State University. Unfortunately, in a few years the Soviet government prohibited

these and any other contacts with foreign scientists.

Let p be a prime and

Cp =< an | ap1 = 1, apn+1 = an , n N > .

The group Cp is called a Pr ufer p-group. A group G is called a Chernikov

group if G includes a normal subgroup of nite index which is a direct product of

nitely many Pr ufer p-groups. It is not hard to see that every Chernikov group

satises Min. We will denote by C the class of all Chernikov groups and by P

the class of all polycyclic-by-nite groups. These groups are among the oldest

classical subjects in the theory of innite groups. The properties of Chernikov

Chapter 1. Modules with chain conditions 9

and polycyclic-by-nite groups have been considered in detail in many books (for

example, S.N. Chernikov [43], M.I. Kargapolov and Yu.I. Merzlyakov [129], O.H.

Kegel and B.A.F. Wehrfritz [134], A.G. Kurosh [176], D.J.S. Robinson [230, 234,

235, 242], and D. Segal [255]). The following description of locally soluble artinian

groups was one of the rst results of S.N. Chernikov:

A locally soluble group satises Min if and only if it is Chernikov

(see, for example [43, Theorem 1.1]). V.P. Shunkov and O.H. Kegel and B.A.F.

Wehrfritz independently obtained the following theorem which one can consider

as the latest positive result on artinian groups:

Every locally nite group satisfying Min is Chernikov

(see, for example [134, Theorem 5.8]). S.N. Chernikov formulated the following

problem:

Is every artinian group Chernikov?

Negative answers both to Baers and Chernikovs questions have been ob-

tained by A.Yu. Olshanskii who constructed exotic examples of torsion-free groups

whose proper subgroups are cyclic and periodic groups whose proper subgroups are

nite (such groups are called quasinite); in particular, an example of an innite

p-group whose proper subgroups have order p (the Tarsky Monster ). Furthermore,

there exist uncountable artinian groups (see A.Yu. Olshanskii [208, chapters 28, 35,

38]). In connection with this we observe that R.I. Grigorchuk [92, 93] constructed

very interesting examples of nitely generated p-groups with highly diverse prop-

erties, which are some kind of dual to the quasinite groups. These groups are just

innite; that is, they have only nite proper factor-groups.

Let A be an abelian group. The generalization of the concept of the layer of

an abelian p-group leads us to the following denition. If is an endomorphism

of A, for each n N, we dene

,n (A) = {a A | an = 0}.

Note that ,n (A) = Ker n is a subgroup of A, and ,n (A) ,n+1 (A) for

any n N. In terms of these subgroups, D.I. Zaitsev [306] proved the following

criterion, which is very useful in the study of artinian modules.

endomorphisms of A. Suppose that we are given an element such that

(i) = for every ; and

(ii) A = nN ,n (A).

Then the group A satises Min- if and only if ,1 (A) satises Min-.

10 Chapter 1. Modules with chain conditions

if A satises Min-, then ,1 (A) satises Min-.

Conversely, suppose that B = ,1 (A) satises Min-. Let

A1 A2 An

Obviously each Bk,m is -invariant, Bk,m Bk+1,m , and Bk,m Bk,m+1 for any

pair k, m N. It follows that Bk,m Bs,t whenever s k, and t m. Since B

satises Min-, there are some q, r N such that Bk,m = Bq,r whenever k q

and m r. The mapping : a at , a ,t+1 (A) is a -endomorphism, and

so Im , and Ker = ,t (A) are -invariant. Therefore

= Im ,1 (A).

It follows that ,t+1 (A)/,t (A) satises Min-, and therefore so does

,n (A), for any n N. Therefore, there is some q(1) N such that

for every k q(1). Let q(2) be the maximum of {q, q(1)}. If k q(2) and n r+1,

then we claim that the following expression holds:

To see this, we proceed by induction on n. Suppose that (E) has been shown for

some n r + 1. Pick a Aq(2) ,n+1 (A). Then an Bq(2),n = Bk,n so that

an = cn for some c Ak ,n+1 (A). It follows that (a c)n = 0; that is,

Ak = Ak A = Ak ( ,n (A)) = (Ak ,n (A))

nr+1 nr+1

= (Aq(2) ,n (A)) = Aq(2) ( ,n (A)) = Aq(2) ,

nr+1 nr+1

Chapter 1. Modules with chain conditions 11

nth -layer of the p-group P is the characteristic subgroup

n (P ) = {x P | |x| pn }.

1 (P ) 2 (P ) n (P )

and P = nN n (P ). The rst layer 1 (P ) concentrates a lot of information

about P, and it is simply known as the lower layer of the p-group P . Let be the

endomorphism of P given by : a pa, a P . Applying Proposition 1.8, we

deduce the following elegant characterization due to B. Hartley and D. McDougall

[110].

Corollary 1.9. Let A be an abelian p-group, where p is a prime, and suppose that

A is a -group, where is a semigroup of distributive endomorphisms of A. Then

A satises Min- if and only if 1 (A) satises Min-.

Chapter 2

Ranks of groups

In this and successive chapters we consider some extensions of the class of nite

groups whose members are groups G related to certain numerical invariants, which

are generically known as ranks of the group G. The concept of rank has appeared

in the theory of modules over arbitrary rings as a natural generalization of the idea

of dimension of a vector space over a eld. Recall that an abelian group is exactly

a module over the ring Z of integers. Since the theory of abelian groups is the

initial part of the theory of groups, it is not surprising that the inherited notion of

rank of a module has been successfully employed in many areas of Group Theory.

In fact, these ideas have become the foundation for new important extensions of

nite groups, most of which were created by A.I. Maltsev [181, 182] and D.J.S.

Robinson [230]. Some of such extensions are our next goals. However, we are not

going to consider in full the properties of groups of nite rank, which has been

done already in a wide variety of dierent papers. Note that one can nd some

fundamental results about groups of dierent nite ranks in the books of M.R.

Dixon [52], M.I. Kargapolov and Yu.I. Merzlyakov [129], A.G. Kurosh [176], B.I.

Plotkin [221], D.J.S. Robinson [230, 234, 235, 242], and others. We are going to

focus on some important denitions and results that are suitable for our purposes.

A group G is said to have nite 0-rank r0 (G) = r if G has a nite subnormal

series with exactly r innite cyclic factors, the others being periodic. We note that

every renement of one of these series has only r factors that are innite cyclic.

Since any two nite subnormal series have isomorphic renements, we conclude

that 0-rank is independent of the chosen series. This numerical invariant is also

known as the torsion-free rank of G. In this general form the concept of the 0-

rank was introduced by D.I. Zaitsev [303]. Polycyclic-by-nite groups are rst

examples of groups having nite 0-rank. For these groups 0-rank is exactly its

Hirsch number .

Lemma 2.1. Let G be a group of nite 0-rank. Suppose that H is a subgroup of G

and L is a normal subgroup of G. Then

(1) H has nite 0-rank; concretely, r0 (H) r0 (G); and

(2) G/L has nite 0-rank; concretely, r0 (G) = r0 (L) + r0 (G/L).

14 Chapter 2. Ranks of groups

1 = G0 G1 Gn = G

such that r n, r factors are innite cyclic and the remaining n r factors are

periodic.

(1) If H G, then

1 = G0 H Gn H = H

is a subnormal series of H. Since the factors of this series are isomorphic to sub-

groups of factors of the given series, we deduce immediately that r0 (H) r0 (G),

as claimed.

(2) Given L G, we have the subnormal series

1 = G0 L Gn L = L = LG0 LG1 LGn = G.

Since {Gj L | 0 j n} is a subnormal series of L , and {Gj L/L | 0 j n}

is a subnormal series of G/L with exactly r innite cyclic factors, the others being

periodic, we nd out that r0 (G) = r0 (L) + r0 (G/L), as required.

If A is an abelian group, then

r0 (A) = dimQ (A Z Q).

In fact, an abelian group A has nite 0-rank r if and only if A/t(A) is isomorphic

to a subgroup of the additive group

Q Q

r

(see L. Fuchs [78, Lemma 24.3]), where t(A) is the periodic part of A (that is,

the unique maximal periodic subgroup of A). Note also that r0 (A) is exactly the

Z-rank of the Z-module A/t(A). Related to abelian groups of nite 0-rank are the

soluble groups of nite 0-rank. This class of groups is exactly the class of soluble

A1 -groups, which was introduced by A.I. Maltsev [182]. The linear group UTn (Q)

(even UTn (F ) where F is a nite eld extension of Q) is a natural example of a

non-abelian group of nite 0-rank.

Let A be an abelian group. If p is a prime, then the p-rank rp (A) of A is

dened as follows. Let P be the Sylow p-subgroup of A , and consider 1 (P ) as a

vector space over the prime eld Fp = Z/pZ. By denition,

rp (A) = dimFp 1 (P ).

We note that rp (A) is nite if and only if the Sylow p-subgroup P of A is Chernikov

(see L. Fuchs [78, Theorem 25.1]).

Following D.J.S. Robinson [230, 6.1], we dene the classes A0 and G0 as

follows:

Chapter 2. Ranks of groups 15

if r0 (A) is nite and rp (A) is nite for all primes p.

A soluble group G belongs to the class S0 (or G is an S0 -group) if and only if

G has a nite subnormal series, every factor of which is an abelian A0 -group.

A direct product U DrpP Cp , where U is a direct product of nitely many

copies of Q and Cp is a direct product of nitely many copies of a Pr ufer p-groups

for all p P (here P is the set of all primes), is a natural example of an abelian

group from the class A0 . Moreover, every group from the class A0 is isomorphic to

some subgroup of a direct product of this kind. We can nd some natural examples

of groups from class S0 among linear groups. If F is a eld and p is a prime such

that p = char F , then every p-subgroup of GLn (F ) is Chernikov (see, for example

[283, 9.1]). It follows that every periodic soluble subgroup S of GLn (F ) such that

char F / (S) belongs to S0 .

These classes A0 and S0 admit the following almost obvious characteriza-

tions.

Proposition 2.2. (1) An abelian group A is an A0 -group if and only if every ele-

mentary abelian p-factor of A is nite, for each prime p.

(2) A soluble group G is an S0 -group if and only if every elementary abelian

p-section of G is nite, for each prime p.

The above result shows that S0 -groups can be called groups of nite (abelian)

section rank . In fact Proposition 2.2 provides us the possibility of extending the

concept of p-rank from abelian groups to arbitrary groups in the following way.

We say that a group G has nite p-rank rp (G) = r if every abelian p-section of G

is nite of order pr , and there is an abelian p-section U/V such that |U/V | = pr .

Let A be an abelian group. Following D.J.S. Robinson [230, 6.5], we dene

the reduced rank of A by

rred (A) = r0 (A) + max{rp (A) | p (A)}.

if and only

if rred (A) is nite. In other words, there is some m N such that r0 (A) m and

rp (A) m, for each p (A). A soluble group G belongs to the class S (or G is

an S-group) if and only if G has a nite subnormal series, every factor of which

is an abelian A-group.

A group G is said to have nite special rank r (G) = r if every nitely gen-

erated subgroup of G can be generated by r elements and r is the least positive

integer with this property. This notion is due to A.I. Maltsev [181]. The special

rank of a group is called also the Pr

ufer Maltsev rank

To characterize these classes in a simpler way, we need the next almost ob-

vious result.

16 Chapter 2. Ranks of groups

of G, then:

(1) If G has nite special rank, then H and G/L have nite special rank, and

r(H) r(G), r(G/L) r(G).

(2) If L and G/L have nite special ranks, then so do have G.

Corollary 2.4. (1) An abelian group A is an A -group if and only if A has nite

special rank.

(2) A soluble group G is an S -group if and only if G has nite special rank.

This result shows that the class S is exactly the class of soluble A2 -groups,

formerly introduced by A.I. Maltsev [182].

Let A be an abelian group. Following D.J.S. Robinson [230, 6.2], we dene

the total rank of A as

p(A)

only if rtot (A) is nite. In particular, this means that (A) is nite. In other

words, A A1 if and only if A has nite 0-rank , and the periodic part of A

is a Chernikov group.

A soluble group G belongs to S1 (or G is an S1 -group) if and only if G has

a nite subnormal series, every factor of which is an abelian A1 -group.

The class S1 is exactly the class of soluble A3 -groups, which was introduced

by A.I. Maltsev [182]. Note that Maltsev also considered the subclass of soluble

A4 -groups, which consists of the groups having a nite subnormal series, every

factor of which is an abelian A1 -group with a nite periodic part.

A group G is called minimax if it has a nite subnormal series, all factors

of which belong to M or M . The class of soluble minimax groups is denoted

by S2 (D.J.S. Robinson [230]). In particular, S2 F is exactly the class of groups

having nite subnormal series, every factor of which is Chernikov or polycyclic-by-

nite. The following combinatorial characteristic of groups relates to the minimax

groups. Following D.I. Zaitsev [295] we say that a group G has nite minimax

rank rmmx (G) = m, if for each nite chain of subgroups

1 = G0 G1 Gn = G

such that all indexes |Gj+1 : Gj | are innite, we have n m and there exists a

chain of this kind for which n = m. If such a number does not exist, then the

minimax rank of the group is innite; if G is nite, then rmmx (G) = 0. Observe,

that in the paper [295], D.I. Zaitsev used another term the index of minimality.

Chapter 2. Ranks of groups 17

This term happened to be not suitable. Therefore Zaitsev stopped using it and

introduced instead the minimax rank. As it is proved by Zaitsev [291] a locally

(soluble-by-nite) group has a nite minimax rank if and only if it is minimax.

The theory of soluble-by-nite minimax groups is well developed now. These

groups have been studied by many authors from dierent points of view. Gen-

eral properties of soluble minimax groups have been considered in the paper

[229] (see, also [235, 10.3, 10.4]). Minimax groups appear in the study of dis-

tinct niteness conditions (see, for example, the following papers: R. Baer [7],

G. Cutolo and L.A. Kurdachenko [50], M. Karbe [126], M. Karbe and L.A. Kur-

dachenko [127], L.S. Kazarin and L.A. Kurdachenko [132], L.S. Kazarin, L.A.

Kurdachenko and I.Ya. Subbotin [133], P.H. Kropholler [138], L.A. Kurdachenko

[141, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147, 150], L.A. Kurdachenko and V.E. Goretsky [153],

L.A. Kurdachenko and H. Smith [165, 166, 167, 168], L.A. Kurdachenko, A.V.

Tushev and D.I. Zaitsev [175], M.L. Newell [202, 203], H. Smith [266], D.I. Zait-

sev [289, 290, 291, 292], D.I. Zaitsev, L.A. Kurdachenko and A.V. Tushev [312]).

D.J.S. Robinson showed that every nitely generated hyperabelian group of -

nite special rank (respectively nite section rank) is minimax [228, 233, 238, 243]

(see also D.I. Zaitsev [293]). Properties of subnormal and permutable subgroups

in minimax groups have been considered by D.C. Brewster and J.C. Lennox [24],

D.J. McCaughan [189], D. McDougall [191] and H.H.G. Seneviratne [262]. S. Fran-

ciosi S. and F. de Giovanni [72] considered maximal subgroups in soluble minimax

groups. In the papers by L.A. Kurdachenko [149] and L.A. Kurdachenko and J.

Otal [156] the groups with minimax conjugacy classes have been studied; J. S.

Wilson [286, 287] investigated a soluble product of minimax groups; in the arti-

cles by M. Karbe and L.A. Kurdachenko [127], D.I. Zaitsev, L.A. Kurdachenko

and A.V. Tushev [312], D. Segal [256, 257], D.I. Zaitsev, L.A. Kurdachenko and

A.V.Tushev [312] the authors explored modules over minimax groups.

Now we consider relations among dierent ranks of groups. As usual, if G

is a group, by (G) we denote the set of all primes that occur as divisors of the

orders of periodic elements of G.

ascendant in G, then H O (G), where = (H).

Proof. Let

H = H0 H1 H H+1 H = G

be an ascending series. We will prove by transnite induction on that H

O (H ). If = 1, this inclusion is obvious. Suppose that we have already

proved

that H O (H ) for all < . If is a limit ordinal, then H = < H and

hence H < O (H ) = O (H ). Suppose now that 1 exists. Since H1

is normal in H and O (H1 ) is a characteristic subgroup of H1 , O (H1 )

is normal in H and therefore O (H1 ) O (H ). Hence H O (H1 )

O (H ).

18 Chapter 2. Ranks of groups

subgroup of G.

Corollary 2.6. Let G be a group and suppose that G includes a non-identity as-

cending periodic subgroup. Then t(G) = 1.

Let A be an abelian torsion-free group of nite 0-rank and let T be a periodic

automorphism group of A. Then T is nite (see, for example, [280, Theorem 9.33]).

Moreover, if r0 (A) = r, then there is a function f1 : N N such that |T | f1 (r).

Lemma 2.7 ([55]). Let G be a group and suppose that t(G) = 1. If G has an

ascending series H = H0 H1 H H+1 H = G such that

H is an abelian torsion-free subgroup of nite 0-rank and the rest of the factors

are locally nite, then G includes a characteristic abelian torsion-free subgroup A

such that r0 (A) = r0 (H), H A and |G/A| f1 (r0 (H)).

Proof. We proceed by transnite induction on . Let = 1 and put K = H1 ,

L = CK (H). By the above remark |K/L| f1 (r0 (H)). The subgroup L is a

central extension of H by a locally nite group. By the generalized Schur theorem

(see, for example, [234, Corollary to Theorem 4.12], the subgroup [L, L] is locally

nite. It follows that t(L) is locally nite, and L/t(L) is abelian and torsion-free.

Moreover, r0 (L/t(L)) = r0 (H). Since t(L) is a characteristic subgroup of L, t(L)

is normal in K. If we suppose that t(L) = 1, then Corollary 2.6 yields that

t(G) = 1. This show that L is an abelian and torsion-free subgroup of 0-rank

r0 (H). In this case let A be the locally nilpotent radical of K. Then clearly A is

an abelian torsion-free subgroup of 0-rank r0 (H), H A and |K/A| f1 (r0 (H)).

Assume that we have already proved that H includes a normal subgroup

L such that |H /L | f1 (r0 (H)), and L is a torsion-free abelian subgroup

of 0-rank r0 (H) for all < . Assume rst that is not a limit ordinal. Put

H = U, H1 = V, L1 = W . Since |V /W | = s f1 (r0 (H)), V s W . In

other words, U includes a normal torsion-free abelian subgroup V s such that

r0 (V s ) = r0 (H) and U/V s is locally nite. By the above argument the locally

nilpotent radical D of U is a torsion-free abelian subgroup of 0-rank r0 (H) such

that |U/D| f1 (r0 (H)). Since W is a subnormal abelian subgroup of U , W D.

Suppose now that is a limit ordinal. Theabove proof shows that we can

assume that L L+1 for all < . Put A = < L . Clearly, A is a normal

abelian torsion-free subgroup of 0-rank r0 (H) such that H /L is locally nite.

But this case has been considered above. So the result is proved.

Corollary 2.8 ([55]). Let G be a group and suppose that t(G) = 1. If G has an

ascending series

H = H 0 H 1 H H +1 H = G

such that r factors of this series are innite cyclic and the rest of the factors are

locally nite, then G has a nite series

1 = K 0 L1 K 1 L2 K 2 Ln K n = G

Chapter 2. Ranks of groups 19

of normal subgroups such that Lj+1 /Kj are abelian torsion-free subgroups of nite

0-rank, 0 j n 1, n r, and the factors Kj /Lj are nite of order at most

f1 (r).

Proof. We proceed by induction on r. Since t(G) = 1, Lemma 2.5 yields that

H1 is an innite cyclic subgroup. Since G includes an ascendant abelian subgroup,

its locally nilpotent radical L is non-identity. Moreover, H1 L. Note, that the

set of all elements of nite order of a locally nilpotent group is a characteristic

subgroup. Together with the equation t(G) = 1 it implies that L is torsion-free.

By Maltsevs theorem [182] a subgroup L is nilpotent, in particular, Z = (L) =

1.

Put K1 /Z = t(G/Z); then K1 /Z is locally nite. By Lemma 2.7, K1 includes

a characteristic abelian torsion-free subgroup L1 of nite 0-rank such that K1 /L1

is nite and |K1 /L1 | f1 (r). By the choice of K1 we have t(G/K1 ) = 1, and

G/K1 has an ascending series, in which the r 1 factors are innite cyclic and

the rest factors are locally nite. Hence we may apply to G/K1 the inductive

hypothesis.

Let Mn be the set of all non-isomorphic nite groups of order at most n and

let An = {Aut(G) | G Mn }. Then the set An is nite and each member of An is

nite. Hence there is D An such that |D| is maximal. Put a(n) = |D|. Clearly,

a(n) n!.

Corollary 2.9 ([55]). Let G be a group and suppose that t(G) = 1. If G has an

ascending series

H = H 0 H 1 H H +1 H = G

such that r factors of this series are innite cyclic and the rest of the factors

are locally nite, then G includes a normal soluble subgroup S of nite index.

Moreover, |G/S| a(f1 (r))r .

Proof. By Corollary 2.8, G has a nite series

1 = K 0 L1 K 1 L2 K 2 Ln K n = G

of normal subgroups such that Lj+1 /Kj are abelian torsion-free subgroups of nite

0-rank, 0 j n 1, and the factors Kj /Lj are nite of order at most f1 (r),

1 j n, n r. Put Cj = CG (Kj /Lj ), 1 j n. Then G/Cj is nite, moreover,

Gj /Cj a(f1 (r)).

Put S = 1jn Cj . By Remaks theorem G/S

Dr1jn G/Cj , in partic-

ular, G/S is nite and |G/S| |G/S1 | |G/Sn | a(f1 (r))n a(f1 (r))r . By its

choice, S is soluble.

G be a nite soluble group and |G| = n = pk11 pkmm . Put d(n) = k1 + + km .

20 Chapter 2. Ranks of groups

d(n) = k1 + + km

= logp1 (pk11 ) + + logpm (pkmm )

log2 (pk11 ) + + log2 (pkmm ) = log2 (pk11 pkmm ) = log2 n.

Let A be an abelian torsion-free group and G be an automorphism group of

A. We say that A is rationally G -irreducible if for every non-identity G-invariant

subgroup B of A the factor-group A/B is periodic.

Lemma 2.10. Let G be a group and suppose that G includes a nite normal sub-

group T such that G/T is an abelian torsion-free group of nite 0-rank r. Then G

includes a characteristic abelian torsion-free subgroup A such that G/A is nite.

Moreover, if |T | = t, then |G/A| a(t)t2r+1 .

Proof. Put C = CG (A); then G/C is nite and |G/C| d = a(t). If g C ,

then clearly g t (C), so that |C/(C)| tr . A subgroup (C) is abelian and

has a nite periodic part, so that (C) = K Z for some torsion-free subgroup

Z where K = T (C) ( see, for example, [78, Theorem 27.5]). It follows that

A = ((C))t Z, in particular, A is torsion-free. Clearly, A is a characteristic

subgroup of G. Finally, |G/A| a(t)tr ttr = a(t)t2r+1 .

Lemma 2.11 ([55]). Let G be a group and suppose that t(G) = 1. Assume also

that G has an ascending series

H = H 0 H 1 H H +1 H = G

such that r factors of this series are innite cyclic and the rest of the factors

are locally nite. Then G has normal subgroups L K S G such that L is

nilpotent and torsion-free, K/L is abelian torsion-free and nitely generated, G/K

is nite and S/K is soluble. Moreover, there are functions f2 , f3 : N N such

that |G/K| f2 (r) and s(S) f3 (r).

Proof. By Corollary 2.9, G includes a maximal normal soluble subgroup S of nite

index such that |G/S| a(f1 (r))r . Let L be the locally nilpotent radical of G.

Since t(G) = 1 and the set of all elements having nite order of a locally nilpotent

group is a characteristic subgroup, L is torsion-free. By Maltsevs theorem [182]

the subgroup L is nilpotent. It is not hard to prove that L has a nite series

1 = A0 A1 An = L

of G-invariant subgroups which are L-central and all the factors Aj+1 /Aj are

abelian torsion-free and rationally G-irreducible, 0 j n 1.

Put Cj = CG (Aj+1 /Aj ), 0 j n 1. Then we can consider Gj = G/Cj as

an irreducible soluble-by-nite subgroup of GLk (Q) where k = r0 (Aj+1 /Aj ). Let

Chapter 2. Ranks of groups 21

Sj as a completely irreducible soluble subgroup of GLk (Q). By a Maltsev theorem

[182] Sj is abelian-by-nite. By a result due to V.S. Charin [36], Sj includes a

normal free abelian subgroup of nite index. Hence Gj includes a normal free

abelian subgroup Uj such that Gj /Uj is nite. Put Dj = CGj (Uj ), then Gj /Dj

is nite, moreover |Gj /Dj | f1 (r). A subgroup Dj is central-by-nite, therefore

by a Schur theorem (see, for example, [234, Theorem 4.12]) the set Tj of all its

elements having nite order is a nite characteristic subgroup. By the choice of Gj

we have |Tj | f1 (r). By Lemma 1.7, Dj includes a characteristic abelian torsion-

free subgroup Kj such that Dj /Kj is nite. Moreover, |Dj /Kj | a(t)t2r+1 , where

t = f1 (r). HenceGj /Kj is nite and |Gj /Kj | a(t)t2r+2 .

Put C = 0jn1 Cj . By Remaks theorem G/L Dr0jn1 G/Cj , in

particular, G/C includes a nitely generated torsion-free abelian subgroup K/C

such that G/K is nite. Moreover,

= (a(f1 (r))r (f1 (r))(2(r+1)r = f2 (r).

at most r 1. We have now

The factor-group S/K is nite and soluble, hence s(S/K) d(|S/K|). From

the choice of S it follows that s(S/K) d(a(f1 (r))(f1 (r))2(r+1) ). Now we may put

f3 (r) = r + d(a(f1 (r))(f1 (r))2(r+1) ) r + log2 (a(f1 (r))(f1 (r))2(r+1) ).

Another way of calculating the function f3 (r) follows from the proof above.

By a Maltsev theorem [182] an irreducible soluble subgroup of GLr (Q) includes

a normal abelian subgroup of nite index at most (r) for some function :

N N . It follows that s(S) r + d((r)). Note that (r) r!(r2 a(r2 ))r (see,

for example, [280, pp. 45]), so that we may put f4 (r) = r + d(r!(r2 a(r2 ))r )

r + log2 ((r!(r2 a(r2 ))r ). Thus s(S) f4 (r).

Theorem 2.12 ([55]). Let G be a group and suppose that G has an ascending series

H = H 0 H 1 H H +1 H = G

such that r factors of this series are innite cyclic and the other factors are locally

nite. Then G has normal subgroups T L K S G such that T is

locally nite, L/T is nilpotent and torsion-free, K/L is abelian torsion-free and

nitely generated, G/K is nite and S/K is soluble. Moreover, there are functions

f2 , f3 : N N such that |G/K| f2 (r) and s(S/T ) f3 (r).

Proof. Put T = t(G) and apply Lemma 2.11 to the factor-group G/T .

22 Chapter 2. Ranks of groups

factors are locally nilpotent or locally nite. It is not hard to see that a generalized

radical group G has an ascending series of normal subgroups, whose factors are

locally nilpotent or locally nite. Note that a periodic generalized radical group is

locally nite. Therefore a periodic locally generalized radical group is locally nite

too. Thus we have

Corollary 2.13 ([55]). Let G be a locally generalized radical group. If G has nite

0-rank r, then G has normal subgroups T L K S G such that T is

locally nite, L/T is nilpotent and torsion-free, K/L is abelian torsion-free and

nitely generated, G/K is nite and S/K is soluble. Moreover, |G/K| f2 (r) and

s(S/T ) f3 (r).

Corollary 2.14 ([55]). Let G be a locally generalized radical group and T be the

maximal normal periodic subgroup of G. If G has a nite 0-rank r, then G/T

has nite special rank. Moreover, there is a function f5 : N N such that

r(G) f5 (r).

Indeed we can put f5 (r) = r + f2 (r).

Corollary 2.15 ([55]). Let G be a locally (soluble-by-nite) group. If G has a nite

0rank r, then G has normal subgroups T L K S G such that T is

locally nite, L/T is nilpotent and torsion-free, K/L is abelian torsion-free and

nitely generated, G/K is nite and S/K is soluble. Moreover, |G/K| f2 (r) and

s(S/T ) f3 (r).

This assertion is an essential specication [73, Lemma 2.12].

Corollary 2.16 (D.J.S. Robinson [245]). Let G be a locally (soluble-by-nite) group

of nite 0-rank. Then r0 (G) r(G).

Proof. Put r0 (G) = r. By Corollary 2.15, G has normal subgroups T L K

S G such that T is locally nite, L/T is nilpotent and torsion-free, K/L is

abelian torsion-free and nitely generated, G/K is nite and S/K is soluble. By

[293, Theorem 1], r0 (K/T ) = r(K/T ). It follows that r0 (G/T ) r(G/T ), and

because r0 (G/T ) = r0 (G) we have r0 (G) r(G).

We consider now the relationship between the 0-rank, and the p-rank of a

group. If A is an abelian group of nite p-rank, then, obviously, A has nite 0-

rank, and moreover r0 (A) rp (A). Now we show that the situation is the same

for soluble groups.

Lemma 2.17. Let G be a nilpotent torsion-free group of nite p-rank for some

prime p. Then G has nite 0-rank. Moreover r0 (G) 12 (rp (G) + 1)rp (G).

Proof. The group G has a central series

1 = Z0 Z1 Zn = G

Chapter 2. Ranks of groups 23

every factor of which is torsion-free (see D.J.S. Robinson [234, Theorem 2.25]).

Since every free abelian group of 0-rank s has an elementary abelian factor-group

of order ps , every factor of this series has nite 0-rank. Therefore, G has nite

0-rank. Put rp (G) = k. Let A be a maximal abelian normal subgroup of G. Then

CG (A) = A, and A is a pure subgroup. Since G is nilpotent, G/CG (A) can be

embedded in the unitriangular group U Tm (Q), where m = r0 (A). It follows that

1

r0 (G/CG (A)) (m 1)m

2

and so

1 1 1

r0 (G) m + (m 1)m = (m + 1)m (k + 1)k,

2 2 2

as required.

Theorem 2.18. Let G be a soluble group of nite section p-rank for some prime p.

Then G has nite 0-rank. Moreover r0 (G) 12 (rp (G) + 3)rp (G).

Proof. If U/V is a torsion-free abelian section of G, then clearly r0 (U/V ) rp (G).

It follows that G has nite 0-rank. Then G has a series of normal subgroups

T L G satisfying the following conditions: T is periodic, L/T has a nite

subnormal series, every factor of which is torsion-free abelian locally cyclic, and

G/L is nite. Without loss of generality, we may assume that T = 1. By V.S.

Charin [36, Theorem 5], G has a series of normal subgroups L S G such that

L is a torsion-free nilpotent subgroup, S/L is a free abelian group of nite 0-rank,

and G/S is nite. By Lemma 2.9,

1

r0 (L) (rp (G) + 1)rp (G),

2

and hence

1

r0 (G) r0 (L) + r0 (S/L) (rp (G) + 1)rp (G) + rp (G)

2

1

(rp (G) + 3)rp (G).

2

Chapter 3

In this book we will consider modules over group rings when the groups have cer-

tain features, for example, are near to nilpotency. In particular, we will consider

generalized nilpotent and generalized hypercentral groups, whose specic proper-

ties are the goals of this chapter. Nilpotent and hypercentral groups have arisen

from abelian groups with the help of the upper central series. We use a similar

construction for the groups that seem to be natural extensions of abelian groups.

We begin with the following generalization of an abelian group. Let G be a

group, and let S be a G-invariant subset of G. This means that for every a S

and g G, we have ag S. It follows that CG (S) is a normal subgroup of G.

The corresponding factor-group CocG (S) = G/CG (S) is called the cocentralizer

of the G-invariant set S in the group G (L.A. Kurdachenko [149]). Note that the

group G/CocG (S) is isomorphic to some subgroup of Aut(S). The inuence of the

cocentralizers of many objects related to a group on the structure of the group itself

is a subject of study in many branches of Group Theory. For instance, in the theory

of nite groups, many examples have been developed with the consideration of the

cocentralizers of chief factors, which play there a signicant role. For example, we

can mention Formation Theory since local formations are dened by cocentralizers

of the chief factors of the groups involved. In the theory of innite groups, many

types of groups appear in studying cocentralizers of their conjugacy classes. This

is our point of origin.

Let X be a class of groups. A group G is said to have X-conjugacy classes (or

G is anXC-group) if CocG (gG ) X for each g G. Thus, if X = I is the class of

all identity groups, then the class of IC-groups is exactly the class A of all abelian

groups. Therefore, the class of XC-groups is a generalization of the class of abelian

groups associated to the given class X. If X = F is the class of all nite groups,

then the FC-groups are the groups with nite conjugacy classes or F C-groups. This

class is a suitable extension both of F and A, so that it inherits many properties

of these classes. Currently, the theory of F C-groups is one of the best-developed

branches of the theory of innite groups, and many authors have made signicant

contributions to it (see the books Yu.M. Gorchakov [90], S.N. Chernikov [43],

26 Chapter 3. Some generalized nilpotent groups

D.J.S. Robinson [234, 242], M.J. Tomkinson [272], and the updated survey paper

M.J. Tomkinson [274]). Also the inuence of F C-groups on the structure of some

rings was a widely popular topic (see G. H. Cli and S.K. Sehgal [44], I.N. Herstein

[113], D.S. Passman [216, 217, 218], C. Polcino-Milies [222, 223], C. Polcino-Milies

and S.K. Sehgal [224], S.K. Sehgal [258, 259], S.K. Sehgal and H.J. Zassenhaus

[260, 261]). If X = C is the class of all Chernikov groups, then CC-groups are

the groups with Chernikov conjugacy classes or CC-groups. Ya.D. Polovicky [225]

introduced this class and obtained some initial results. Although CC-groups have

not been investigated as far as F C-groups, they are subjects of many recent papers

(see J. Alc

azar and J. Otal [1], S. Franciosi, F. de Giovanni and M.J. Tomkinson

[77], M. Gonz alez and J. Otal [86, 87, 88], M. Gonz alez, J. Otal and J.M. Pena

[89], J. Otal and J.M. Pena [209, 210, 211, 212, 213], J. Otal, J.M. Pe

na and M.J.

Tomkinson [214]). The study of XC-groups for other important classes X has only

recently begun (see S. Franciosi, F. de Giovanni and L.A. Kurdachenko [73], S.

Franciosi, F. de Giovanni and M.J. Tomkinson [76], L.A. Kurdachenko [149, 151],

L.A. Kurdachenko, V.N. Polyakov and I.Ya. Subbotin [161], L.A. Kurdachenko

and J. Otal [156], and L.A. Kurdachenko and I.Ya. Subbotin [169]).

The nature of F C-groups allows one to construct distinct types of such groups

using nite and abelian groups. Note that a direct product of F C-groups is also

an F C-group. In particular, any direct product of nite groups and abelian groups

is an F C-group. Moreover, let G = Cr G be the Cartesian product. Put

The group Cdr G is called the central direct product of the groups G , .

Clearly, a central direct product of nite and abelian groups is an F C-group.

Central-by-nite groups and groups with nite derived subgroups (nite-by-abel-

ian groups) deliver other examples of F C-groups. However, not every abelian-by-

nite group is an F C-group (but it is F C-nilpotent). Other classes of XC-groups

are more diverse. For example, a central direct product of Chernikov groups is a

CC-group, and a central-by-Chernikov group is a CC-group. However, not every

group with a Chernikov derived subgroup is a CC-group. This is true only for

periodic groups. This fact follows from the assertion that a periodic automorphism

group of a Chernikov group is Chernikov (see, for example [43, Corollary 1.18]).

Let G be a group. If X is a class of groups, then we put

enjoys richer properties. We select the most common classes of groups to study.

A class of groups X is said to be a formation of groups if the following conditions

are satised:

(F1) If G X , and H is a normal subgroup of G, then G/H X; and

Chapter 3. Some generalized nilpotent groups 27

(F2) If H, L are normal subgroups of a group G such that G/H, G/L X, then

G/(H L) X.

Actually, we have

Lemma 3.1. Let X be a formation of groups. If G is a group, then XC(G) is a

characteristic subgroup of G.

Proof. Since

CG (x1 G ) = CG (xG )

and

CG (xyG ) CG (xG ) CG (yG ),

for every x, y G, and X is a formation of groups, it readily follows that XC(G)

is a subgroup of G. If Aut G, then

CG (xG ) = CG (xG )

and thus

G/CG (xG )

= G/CG (xG )

for each x G. Thus XC(G) is a characteristic subgroup of G.

XC-center of the group G. The reason for this term appears to be very clear. If

X = I, F and C, we obtain the ordinary center (G), the F C-center F C(G) , and

the CC-center CC(G) of the group G, respectively. Of course, it is worth noting

that the group G is an XC-group if and only if G = XC(G).

Starting from the XC-center of a group G, we construct the upper XC-central

series of the group G,

1 = C0 C1 C C+1 C

The term C of the series is said to be the th -XC-hypercenter of G, whereas the

last term C is called the upper XC-hypercenter of G, and denoted by XC (G).

If XC (G) = G, then G is said to be XC-hypercentral . If moreover, is -

nite, then G is called XC-nilpotent . Once again, if X = J, X = F, and X = C,

then XC (G) = (G), XC C = F C (G), and XC (G) = CC (G), which

are called the upper hypercenter , the upper F C-hypercenter , and the upper CC-

hypercenter of the group G, respectively.

Lemma 3.2. Let X be a formation of groups closed under taking subgroups (that

G G

is, X = SX). If G is a group, g1 , . . . , gs XC(G), and H = g1 gs , then

H is a central-by-X-group.

28 Chapter 3. Some generalized nilpotent groups

Proof. Clearly,

Moreover

G G

H/C

H/(H CG (g1 )) H/(H CG (gs )).

Since

H/(H CG (gj G )) G G G

= HCG (gj ))/CG (gj ) G/CG (gj )),

Corollary 3.3. Let X be a formation of locally nite groups closed under taking

subgroups, and let G be an XC-group. Then

(1) The commutator subgroup [G, G] is locally nite.

(2) If G is torsion-free, then G is abelian.

(3) If H is a torsion-free normal subgroup, then H (G).

G

(4) If g G and L = g , then either L is locally nite or L includes a G-

invariant locally nite subgroup T such that H/T is innite cyclic.

G G

Proof. (1) Let g1 , . . . , gs G , and put H = g1 gs . By Lemma 3.2, H

is a central-by-X-group. As a consequence of a result due to Schur (see D. J.

S. Robinson [234, Corollary of Theorem 4.12]), [H, H] is locally nite. Therefore

[G, G] is locally nite.

(2) and (3) are obvious.

(4) By (1), [L, L] is locally nite. It is immediate that the elements of nite

order of the abelian group L/[L, L] form a characteristic subgroup T /[L, L]. It

follows that T is a G-invariant subgroup of L , and either L/T is a non-identity

torsion-free abelian or T = L. In the rst case, we note that L/T (G/T ) by

G/T

(3). Note that L/T = gT so that L/T = gT .

G G

Corollary 3.4. Let G be a group, x1 , . . . , xs F C(G), and H = g1 gs .

Then:

(1) H is a nitely generated subgroup.

(2) H is central-by-nite.

(3) Either H is nite or H includes a G-invariant nite subgroup T such that

H/T is a nitely generated free abelian group.

Proof. Since each xj F C(G), G/CG ((xj )G ) is nite, in particular, |G : CG (xj )|

is nite. It follows that each xj has nitely many conjugates in G, and then H is

nitely generated, which gives (1).

Chapter 3. Some generalized nilpotent groups 29

(3) By a Theorem of Schur (see D. J .S. Robinson [234, Corollary of Theorem

4.12]), the commutator subgroup [H, H] is nite. The group H/[H, H] is nitely

generated and abelian, hence its elements of nite order form a characteristic

nite subgroup T /[H, H]. Then H/T is a torsion-free nitely generated abelian

group.

Our next goal is to obtain some elementary properties of the class of XC-

groups, when X is a formation of groups, which is a slight extension of the class F

of nite groups.

Lemma 3.5. Let G be a group, and suppose that G/C is an abelian Chernikov

group, where C = (G). Assume that H is a subgroup of G such that H C,

H/C = h1 C hn C and |hj C| = psj , where p is a prime and sj N for

1 j n. Then [G, H] is a nite p-subgroup of C, and rp ([G, H]) nrp (G/C).

Proof. If 1 j n, we consider the mapping j : G C given by gj =

[g, hj ], g G. We have

= [g1 , hj ][g2 , hj ] = g1 j g2 j

Ker j = CG (hj ) are normal subgroups of G. Furthermore,

sj

and it follows that [g, htj ] = [g, hj ]t for every t N. Since hpj C, we have

sj

psj

1= [g, hpj ] = [g, hj ] . By the isomorphism

[G, hj ] = Im j

= G/ Ker j = G/CG (hj )

and the inclusion C CG (hj ), we obtain that [G, hj ] is a nite p-subgroup, and

rp ([G, hj ]) rp (G/C).

It is easy to see that

It follows that [G, H] is a nite p-subgroup, and rp ([G, H]) nrp (G/C).

Corollary 3.6. Let G be a group, and suppose that G/C is an abelian Chernikov

group, where C = (G). If P/C is the Sylow p-subgroup of G/C, where p is a

prime, then [G, P ] is a Chernikov p-subgroup of C, and rp ([G, P ]) rp (G/C)2 .

Proof. We have

P/C = U1 /C Un /C

30 Chapter 3. Some generalized nilpotent groups

ufer p-subgroups or cyclic p-subgroups. There-

fore, P has an ascending chain of subgroups

G = P0 P1 Ps

such that Ps /C is a direct product of n cyclic subgroups , and P = sN Ps . It

follows that [G, P ] has an ascending chain of subgroups

such that [G, P ] = sN [G, Ps ] . By Lemma 3.5, [G, Ps ] is a nite p-subgroup of

C , and rp ([G, Ps ]) n2 , for each s N. Thus rp ([G, P ]) n2 . This implies that

[G,P] is Chernikov (see L. Fuchs [78, Theorem 25.1]).

Corollary 3.7. Let G be a group, and suppose that G/C is an abelian Chernikov

group, where C = (G). Then the commutator subgroup [G, G] is Chernikov.

Proof. Suppose that

G/C = Drp(G/C) Sp /C

where Sp /C is the Sylow p-subgroup of G/C. By Corollary 3.6, each [G, Sp ] is a

Chernikov p-subgroup. It is easy to see that

Lemma 3.8. Let G be an abelian-by-nite group, and put C = (G). If G/C is

Chernikov, then [G, G] is Chernikov.

Proof. Let A be a normal abelian subgroup of nite index, and suppose that

{x1 , . . . , xs } is a transversal to H in G. For every 1 j s, we consider the

mapping j : A A given by aj = [gj , a], a A. Since

2 [gj , a1 ]a2

= [gj , a1 ][gj , a2 ] = a1 j a2 j ,

j is an endomorphism of A. Therefore

[gj , A] = Im j

= A/ Ker j = A/CA (gj ).

Since CA CA (gj ), A/CA (gj ) is Chernikov , and it follows that for any 1 j s

[gj , A] is Chernikov too. Put

B = [g1 , A] [gs , A]

g gj A , and so g = gj u, for some u A. Then

Chapter 3. Some generalized nilpotent groups 31

This means that [G, A] = B. Thus A/B (G/B), and, in particular, G/B is

central-by-nite. By a classical result due to Schur (see D.J.S. Robinson [234,

Theorem 4.12]), the commutator subgroup K/B = [G/B, G/B] is nite. Hence K

is Chernikov, and G/K is abelian.

Theorem 3.9. Let G be a group. If G/(G) is a Chernikov group, then the com-

mutator subgroup [G, G] is likewise Chernikov.

Proof. Put C = (G), and let D/C be the divisible part of G/C. By Corollary

3.7, [D, D] is Chernikov. Since G/[D, D] is abelian-by-nite, it suces to apply

Lemma 3.8.

The above result is a generalization of the already mentioned theorem of

Schur. Now we are making use of it to describe the normal closures of elements of

the CC-groups.

Lemma 3.10 (L.A. Kurdachenko [144]). Let G be a hypercentral group. Suppose that

A is an abelian normal p-subgroup of G, where p is a prime, such that G/CG (A)

has no subgroups of index p. Then A (G).

Proof. Suppose the contrary, that is (G) contains no A. Then A(G)/(G) is a

non-identity normal subgroup of the hypercentral group G/(G), and hence there

exists some a (A 2 (G)) \ (G). Since A is a p-subgroup, we may assume that

ap (G). Then the mapping : g [g, a], g G is an endomorphism of G such

that [G, a] = Im = 1 since a (G). Actually, since ap (G), [G, a]p = 1,

and so Im is an elementary abelian p-subgroup. Since

[G, a] = Im

= G/ Ker = G/CG (a),

we deduce that G/CG (a) is an elementary abelian p-group as well. Since CG (A)

CG (a), and G/CG (A) has no subgroups of index p, this is a contradiction.

Lemma 3.11. Let G be a CC-group, and suppose that A is a normal abelian p-

subgroup of G, where p is a prime. Then G/CG (A) has no abelian divisible sub-

groups.

Proof. Suppose the contrary, and let D/CG (A) be a non-identity abelian divisible

subgroup. Pick g D \ CG (A). Then the mapping g : a [g, a], a A is an

endomorphism of A. For each n N, we put An = p,n (A). Since G is a CC-

group, G/CG (gG ) is a Chernikov group, and, in particular, An /(An CG (gG ))

is Chernikov. This means that An /(An CG (g)) is likewise Chernikov. Since the

orders of the elements of An /(An CG (g)) are bounded, this factor-group has

to be nite. As D/CG (A) is abelian, g is in fact a ZD-endomorphism. Now

D/CD (An /(An CG (g)) is nite, and CD (An /(An CG (g)) CG (A), so, we

deduce D = CD (An /(An CG (g)). In other words, [D, An ] An CG (g). As

the above argument holds for any n N, we conclude that [D, A] CA (g). This

means that

[D, A] CA (g) = CA (D),

gD

32 Chapter 3. Some generalized nilpotent groups

Corollary 3.12. Let G be a CC-group, and suppose that A is a periodic abelian

normal subgroup of G. Then G/CG (A) has no abelian divisible subgroups. In par-

ticular, if G/CG (A) is Chernikov, then it is nite.

Proof. Suppose the contrary, and let D/CG (A) be a non-identity divisible abelian

subgroup. If p (A), we decompose A = Ap Ep , where Ap is the Sylow p-

subgroup of A, and Ep is the Sylow p -subgroup of A. By Lemma 3.11, [D, A] Ep ,

and then

[D, A] Ep = 1 .

p(A)

Theorem 3.13 (Ya.D. Polovicky [225]). Let G be a CC-group. If g G and H =

< g >G , then either H is a Chernikov subgroup or H has a G-invariant Chernikov

subgroup T such that H/T is innite cyclic.

Proof. By Lemma 3.2, H is central-by-Chernikov, and, by Theorem 3.9, [H, H] is

Chernikov. Thus, we may assume that H is abelian. Let T be the periodic part

of H (denition below). By Corollary 3.5, H/T is an innite cyclic group. If H

is periodic, then G/CG (H) is nite by Corollary 3.12. It follows that g F C(G).

Thus H is nite by Corollary 3.4.

Suppose now that H = T . Then H = g, T , and the order of g has to

be innite. Let D/CG (H) be the divisible part of G/CG (H). By Corollary 3.12,

D CG (T ). Also H/T (G/T ) by Corollary 3.3. Consider the mapping g :

d [g, d], d D. If d1 , d2 D, then

2 [g, d1 ]d2

= [g, d1 ][g, d2 ] = d1 g d2 g

G

CD (g) are D-invariant. Since G is a CC-group, G/CG (g ) is a Chernikov group,

so that D/(D CG (g)) is Chernikov too. As

[g, D] = Im g

= D/ Ker g = D/CD (g),

[g, D] is Chernikov. Let x G. Since H/T (G/T ), there exists some v T

such that g x = gv. If d D, then

= [g, dx ] [g, D],

D CG (T ) , and H = g, T , D/[g, D] CG/[g,D] (H/[g, D]). In other words,

(G/[g, D])/CG/[g,D] (H/[g, D]) is nite. By Corollary 3.4, T /[g, D] is nite, and

then T is Chernikov.

Chapter 3. Some generalized nilpotent groups 33

Proof. Since (G) = 1,

G

CG (g ) = 1 .

gG

Then, if S G a nite subset of non-identity elements of G, there is a normal

subgroup U of G such that S U = , and G/U is a Chernikov group. Let

1 = x G, and put X = xG . By Theorem 3.13, either X is Chernikov or X has

a G-invariant Chernikov subgroup Y such that X/Y = xY . Let C =SocG (X).

Since C Y , C is nite. Therefore, there exists a normal subgroup H such that

H C = 1, and G/H is Chernikov. Put B = H X, and K = [G, B]. By

Corollary 3.3, the commutator subgroup [G, G] is locally nite , and then K Y .

If K = 1, then K C = 1. But B H, and H is a normal subgroup of G,

hence K H , and it follows that K C = 1. This means that [G, B] = 1,

that is B (G) = 1 , and H X = 1. Since

X

= X/(X H)

= XH/H G/H,

By Theorem 3.13, every CC-group is F C-hypercentral. To nish this chapter,

we deduce some elementary properties of F C-hypercentral groups.

Lemma 3.15. Let X be a formation of groups. Given a group G, we put P =

XC(G), and Q = XC (G). If H is a non-identity G-invariant subgroup of Q,

then H P = 1.

Proof. Let

1 = C0 C1 C C+1 C = Q

be the upper XC-central series of G. There exists an ordinal such that H C =

1. Let be the least ordinal with this property. Clearly cannot be a limit,

G

so that H C1 = 1. Pick 1 = x H C , and put X = x . Since

xC1 C /C1 , G/CG (XC1 /C1 ) X. Let g CG (XC1 /C1 ). Then

[g, X] C1 . On the other hand [g, X] H since H is a normal subgroup of G.

Thus [g, X] H C1 = 1, which means that CG (XC1 /C1 ) CG (X).

In particular, G/CG (X) X since X is a formation. Hence X P , and this gives

the required result.

Corollary 3.16. Let X be a formation of groups. If A is a non-identity normal

subgroup of an XC-hypercentral group G, then A XC(G) = 1.

Lemma 3.17. Let X be a formation of nite groups closed under taking subgroups,

and let G be a nitely generated XC-nilpotent group. Then G is a nilpotent-by-X-

group. In particular, G is polycyclic-by-nite.

34 Chapter 3. Some generalized nilpotent groups

Proof. Let

1 = F0 F1 Fn = G

be the upper XC-central series of G. It suces to show that G/CG (Fj+1 /Fj ) X,

for every 0 j n 1. We carry this out by induction on n.

If n = 1, then G is an XC-group , and it suces to apply Lemma 3.2. Let

now n > 1, and assume that we have already proved that G/CG (Fj+1 /Fj ) X

for every 1 j < n. Put

Then G/H X, and H/F1 is nilpotent (see O. H. Kegel and B.A.F. Wehrfritz [134,

Theorem 1.C.1]). In particular, G/F1 is nitely presented (see D.J.S. Robinson

[234, Corollary 1.43]), and it follows that

G G

F1 = g1 gs

G G

U = CG (g1 ) CG (gs ).

(see O.H. Kegel and B.A.F. Wehrfritz [134, Theorem 1.C.1]).

Corollary 3.18. A nitely generated F C-nilpotent group G is nilpotent-by-nite.

In particular, G is polycyclic-by-nite.

Proposition 3.19. Let X be a formation of nite groups closed under taking sub-

groups, and let G be an XC-hypercentral group. If Y is a nitely generated subgroup

of G, then Y is a nilpotent-by-X-group.

Proof. Let

1 = G0 G1 G G = G

be the upper XC-central series of G. We consider the following set of ordinals,

= { | Y /(Y G ) is a nilpotent-by-X-group}.

Since

Y = (Y G ),

as claimed. Suppose that > 0. If is not a limit, then

(Y G )/(Y G1 ) = (Y G )/(G Y G1 )

= (Y G )G1 /G1 ,

Chapter 3. Some generalized nilpotent groups 35

and, in particular,

too. This fact contradicts the choice of .

Hence has to be a limit ordinal whenever > 0. Since Y /(Y G ) is nitely

presented,

Y G = y1 , . . . , ys G ,

for some y1 , . . . , ys Y G (see D.J.S. Robinson [234, Corollary 1.43] again).

Then there exists an ordinal < such that y1 , . . . , ys G , so that Y G =

Y G , and we get a new contradiction, which shows that the case > 0 cannot

occur.

Corollary 3.20. Let G be an F C-hypercentral group. If X is a nitely generated

subgroup of G, then X is nilpotent-by-nite.

Chapter 4

In studying further properties of artinian modules, the concept of the socle of the

module has appeared to be very functional. We develop here a slight extension of

this concept, which in its original form is due to R. Remak [226].

Let R be a ring, and let A be an R-module. The submodule SocR (A) gener-

ated by all minimal R-submodules of A is said to be the R-socle of A. If A has no

such minimal submodules, we dene SocR (A) = 0.

Lemma 4.1. Let R be a ring, and let A be an R-module. If M is a family of minimal

R-submodules of A and B is the submodule generated by all members of M, then

B is a direct sum of some elements of M.

Proof. If = S M, then S is said to be independent if the submodule S

generated by all members of S is the direct sum of them, that is, S = XS X.

Clearly, every atomic subfamily is independent. Let L be the set of all independent

subfamilies of M. If S is a linearly ordered (by inclusion) subset of L, we put

C= H

HS

subset Z = {X1 , . . . , Xr } of C, pick some c Xj Xi | l = j. Since S is linearly

ordered, there is some D S such that Z D. As the submodule generated

by allmembers of D is the direct sum XD X, it follows that c = 0, so that

C = XC X, and therefore C is also independent. By Zorns Lemma, M contains

a maximal independent

subfamily

R.

Put E = XR X = XR X. If we assume that E = B, then there is a

minimal R-submodule U M such that E contains no U . Then U E = 0 , and

so E + U = E U . This means that R {U } is an independent family, which

contradicts the choice of R. This contradiction shows that E = B, as required.

Corollary 4.2. Let A be a module over a ring R. Suppose that A =SocR (A). If B

is an R-submodule of A, then:

38 Chapter 4. Artinian modules and the socle

(2) A = B M whenever M is a maximal R-submodule of A under M B = 1.

(3) If M denotes the family of all minimal R-submodules of B, then B is gener-

ated by all members of M.

Proof. (1) is obvious.

(2) Suppose that A = B M . Then A/M = BM/M . Since A/M is gener-

ated by minimal R-submodules, there is a minimal R-submodule U/M such that

BM/M contains no U/M . Hence U/M BM/M = 0 , and then U BM = M .

Thus M = U BM = M (U B); that is, U B M . It follows that

U B = M (U B) = (M U ) B = M B = 0 ,

(3) is an immediate consequence of (1) and (2).

Corollary 4.3. Let R be a ring, and let A be an R-module. Then the following

statements are equivalent.

(1) A is a sum of simple R-submodules.

(2) A is a direct sum of simple R-submodules.

(3) For every R-submodule B, there is an R-submodule C such that A = B C.

Proof. (1) (2) has been proved in Lemma 4.1.

(2) (3). Let B be a non-zero R-submodule of A. By Corollary 4.2, B =

M , where M is a simple R-submodule for each . This means that the

family {M | } is independent. Then there is a maximal independent

family

M, such that {M | } M. We have already seen that A = MM M . If

L = M \ {M | } , and C = ML M , then A = B C, as required.

(3) (1). Let 0 = a A, and put E = aR. Obviously a does not lie

in any proper R-submodule of E. Therefore the union of any ascending chain of

proper submodules of E cannot reach E itself. By Zorns Lemma, E has a maximal

proper R-submodule V . In particular, E/V is a simple R-module. By (3), there

is a submodule U such that A = V U . Since V E, the modular law gives

that E = V (E U ). Since E/V = E U , E U is a simple R-submodule. In

particular, S =SocR (A) = 0. If S = A, then A = S W for some R-submodule

W . Again we choose an element 0 = w W , and consider the submodule wR.

We have already proved that wR has a simple R-submodule M . It follows that

M S. But M wR W and W S = 0. This contradiction shows that

A =SocR (A).

A non-zero module A over a ring R is said to be a semisimple R-module if A =

SocR (A). By Lemma 4.1, A is a semisimple R-module if and only if A is a (direct)

sum of simple R-submodules so that semisimplicity is an equivalent condition to

the corresponding condition of Corollary 4.3. Moreover, it is immediate to obtain

Chapter 4. Artinian modules and the socle 39

(1) If B is a an R-submodule of A, then B and A/B are likewise semisimple

R-modules.

(2) If A = A , where every A is a simple R-submodule, and C is a simple

R-submodule of A, then there is an index such that C

= A .

Proposition

4.5. Let R be a commutative ring and A an R-module. Suppose that

A = A , where the A are simple R-submodules isomorphic each to other.

If 0 = a A, then aR is a simple R-submodule.

Proof. We have

a = a1 + + ak ,

where ai A(j) , and (j) , 1 j k. Suppose that a1 = 0. Put B = aR ,

and let be the restriction to B of the canonical projection from A to A(1) . If

ax Ker , then

0 = (ax) = (a)x = a1 x.

Let : A(1) A(1) be the mapping given by b = bx if b A(1) . Then

Ker = 0 because a1 x = 0. Since R is commutative, Ker is an R-submodule

of A(1) . It follows that Ker = A(1) ; that is, A(1) x = 0. Since A(1)

=R A

for every , A x = 0, and so

ax = a1 x + + ak x = 0.

With the aid of the socle we obtain the next characterization of artinian

modules. The group-theoretical analogue of this result was obtained by R. Baer

[5]. Recall that an R-module A has nite composition length if there is a nite

series of submodules

0 = A0 A1 An = A

whose factors Ai+1 /Ai are all simple (a nite composition series). It is known that

a module has nite composition length if and only if it is noetherian and artinian.

However we have

Theorem 4.6. An R-module A is artinian if and only if the socle of every non-zero

factor-module of A is non-zero, and has nite composition length.

Proof. If A is artinian and B is a submodule of A, by Lemma 1.2, A/B is artinian.

It follows that SocR (A/B) = 0 and, by Corollary 4.3, the socle clearly has nite

composition length.

Conversely, let

40 Chapter 4. Artinian modules and the socle

and S = < S for every limit ordinal . Let B be a non-zero submodule of

A. Then there is a least ordinal such that C = B S = 0. Clearly, cannot

be a limit ordinal. In particular, S1 B = 0 , and then

C

= C/(C S1 )

= (C + S1 )/S1 S /S1 .

zero simple submodule, and then B S1 = 0. Hence every non-zero submodule

of A has non-zero intersection with the R-socle.

Suppose that A has an innite strictly descending chain of submodules

Replacing A by A/( nN An ), we may assume that nN An = 0. Since S1 has

nite composition length, and An S1 = 0 for each n N, there is some m N

such that Aj S1 = Am S1 for every j m. However, in this case

An Am S1 .

nN

Let A be an R-module. Starting from the socle we dene the upper socular

series or the ascending Loewy series of A as

0 = S0 S1 S S ,

whereS1 =SocR (A), and S+1 /S =SocR (A/S ) for a given ordinal . Note that

S = < S for any limit ordinal . The least ordinal such that S = S+1 is

called the socular height of A.

Lemma 4.7. Let R be a ring and A an R-module. Suppose that

0 = S0 S1 S S

ascending series of submodules

0 = B0 B1 B B = B

Proof. We proceed by transnite induction. Clearly, B1 SocR (A) = S1 . Let

> 1 , and suppose that B S for all ordinals < . If is a limit ordinal,

then

B = < B < S = S .

Chapter 4. Artinian modules and the socle 41

(B + S1 )/S1

= B /(B S1 )

and

B S1 B1 .

By Corollary 4.4, (B + S1 )/S1 is semisimple, and hence

(B + S1 )/S1 SocR (A/S1 ) = S /S1 .

Therefore B S in this case. Applying induction, B = B S .

Corollary 4.8. Let B be a submodule of an R-module A. If

0 = B0 B1 B

and

0 = S0 S1 S

are the upper socular series of B, and A respectively, then B = S B for any

.

Proof. Indeed B S by Lemma 4.7. Since S B has an ascending series of

length with semisimple factors, Lemma 4.7 yields that S B B , and

then we obtain the equality S B = B .

Concerning the height of the socular series of A and related questions, we

will show some interesting results due to B. Hartley [105].

Lemma 4.9. The socular height of an R-module A is the supremum of the socular

heights of the cyclic submodules of A.

Proof. Let be the supremum of the socle heights of all cyclic submodules of A.

Let

0 = S0 S1 S S

be the upper socular series of A. Given an ordinal < , then there exists a cyclic

submodule B having an upper socular series

0 = B0 B1 B

such that > . In particular, B = B+1 . By Corollary 4.8,

B = B S < B+1 = B S+1 , so that S = S+1 .

On the other hand, assume that S = S+1 . Then S+1 has a cyclic submodule

D such that D

S . Let

0 = D0 D1 D

be the upper socular series of D. By Corollary 4.8, D = S D = S+1 D =

D+1 , which contradicts the choice of . Consequently, , and the result has

just been shown.

42 Chapter 4. Artinian modules and the socle

Corollary 4.10 ([105]). Let R be a ring with cardinality m, and let be the least

ordinal of cardinal greater than m. Then the socular height of any R-module is at

most .

Proof. Let A be an R-module, and pick a cyclic submodule C of A. Then C =

R/AnnR (C). It follows that |C| m, and then the socular height of C is an ordinal

of cardinal at most m. Since is an upper bound for all these ordinals, the result

follows from Lemma 4.9.

Corollary 4.11 ([105]). Let R be an innite ring with cardinality m, and let m+ be

the least cardinal greater than m. Then every artinian R-module has cardinal at

most m+ .

Proof. Let A be an artinian R-module, and let

0 = S0 S1 S

S+1 /S has nite composition length for every < . By Corollary 4.10, ,

where is the least ordinal of cardinal m+ . Every factor S+1 /S is a direct sum

of simple R-submodules, and nitely many of them can appear. Since a simple

R-module is a homomorphic image of the R-module R, its cardinal is at most m.

Therefore |S+1 /S | m for each < . Since the number of these factors is at

most m+ , we conclude |A| mm+ = m+ as required.

Hartley [105]).

Theorem 4.12. An artinian module A over a commutative ring R has socular

height at most , the rst innite ordinal. In particular, if R is countable so is A.

Proof. Let a A. Then aR = R/AnnR (a). Since R is commutative, J = AnnR (a)

is a two-sided ideal of R, and then R/J becomes an artinian ring. It follows

that R/J is also noetherian (see R. Sharp [263, Theorem 8.44]). Hence aR is

simultaneously artinian and noetherian, and therefore it has a nite composition

series. In particular, the upper socular series of aR is nite. It follows from Lemma

4.9 that the socle height of A is at most .

Since A is artinian, A itself is the last term of the upper socle series. Hence

A has an ascending series of submodules

0 = A0 A1 Am = A

whose factors are simple. In particular, An+1 /An is R-isomorphic to some factor

module of the R-module R.

Suppose that R is countable. Then every factor An+1 /An is countable. Hence

A is likewise countable.

Chapter 4. Artinian modules and the socle 43

Even in the case of artinian modules over countable group rings, we cannot

guarantee that an artinian module is countable, as the following result shows.

Recall that a module A is called uniserial if the set of all submodules of A is well

ordered by inclusion. The ordinal corresponding to the order type of the set of

the proper submodules of a uniserial module is called the length of this module.

Clearly every uniserial module is artinian.

Proposition 4.13 ([105]). Let F be an arbitrary eld, and let G be the free group

freely generated by a countably innite subset X. Then there exists a uniserial mod-

ule A over the group ring F G of length , where denotes the rst uncountable

ordinal.

Proof. Suppose that X = {xn | n N}, and let A be a vector space over F with

basis {a | < }. For each 0 < < , the set of ordinals < is countable, and

so we may choose a bijective mapping f from N onto that set. For each n N,

we dene a linear transformation n of A by

a n = a + af (n) if 0 < < , and a0 n = a0 .

Since f (n) < , every is annihilated by some power of n 1, and so the

power series for (1 + (n 1))1 represents a well-dened linear transformation of

A that will be the inverse of n . Therefore n is an F -automorphism of A, and we

can make A into an F G-module
via the mapping xn n , n N.

For each < , let A = < F a . Clearly every A is an F G-submodule

of A, and the proof of this proposition will be completed by showing
that the set

of all submodules of A is exactly {A | < }. To do this, let a = < a be

an arbitrary non-zero element of A, where all but nitely many of the coecients

are zero, F , < . We put

Supp a = { | = 0}.

We dene the height of a to be the largest ordinal such that = 0, and prove by

transnite induction that any element of height generates A+1 as F G-module.

This clearly holds with = 0. Let 0 < < , and suppose that the claim holds

for all < . Let

b= a

<

1 < < k < .

Since f is surjective, f (t) = k for some t N. Then b(t 1) = c + a , where

= k and c is a linear combination of certain a with < k . The F G-submodule

B generated by b contains an element b(t 1), which has height k , and hence

this submodule contains A+1 by induction hypothesis. But then B also contains

a = b a ,

44 Chapter 4. Artinian modules and the socle

where = f (n) for all n N. Since f is surjective, A+1 B. Equality is clear.

It now follows that if T is an arbitrary submodule of A and is the largest

ordinal such that A T , then every non-zero element of T has height less than

; that is, T A . Hence T = A , and the proof is complete.

B. Hartley [105] has also constructed examples of uncountable artinian mod-

ules over group rings. For the readers convenience, we mention here some of his

important results without proof.

Let p = q be primes, and let Q be a Pr ufer q-group. There exists a simple

Fp Q-module A such that CQ (A) = 0 (see L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya.

Subbotin [157, Corollary 2.4]). Consider the natural semidirect product G = AQ.

This group is called the Charin group (it was constructed by V.S. Charin [33]).

Theorem 4.14 ([105]). Let G be a Charin group, and let r be a prime such that

r (G). Then there exists a uniserial Fr G-module of length .

Let D = d c be the dihedral group of order 8, such that |d| = 4, |c| = 2,

and dc = d1 . For every n Ndenote by Dn = dn cn be an isomorphic copy

of D. Put R =DrnN Dn , E = d2n d2n+1 | n N , and U = R/E.

Theorem 4.15 ([105]). Let F be a eld of characteristic other than 2. Then there

exists a uniserial F U -module of length .

Chapter 5

then A is trivially an RH-module, and the following questions naturally arise:

What properties of the RG-module A does the RH-module A inherit?

What can be said of A as an RH-module?

For example, if A is noetherian or artinian as an RG-module, it is rather easy

to see that these properties are no longer true when A is viewed as an RH-module.

Despite this, a famous result due to J.S. Wilson [284] shows that the properties of

being artinian and being noetherian are inherited when H has nite index in G.

This result is the key to signicant applications and further results in the study

of simplicity, the existence of important decompositions, and many other topics.

Also we consider here another main result, the classical Maschkes theorem, which

we will discuss in the most general form.

We will give here a module version of Wilsons theorem.

Let R be a ring, G a group, and A an RG-module. If B is an R-submodule

of A and T is a subset of G, then we dene BT as the RT -submodule generated

by B; that is,

BT = Bt.

tT

subgroup of G and T is a subset of G such that G = HT . If B is an RH-submodule

of A, then {Bx | x G} = {Bt | t T } and the subsets BT and tT Bt are

RG-submodules.

The proof is immediate.

Theorem 5.2 (J.S. Wilson [284]). Let R be a ring, G a group and A an RG-module.

Suppose that H is a normal subgroup of G having nite index. If A is an artinian

RG-module, then A is an artinian RH-module.

46 Chapter 5. Reduction to subgroups of nite index

Proof. Suppose the contrary: that is, A does not satisfy Min-RH. Then the family

M of all RG-submodules B of A that does not satisfy Min-RH is not empty. Since

A is an artinian RG-module, M has a minimal element M . Let S be the set of all

non-empty nite subsets X of G with the following property: If {Cn | n N } is

a strictly innite descending chain of RH-submodules of M , then M = Cn X for

all n N.

Let T be a transversal to H in G. Then G = HT . By Lemma 5.1, Cn T is an

RG-submodule of M . We claim that Cn T = M . Otherwise, by the choice of M ,

Cn T is an artinian RH-module. It follows that there exists some m n such that

Cm+j = Cm for every j N, contradicting the choice of the chain {Cn | n N}.

Thus our claim has just been proven and so Cn T = M for all n N. Therefore

T S and then S = .

We now choose a minimal element X of S. If x X, then Xx1 S. In

particular, Xx1 is a minimal element of S containing 1. Replacing X by Xx1 , we

may assume that 1 X. Clearly X = 1, so that Y = X \1 is a non-empty nite

subset of G. By the minimality of X, Y S. Given a strictly innite descending

chain of RH-submodules {Cn | n N} of M , we put En = Cn Cn Y for every

n N. Clearly En is an RH-submodule and En En+1 for every n N. Suppose

that there exists some k N such that Ek+1 = Ek . Since X S, Ck+1 X = M

and

= Ck+1 + (Ck Ck+1 Y ) Ck+1 + (Ck Ck Y )

= Ck+1 + Ek = Ck+1 + Ek+1 = Ck+1 .

shows that En = En+1 for every n N. In other words, {En | n N} is a strictly

innite descending chain of RH-submodules of M . Consequently, En X = M for

all n N and

Cn = Cn M = Cn En X = Cn (En + En Y )

= En + (Cn En Y ) En + (Cn Cn Y ) = En .

We have now

Cn X = Cn + Cn Y = En + Cn Y = (Cn Cn Y ) + Cn Y = Cn Y

for every n N. This means that Y S, which contradicts the choice of X. Hence,

A is an artinian RH-module, as required.

Theorem 5.3 ([284]). Let R be a ring, G a group, and A an RG-module. Suppose

that H is a normal subgroup of G having nite index. If A is a noetherian RG-

module, then A is a noetherian RH-module.

Proof. Suppose the contrary: that is, A does not satisfy Max-RH. Then the family

M of all RG-submodules B of A such that A/B does not satisfy Max-RH is not

Chapter 5. Reduction to subgroups of nite index 47

be the set of all non-empty nite subsets X of G with the following property: If

{Cn | n N} is a strictly innite ascending chain of RH-submodules containing

M , then

M= Cn x = CoreX Cn

xX

f or all n N.

Let T be a transversal to H in G. Then G = HT . Let n N. By Lemma

5.1, CoreT Cn is an RG-submodule containing M . We claim that CoreT Cn = M .

Otherwise, by the choice of M , A/CoreT Cn is a noetherian RH-module. It follows

that there exists some m n such that Cm+j = Cm for every j N, contradicting

the choice of the chain {Cn | n N}. Thus our claim has just been proven and so

CoreT Cn = M for all n N. Therefore T S and then S = .

We now choose a minimal element X of S. As in the proof of Theorem 5.2, we

may assume that 1 X. Clearly X = 1, so that Y = X \1 is a non-empty nite

subset of G. By the minimality of X, Y S. Given a strictly innite ascending

chain of RH-submodules {Cn | n N} including M , we put En = Cn +CoreY Cn

for every n N. Clearly En is an RH-submodule and En En+1 for every

n N. Suppose that there exists some k N such that Ek+1 = Ek . Since X S,

CoreX Ck+1 = M and

= Ck+1 (Ck + CoreY Ck+1 ) Ck+1 Ek = Ck+1 Ek+1

= Ck+1 (Ck+1 + CoreY Ck+1 )

= Ck+1 + (Ck+1 CoreY Ck+1 ) = Ck+1 .

Thus Ck = Ck+1 , which contradicts the choice of {Cn | n N}. This contradiction

shows that En = En+1 for every n N. In other words, {En | n N} is a

strictly innite ascending chain of RH-submodules including M . Consequently,

CoreX Ek+1 = M for all n N. Hence,

= En (Cn + CoreY En ) En

and so Cn = En . Thus

= (Cn + CoreY Cn ) CoreY Cn = CoreY Cn

for every n N. This means that Y S. This contradicts the choice of X. Hence,

A is a noetherian RH-module, as required.

48 Chapter 5. Reduction to subgroups of nite index

H is a normal subgroup of G and let B be an RH-submodule of A.

(1) If g G, then Bg is likewise an RH-submodule. Moreover:

(a) If B is noetherian, then so is Bg.

(b) If B is artinian, then so is Bg.

(c) If B is simple, then so is Bg.

(2) If

A is a simple RG-module and B is a simple RH-submodule, then A =

gS Bg, for some S G. In particular, A is a semisimple RH-module.

(a) Let {Cn | n N} be an ascending chain of RH-submodules of Bg.

Then {Cn g 1 | n N} is an ascending chain of RH-submodules of B. Since B is

noetherian, there is some m N such that Cm g 1 = Cm+n g 1 , for all n N. It

follows that Cm = (Cm+n g 1 )g = Cm+n , for all n N, which shows the required

result.

(b) This proof is similar.

(c) Let C be a non-zero RH-submodule of Bg. If Cg 1 = 0, then C = 0,

1 1

Cg = B and so C = (Cg )g = Bg. Hence, Bg is simple.

a contradiction. Thus

(2) Put C = gG Bg so that C is an RG-submodule of A. Since C = 0,

we have that C = A. Then it suces to apply Corollary 4.3.

The following result appears in the papers of B. Hartley [102] and D.I. Zaitsev

[296].

Theorem 5.5. Let R be a ring, G be a group, and A be a simple RG-module. If

H is a normal subgroup ofG and |G : H| = n is nite, then A has a simple

RH-submodule B and A = gS Bg, for some nite subset S such that |S| n.

Proof. Obviously A is an artinian RG-module. By Theorem 5.2, A is an artinian

RH-module. It follows that the family of all non-zero RH-submodules of A has

a minimal element B. Then B is clearly simple. Let X be a transversal to H in

G so that |X| = n. By Lemma 5.4, A = gX Bg. It suces to apply Corollary

4.3.

Corollary 5.6. Let R be a ring, G a group, and H a normal subgroup of G of nite

index. If A is a semisimple RG-module, then A is a semisimple RH-module.

This extends the celebrated theorem of Cliord (H. Cliord [45]) to innite

groups.

The paper of D.I. Zaitsev [297] contains the following extension of Theorem

5.5.

Chapter 5. Reduction to subgroups of nite index 49

G. If A is a simple F G-module, then A is a semisimple F H-module.

0 = b A, then dim

F bF K is nite and so bF K has a simple F K-submodule B.

By Lemma 5.4, A = xM Bx, for some subset M G. Since F G is commutative,

B and Bx are isomorphic for every x M . By Proposition 4.5, aF K

= B,for each

0 = a A. In

particular, aF K is a simple F K-submodule. Since H = KL K

and aF H = KL aF K, we deduce that aF H is further a simple F H-submodule.

Then, it suces to apply Lemma 5.4.

a divisible torsion-free abelian group or is a p-elementary abelian group, for some

prime p. In the rst case we may think of A as a QG-module whereas in the second

one we think of A as an Fp G-module. Thus, in any case, we deduce from Theorem

5.7 the following result.

a simple ZG-module, then A is a semisimple ZG-module.

The next results describe other criteria of semisimplicity obtained with the

aid of the well-known theorem of Maschke. We are considering here one of the most

general versions of this result, which was obtained in the paper of S. Franciosi,

F. de Giovanni and L.A. Kurdachenko [74], and from it we will deduce several

consequences.

that G/H has nite order n. If A is an RG-module and B is an RG-submodule

admitting an R-complement, then there exists an RG-submodule E such that nA

B + E and n(B E) = 0.

: A C be the canonical projection. If x, y G satisfy Hx = Hy, then there

is some h H such that y = hx. If a A, then we express a = b + c, where b B

and c C. Then we have

and, hence,

= ((ax1 ))x = a(x1 x).

a(f ) = a(g 1 g), if a A. Put now = f F (f ). If x G, then Hx = t F

50 Chapter 5. Reduction to subgroups of nite index

and, if a A, we obtain

f F HgF HgF

1 1

= (ax)(x g gx) = (ax)(f t) = (ax),

HgF f F

RG-endomorphism of A and so A is an RG-submodule of A. If a A, we have

f F HgF

HgF

On the other hand, ag 1 a(g1) B and then (ag 1 a(g 1 ))g B. Thus

na a B.

Let b B. Then bg 1 B and (bg 1 ) = 0. Hence,

f F HgF

a B + A ; that is, nA B + A .

If b B A, then b = v , for some v A. Again, nv v B; that is,

nv B. Therefore 0 = (nv) = n(v ) = nb. This means that n(B A ) = 0.

Hence, it suces to dene E = A to obtain the required result.

Corollary 5.10. Let G be a nite group and suppose that A is a ZG-module whose

additive group has nite special rank. If B is a ZG-submodule admitting a Z-

complement, then there is a ZG-submodule E such that A/(B + E) and B E are

nite.

Proof. It follows immediately from Theorem 5.9 since a bounded abelian group of

nite special rank is nite.

The following simple consequence is due to D.I. Zaitsev [294] and only makes

use of standard properties of divisible abelian groups.

Corollary 5.11. Let G be a nite group and suppose that A is a ZG-module, and B

is a ZG-submodule of A. If the underlying additive groups of A and B are divisible,

then there exists a ZG-submodule E such that A = B + E and n(B E) = 0,

where n = |G|. In particular, if B is Z-torsion-free, then A = B E.

Corollary 5.12. Let G be a nite group. Suppose that A is a ZG-module and B is

a ZG-submodule of A. If the underlying additive group of A is nitely generated,

then there exists a ZG-submodule E such that B E and A/(B E) are nite.

Chapter 5. Reduction to subgroups of nite index 51

A/B = T /B C/B,

torsion-free. Moreover, the ZG-submodule U has nite index. Since U/B is a free

abelian group, U = B E for some subgroup E. It suces to apply Corollary 5.10

to the ZG-submodule U .

Corollary 5.13. Let G be a nite group. Suppose that A is a ZG-module whose

additive group is periodic such that (A)(G) = . If B is a ZG-submodule of A

admitting a Z-complement, then there is a ZG-submodule C such that A = B C.

Corollary 5.14. Let G be a nite group, F a eld, A an F G-module, and B an F G-

submodule of A. If char F = 0 or charF (G), then there is an F G-submodule

C such that A = B C.

Corollary 5.15. Let A be an F G-module, where G is a nite group and F is a eld.

If char F = 0 or char F (G), then A is a semisimple F G-module.

Given a group G and a ring R, the R-homomorphism : RG R given

by

( xg g) = xg ,

gG gG

where all but nitely many xg are zero (i. e. both sums are nite), is called the unit

augmentation of RG or simply the augmentation of RG. We denote the kernel of

by RG. It is a two-sided ideal called the augmentation ideal of RG. This ideal

is generated by the elements {g 1 | 1 = g G}.

Corollary 5.16. Let A be an F G-module, where G is a nite group and F is a eld.

If char F = 0 or char F (G), then A = CA (G) A(F G).

Proof. Indeed, by Corollary 5.14, there exists an F G-submodule E such that

A = CA (G) E.

for each element g G; that is, A(F G) E. By Corollary 5.14 again, we have

the decomposition

E = A(F G) V,

where V is an F G-submodule. If v V , then v(g 1) A(F G) V = 0. It

follows that E = A(F G).

Lemma 5.17. Let G be a nite group and suppose that A is a ZG-module of com-

position length 2. If (A) (G) = , then A = CA (G) A(ZG).

52 Chapter 5. Reduction to subgroups of nite index

B = B(ZG) and A/B = (A/B)(ZG), then A = A(ZG). Therefore we can

assume that either A/B = (A/B)(ZG) or B = B(ZG). We consider these cases

separately.

Suppose rst that B = B(ZG). Since B simple, B(ZG) = 0; that is,

B CA (G). If B = CA (G), then A = CA (G) and all is done. Hence, we may

assume that B = CA (G). It is not hard to see that B and A/B have to be nite

elementary abelian groups. If (B) (A/B) = , then all is done. Suppose that

the additive group of A is a p-group, where p is a prime. If pA = 0, we may

think of A as an Fp G-module and apply Corollary 5.16. Suppose that pA = 0.

In this case B = 1 (A), the lower layer of A. The mapping : a pa, a A is

a ZG-endomorphism, so that Im and Ker are ZG-submodules of A such that

Im =ZG A/ Ker . It follows that Im = B and Ker = B; that is, B

=ZG A/B.

In particular, (A/B)(ZG) = A/B. Let a A and g G. Then ag = a + b for

some b B. We have ag m = a + mb for every m N. In particular, ag p = a. Since

(|g|, p) = 1, g CA (G). This contradiction shows that pA = 0.

Consider now the case in which B = B(ZG) and A(ZG) = B. Considering

again the mapping : a pa, a A, we obtain another time that pA = 0. In

this case, it suces to apply Corollary 5.16.

This implies immediately the following consequence.

Corollary 5.18. Let G be a nite group and suppose that A is a ZG-module of

nite composition length. If (A) (G) = , then A = CA (G) A(ZG).

Proposition 5.19. Let G be a nite group and suppose that A is a ZG-module whose

additive group is periodic. If (A) (G) = , then A = CA (G) A(ZG).

Proof. Let L be a local system of nite subgroups of A and let

Q = {LG | L L}.

CB (G)B(ZG). If C Q satises B C, then CB (G) CC (G) and B(ZG)

C(ZG). These inclusions imply

CA (G) = CB (G) and A(ZG) = B(ZG).

BQ BQ

Chapter 6

Many chapters of this book are dedicated to modules over a group ring of the

form DG, where D is a Dedekind domain. Thus we shall need some results about

Dedekind domains and modules over Dedekind domains. Certain complications

arise here there is no single book that contains all the necessary material suitable

for our specic purposes. Many of these results can be found only in journal

articles, where they have been obtained for modules over wider classes of rings; but

most of the time we only need particular cases of those general results. Therefore,

it would be useful to present a modicum of such important information in this

chapter. In subsequent chapters we will provide results as needed along with the

appropriate references, and supply proofs for results that are not stated in the

needed form (for example, the primary decompositions of periodic modules over

Dedekind domains).

There are many books and papers dedicated to Dedekind domains and mod-

ules over Dedekind domains. Coming up with an exhaustive list would be very

dicult. Below we mention some of them, which include proofs of the most fre-

quently used and eective classic results: N. Bourbaki [20], Z.I. Borevich and A.R.

Shafarevich [21], S.U. Chase [32], C. Curtis and I. Reiner [47, 48], I. Fleichsner

[70], L. Fuchs and S.B. Lee [80], L. Fuchs and L. Salce [81], R. Gilmer [84], I.

Kaplansky [121, 122, 123, 124, 125], G. Karpilovsky [131], M.D. Larsen and P.J.

McCarthy [180], E. Matlis [183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188], W. Narkiewicz [201],

D.G. Northcott [206], D.S. Passman [219], O.F.G. Schilling [254], R. Sharp [263],

and D.W. Sharpe and P. Vamos [265].

The idea of the Dedekind domain naturally arose within the process of the

development of Algebraic Number Theory. In his famous Supplement XI to Dirich-

lets book, R. Dedekind [51] proved that every ideal of the ring of integers of a eld

of algebraic numbers can be decomposed into prime factors and this factorization

is unique. He created the fractional ideal and also proved that non-zero fractional

ideals formed an abelian group. There are many denitions of Dedekind domains.

We will consider some of them.

54 Chapter 6. Modules over Dedekind domains

(or simply the spectrum of R) is the set of all prime ideals of R.

Let R be an integral domain, and let K be the eld of fractions of R. A non-

zero R-submodule A of K is called a fractional ideal of R if there is some a R such

that aA R. This means that all elements of A can be expressed with fractions

having a as denominator, that is, all of them have a common denominator. Note

that the fractional ideals of R contained in R itself are ordinary ideals of R and

conversely. If A and B are fractional ideals, then the set of all nite sums a1 b1 +

+ an bn , ai A, bj B forms a fractional ideal, known as the product AB of A

and B. For, if aA R and bB R, then abAB R. Obviously A(BC) = (AB)C,

for fractional ideals A, B, C of R. This means that the set F I(R) of all fractional

ideals of R is a commutative semigroup, which admits R itself as its identity

element.

If A is a fractional ideal of R, then

A = {x K | xA R}

In this case, A is the unique fractional ideal of R satisfying AA = R and we

write A1 instead of A . An integral domain D is called a Dedekind domain, if

every fractional ideal of D is invertible, which is equivalent to the fact that the

semigroup F I(D) is a group. Every principal ideal domain is a Dedekind domain

and, in particular, the ring Z of all integers is a Dedekind domain.

Theorem 6.1. Let D be a Dedekind domain. Then:

(1) D is noetherian.

(2) Every non-zero prime ideal of D is maximal.

Let R be an integral domain and let L be a eld including R, so that L

includes the eld of fractions K of R. We recall that an element c L is said to be

integral over R (or shortly R-integral ) if there are a0 , a1 , , an1 R such that

a0 + a1 c + + an1 cn1 + cn = 0.

is well known that the set C of all elements of L which are integral over R is a

subring. Let L be a eld and R be a subring of L such that 1 R. The subring of

L consisting of all elements which are integrals over R is called the integral closure

of R in L. The integral domain R is said to be integrally closed if R is its integral

closure in the eld of fractions.

The following result proves the full characterization of a Dedekind domain

by means of these concepts and the conditions of Theorem 6.1.

Theorem 6.2. Let D be an integral domain. Then D is a Dedekind domain if and

only if the following conditions are satised.

Chapter 6. Modules over Dedekind domains 55

(1) D is noetherian.

(2) Every non-zero prime ideal of D is maximal.

(3) D is integrally closed.

As we can see every principal ideal domain is a Dedekind domain. Among

principal ideal domains the following are the most important for applications in

Group Theory: the ring Z of all integers, the ring F x of an innite cyclic group

x over a (nite) eld F ; the ring Zp of integer p-adics; the ring F [[x]] of power

series over a (nite) eld F. Observe also, that if R is an integral noetherian domain

whose non-zero prime ideals are maximal, F is the eld of fractions of R, and K

is a nite eld extension of F , then the integral closure of R in K is a Dedekind

domain (see, for example, [20, Chapter 7.2, Corollary 2 of Proposition 5].

Beyond all doubt, the next results describe the most important features of

Dedekind domains.

Theorem 6.3. Every proper non-zero ideal of a Dedekind domain can be represented

uniquely as a product of non-zero prime ideals (up to ordering of these)

Corollary 6.4. Let D be a Dedekind domain. Then the group F I(D) is a free

abelian group generated by the non-zero prime ideals of D.

Given two ideals A and B of a Dedekind domain D, we say that A is divisible

by B (or that B divides A), if there exists an ideal C of D such that A = BC.

Corollary 6.5. Let D be a Dedekind domain. Then every non-zero ideal can be

divisible only by nitely many distinct ideals.

It follows that every fractional ideal A of a Dedekind domain D can be

uniquely written in the form

a(P1 )

A = P1 Pra(Pr ) ,

venient to write this in the general form

A = P Spec(D)\

0 P a(P ) ,

where a(P ) Z and a(P ) = 0 for all but nitely many values of a(P ). Note that

A is an ordinary ideal of D if and only if a(P ) 0 for all P .

Let A and B be (ordinary) ideals of the Dedekind domain D. By denition

the greatest common divisor of A and B is the (unique) ideal GCD(A, B) of D

that satises the following:

(i) GCD(A, B) divides A and B.

(ii) If C is an ideal of D and C divides A and B, then C divides GCD(A, B).

56 Chapter 6. Modules over Dedekind domains

In fact, if

0 = A = P Spec(D)\

0 P a(P )

and

0 = B = P Spec(D)\

0 P b(P ) ,

then A divides B if and only if a(P ) b(P ), for every P Spec(D)\ 0. It follows

that

GCD(A, B) = P Spec(D)\

0 P c(P ) ,

where c(P ) = max{a(P ), b(P )}.

The least common multiple of A and B is the unique ideal LCM(A, B) that

satises the following properties:

(i) A and B divide LCM(A, B).

(ii) If C is an ideal of D and A and B divide C, then LCM(A, B) divides C.

It is easy to see that

LCM(A, B) = P Spec(D)\

0 P d(P ) ,

where d(P ) = max{a(P ), b(P )}.

Let R be a commutative ring. We say that the proper ideals A and B of R

are relatively prime if A + B = R. Now we are in a position to obtain the other

accustomed properties of a Dedekind domain.

Proposition 6.6. Let D be a Dedekind domain. Then the following assertions hold.

(1) If A and B are fractional ideals, then B divides A if and only if A B.

(2) If A is a fractional ideal, then there exists a principal fractional ideal aR such

that (aR)A1 R.

(3) If A and B are ideals of R, then GCD(A, B) = A + B and LCM(A, B) =

A B.

(4) If A and B are ideals of R, then AB = (A + B)(A B).

(5) If A and B are relatively prime ideals of R, then AB = A B.

Lemma 6.7. Let R be a commutative ring and let A and B be ideals of R. If A

and B are relatively prime, then so are Ak and B m , for every k, m N

Lemma 6.8. Let R be a commutative ring. The ideals A1 , . . . , Ar of R are pairwise

relatively prime if and only if for every 1 i r we have that

Ai + A1 Ai1 Ai+1 Ar = R.

Corollary 6.9. Let D be a Dedekind domain. If the ideals A1 , . . . , Ar of D are

pairwise relatively prime, then

A1 Ar = A1 Ar .

Chapter 6. Modules over Dedekind domains 57

A1 , . . . , Ak are pairwise, relatively prime, non-zero ideals of D and a1 , . . . , ak D,

then there exists some a D such that ai + Ai = a + Ai , for each 1 i k.

Moreover, if b satises b + Ai = ai + Ai , for each 1 i k, then

a + A1 Ak = b + A1 Ak .

Corollary 6.11. Let D be a Dedekind domain. If A1 , . . . , Ak are pairwise, relatively

prime, non-zero ideals of D, then

D/(A1 Ak )

= D/A1 D/Ak .

Corollary 6.12. Let D be a Dedekind domain. If I is a non-zero ideal of D and

I = P1m1 Pkmk , where P1 , . . . , Pk are dierent prime ideals of D, then

D/I

= D/P1m1 D/Pkmk .

As we have already mentioned, every principal ideal domain is a Dedekind

domain. The following results show that Dedekind domains are very close to prin-

cipal ideal domains.

Proposition 6.13. Let D be a Dedekind domain and let Q be a non-zero prime ideal

of D. Suppose that B is an ideal such that B Qm , for some m N. Then there is

some k m such that B = Qk . In particular, if y Q \ Q2 , then Qt = y t D + Qn ,

for every n N and each t n.

Proof. By Theorem 6.3,

B = P (Spec(D))\

0 P a(P ) ,

particular, B Qk by Proposition 6.6. If k m, then B Qk = Qkm Qm Qm ;

that is, B = Qm and we are done. Therefore k m. Suppose that A = D

so that A and Q are relatively prime by Lemma 6.7 and Lemma 6.8. We have

BA1 Qk D, whence A1 B 1 and then B A. It follows that Qm A.

By Lemma 6.7, A + Qm = D, which implies that A = D, a contradiction. Hence

A = D, and then B = Qk .

Since y Q, yD Q. This and Qn Q for each n N give that yD + Qn

Q. By the result shown in the above paragraph, yD + Qn = Qs , for some s n.

We claim that s = 1. For, if s > 1, then

yD + Qn Qs = Q2 Qs2 Q2

and so yD Q2 , which contradicts the choice of y. Therefore s = 1, and so

yD + Qn = Q. Pick x1 , x2 Q. Then xj = yzj + uj , where zj D and uj Qn

(j = 1, 2). Thus

x1 x2 = (yz1 + u1 )(yz2 + u2 )

= y 2 z1 z2 + yz1 u2 + yz2 u1 + u1 u2 y 2 D + Qn .

58 Chapter 6. Modules over Dedekind domains

y t D + Qn , for every t n.

Corollary 6.14. Let A be a non-zero ideal of a Dedekind ring D. Then every ideal

of D/A is principal.

A = P1k1 Ptkt ,

D/A

= D/P1k1 D/Ptkt .

k k

B + Pj j = aj D + Pj j ,

k k

a + Pj j = aj + Pj j ,

for every 1 j t. Now it is not hard to see that B = aD + A and then B/A is

principal.

some elements a1 and a2 such that A = a1 D + a2 D.

there exists a non-zero ideal C such that B + C = D and AC is principal.

(aD + AB)/AB, for some a A. Since aD A, by Proposition 6.6, aD = AC,

for some ideal C = 0. Thus AC + AB = A and, multiplying by A1 , we obtain

that C + B = D.

the D-modules D/A and B/AB are isomorphic. In particular, if k N , then D/A

and Ak /Ak+1 are isomorphic D-modules.

Chapter 6. Modules over Dedekind domains 59

and BC = aD, for some a D. Dene the mapping : D B/AB by x =

ax + AB, x D. We have

(x + y) = a(x + y) + AB = ax + ay + AB

= (ax + AB) + (ay + AB) = x + y

and

(dx) = a(dx) + AB = (ax)d + AB

= (ax + AB)d = (x)d (for each d D),

and so is a D-homomorphism. Furthermore,

aD + AB = CB + AB = (C + A)B = DB = B.

Thus Im = B/AB. If x Ker , then ax AB and so axC ABC = aA. It

follows that xC A. Since A + C = D, there are some elements a1 A and c C

such that 1 = a1 + c. Thus x = x 1 = xa1 + xc A. Conversely, if x A, then

ax AB and so x = ax + AB = AB. Therefore Ker = A.

Let R be a ring and let A be an R-module. We dene

tR (A) = {a A | AnnR (a) = 0}.

This subset has a nice structure provided R has no zero-divisors, as the

following result shows.

Lemma 6.18. Let R be an integral domain. If A is an R-module, then tR (A) is an

R-submodule of A.

Proof. Let a1 , a2 tR (A). Put I1 =AnnR (a1 ) and I2 =AnnR (a2 ). Then I1

I2 AnnR (a1 a2 ). Since R contains no zero-divisors, I1 I2 = 0. Since I1 I2

I1 I2 , AnnR (a1 a2 ) = 0.

Given a tR (A) and 0 = x R, if u AnnR (a), then

(ax)u = a(xu) = a(ux) = (au)x = 0x = 0.

It follows that AnnR (a) AnnR (ax), that is ax tR (A).

Let R be an integral domain. Then the submodule tR (A) of A is called the

R-periodic part of A. A is called R-periodic if A = tR (A) and R-torsion-free if

tR (A) = 0. Note that, for A arbitrary, then tR (A) is R-periodic and A/tR (A) is

R-torsion-free.

The following concept is dual to the concept of R-annihilators of subsets of

A. If L R is a subset of R, then the A-annihilator of L is

AnnA (L) = {a A | aL = 0}.

If R is commutative, then it is customary that AnnA (L) is an R-submodule of A.

60 Chapter 6. Modules over Dedekind domains

be the set of all ideals H of R such that AnnA (H) = 0. If W has a maximal

element P = R, then P is a prime ideal of R.

Proof. All we have to show is that P is a prime ideal. Let B =AnnA (P ). Since R

is a commutative ring, B is an R-submodule. Let x, y be elements of R such that

xy P and let 0 = b B. Then b(xy) = 0. If bx = 0, then xR W. In this case,

xR + P AnnR (b) and, in particular, AnnA (xR + P ) = 0; that is, xR + P W.

By the choice of P , it follows that xR + P = P ; that is, x P . If bx = 0, then

AnnA (yR) = 0. Repeating the previous arguments, we obtain y P . This means

that P is a prime ideal.

Corollary 6.20. Let R be a noetherian commutative ring and suppose that A is an

R-module such that tR (A) = 0. Then R has a non-zero prime ideal P such that

AnnA (P ) = .

Let A be an R-module, where R is a commutative ring. We dene the R-

assasinator of A as the set AssR (A) consisting of all prime ideals P of R such that

AnnA (P ) = 0.

Now we nish this chapter showing the existence of the primary decomposi-

tion of certain modules over a Dedekind domain. Again, inspired by the ordinary

layer of a p-group, we consider the following construction. Let I be an ideal of a

commutative ring R. If k N, we dene

I,k (A) = {a A | aI k = 0}.

It is easy to see that I,k (A) is an R-submodule and

I,1 (A) I,2 (A) I,k (A) .

The R-submodule AI = I,k (A) is said to be the I-component of A. If A = AI ,

then A is said to be an I-module. If I = P is a prime ideal, a P -module is

generically called a primary module.

Lemma 6.21. Let A be a D-module, where D is a Dedekind domain. If U and V

are relatively prime ideals of D, then AU AV = 0.

Proof. Pick u U and v V such that 1 = u + v. Suppose that AU AV = 0.

Then U,1 (A) V,1 (A) = 0. If

0 = a U,1 (A) V,1 (A),

then a = a 1 = a(u + v) = au + av = 0. This contradiction shows that AU AV =

0.

Corollary 6.22. Let A be a D-module, where D is a Dedekind domain. Suppose

that U and V are two relatively prime ideals of D such that A = AU AV . If B

is a submodule of A, then

(A/B)U = (AU + B)/B, (A/B)V = (AV + B)/B,

Chapter 6. Modules over Dedekind domains 61

Proof. Since A = AU AV ,

By Lemma 6.21,

(AU + B)/B (AV + B)/B = 0 .

It follows that

A/B = (AU + B)/B (AV + B)/B

and then

(A/B)U = (AU + B)/B and (A/B)V = (AV + B)/B.

Corollary 6.23. Let D be a Dedekind domain. Suppose we are given a family U of

proper, non-zero, pairwise, relatively prime, ideals of D. If A is a D-module, then

AU = AU .

UU UU

Proof. It suces to show the result for every nite subset V U. Suppose that

|V| = k and proceed by induction on k. If k = 2, then the result follows from

Lemma 6.21. Let k > 2. If V V, by induction

AU = AU .

UV\{V } UV\{V }

Suppose that

AV ( AU ) = 0 .

UV\{V }

aV = aU

UV\{V }

N such that aV V rV = 0 and aW U rW = 0. By Lemma 6.7, W rW + V rV = D,

and so there are xW W rW and xV V rV such that 1 = xW + xV . Then

aV = aV 1 = aV (xW + xV ) = aV xW + aV xV

= aV xW = aU xW .

UV\{V }

62 Chapter 6. Modules over Dedekind domains

aU xW

UV\{V }

Corollary 6.24. Let D be a Dedekind domain. Suppose we are given a family U

of proper, non-zero, pairwise, relatively prime, ideals of D. Let A be a D-module

such that

A= AU .

UU

If B is a D-submodule of A, then

A/B = (AU + B)/B.

UU

Corollary 6.20, because D is noetherian by Theorem 6.1. Also, if A is D-periodic,

then AssD (A) is a family of proper, non-zero, pairwise, relatively prime, ideals of

D. Therefore, applying the above results, we obtain the primary decomposition of

A.

Corollary 6.25. Let D be a Dedekind domain. If A is a D-periodic D-module, then

A= AP .

P AssD (A)

A/B = (AP + B)/B.

P AssD (A)

D (a) = . Hence aD = D/L and it suces

to apply Corollary 6.12 to obtain a = P AP , where =AssD (A).

Chapter 7

A major part of this book is dedicated to artinian modules over group rings.

Artinian modules are one of the oldest subjects of investigation in Algebra. They

are named after E. Artin, who initiated the study of rings and modules with the

minimal condition. The minimal condition (as well as the maximal condition)

has shown to be very useful and truly eective in many branches of Algebra,

particularly in Group Theory. A natural way of connecting groups and modules

can be described as follows. Let G be a group, and suppose that G has an abelian

normal subgroup A. If H = G/A, then H acts on A in the following way: if

h = gA H and a A, then we dene a h = ag . Since A is abelian, this

denition only depends on h. If n Z, we put

x= nh h,

hH

where nh Z for every h H and nh = 0 for all but nitely many h H. Then,

the law

ax= anh h

hH

Since additive notations are widely employed in Module Theory, from now on we

will use the additive notations and write ax instead ax when we think of A as a

ZH-module and keep the multiplicative notations when we think of A as a normal

subgroup of G.

Very often, the subgroup A satises some niteness condition, which turns

out to be linked with the minimal condition for G-invariant subgroups. In other

words, the ZG-module A is artinian.

64 Chapter 7. The KovacsNewman theorem

In the theory of innite groups, artinian modules rst appeared in the study

of metabelian groups with the minimal condition on normal subgroups (Min-n).

The rst interesting result in this direction can be found in the paper [33], in

which V.S. Charin constructed an example of a metabelian group satisfying Min-

n but not Min. Subsequent studies showed that this example enjoyed very typical

properties. Almost simultaneously P. Hall began his study of soluble groups with

the maximal condition on normal subgroups (the condition Max-n). Unfortunately,

after this rst step, V.S. Charin stopped his study of metabelian groups with Min-

n, a strange event especially considering that a very intensive research of groups

with niteness conditions had been developed in the former USSR by that time.

V.S. Charin was a student of S.N. Chernikov, to whom we owe one of the more

important accomplishments in this area, namely, the investigation of groups with

Min. Since then, in his next research, V.S. Charin [35] explored the question: for

what classes of groups does Min-n imply Min? ; but he did not come back to groups

with Min-n anymore. The description of metabelian groups satisfying Min-n was

obtained much later by B. Hartley and D. McDougall [110]. More precisely, B.

Hartley and D. McDougall described artinian modules over Chernikov groups.

That paper has stimulated investigations of artinian modules over group rings

as well as many other research projects in this area. At this point, it is worth

mentioning a fundamental distinction between the above topic and its dual theory

of noetherian modules over group rings. P. Hall [95] showed that the group ring of

a polycyclic-by-nite group over a noetherian ring is noetherian itself. This result

is fundamental in the theory of noetherian modules: it led to the developing of

the rich theory of group rings, which brought up many signicant achievements in

the study of noetherian modules over such rings. Among many other publications

we can mention, for example, C.J.B. Brookes [26, 27, 28], C.J.B. Brookes and

J.R. J. Groves [29], K.A. Brown [30, 31], J. Cornick and P.H. Kropholler [46],

S. Donkin [57, 58], D.R. Farkas [68], K.W. Gruenberg [94], P. Hall [95, 96, 98],

A.V. Jategaonkar [118, 120], P.H. Kropholler, P.A. Linnel and J.A. Moody [139],

I. Musson [195, 196, 197], D.S. Passman [216, 217, 218], J.E. Roseblade [248, 249,

250, 251, 252], R.L. Snider [268].

Apart from this, in the case of artinian modules, the properties of a group

ring are not very useful. A group ring of a non-polycyclic group with niteness

conditions (even one that is very close to being polycyclic) dees deep descrip-

tion, and there are not too many papers devoted to it (see S.D. Berman [10], S.D.

Berman and A.G. Podgorny [11], S.D. Berman and N.I. Vishnyakova [12, 13],

C.J.B. Brookes [25], B. Hartley [100], H. Heineken and I.J. Mohamed [112], D. Se-

gal [256], A.V. Tushev [276, 277]). Therefore the study of artinian modules requires

dierent approaches. We collect here some of the most important tools, which will

be considered in detail throughout the book. One of these tools is the study of the

semisimplicity conditions of artinian modules, whose main source is the celebrated

theorem of Maschke. One can nd many important results in this direction in the

following papers: D.R. Farkas and R.L. Snider [69], B. Hartley [101, 102, 103, 107],

Chapter 7. The KovacsNewman theorem 65

B. Hartley and D. McDougal [110], L.G. Kovacs and M.F. Newman [137], D.I.

Zaitsev [294, 301].

Another direction, specically available for artinian modules over group rings,

is based on the Fitting lemma and detects direct decompositions of modules that

are determined by a group action. This runs parallel to the study of direct de-

compositions of groups relative to formations (see R. Baer [8]), which allows us

to unify the points of view on many results. In this direction, we can mention the

following papers: Z.Y. Duan [59, 60, 61, 62, 63], Z.Y. Duan and M.J. Tomkinson

[64], B. Hartley and M.J. Tomkinson [111], L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya.

Subbotin [158], L.A. Kurdachenko, B.V. Petrenko and I.Ya. Subbotin [159, 160],

D.I. Zaitsev [301, 302, 304, 307, 309, 310], D.I. Zaitsev and V.A. Maznichenko

[313].

Finally, the description of artinian modules over group rings, perhaps, is the

rst problem in this list. Since the situation here is far from being satisfactory, it is

better to reformulate this problem as follows: for what groups G is the description

of artinian modules over the group ring ZG possible? As we have already noted,

artinian modules over Chernikov groups have been described by B. Hartley and

D. McDougall [110]. On the other hand, S.A. Kruglyak [140] pointed out that

the description of nite modules (and hence artinian modules) over a free abelian

group of 0-rank at most 2 is wild from the representation theory point of view.

The following analogy could be useful at this point. The description of torsion-

free abelian groups of nite 0-rank at most 2 is also wild even though the Z-

injective envelope of these groups is a direct sum of nitely many copies of the

full rational group (Q, +). This leads to the question on the description of the

injective envelope of artinian modules over group rings, a partial case of which

is the description of simple modules over group rings. These topics have been

reected in many papers. We would like to mention some of them: D.R. Farkas

and R.L. Snider [69], B. Hartley [101, 102, 103], B. Hartley and D. McDougall [110],

A.V. Jategaonkar [119], L.A. Kurdachenko [148, 150], L.A. Kurdachenko and J.

Otal [155], L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157], L.A. Kurdachenko

and I.Ya. Subbotin [170], I. Musson [194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200], R.L. Snider

[267, 269, 270], B.A.F. Wehrfritz [281, 282, 283].

modules over group rings. Let A be a module over a ring R. A submodule B of A

is said to have a complement in A (or B is a complemented submodule) if there is

an R-submodule C such that A = B C. In the theory of modules over a group

ring RG, the following question arises very often. Let B be an RG-submodule of

A such that A = B C, for some R-submodule C. Under which conditions does B

have an RG-complement? It is well known that such an RG-complement does not

always exist. In some cases, only a supplement exists: an RG-submodule E such

that both A/(B +E) and B E are good in some sense, they are both nite. One of

the most celebrated positive results for modules over nite groups is the theorem

of Maschke. In Chapter 5, we considered general forms of this result. Hence, the

66 Chapter 7. The KovacsNewman theorem

appears to be very plausible. Now we consider other useful results, which imply, in

particular, semisimplicity criteria. The next one is the KovacsNewman theorem

[137]. We formulate this result in a slightly generalized form, namely, we extend

the scalar ring on Z to an arbitrary Dedekind domain. For this reason, some results

on modules over Dedekind domains will be needed.

Let R be a ring and let A be an R-module. If 0 = x R, we say that

A is x-divisible if given an element a A there exists some c A such that

cx = a, that is, A = Ax. A module A is said to be R-divisible if A is x-divisible

for every 0 = x R. The concept of a divisible module is tightly connected

with the concept of the injective module, which is dual to the concept of the

projective module. A module E over a ring R is called injective if for every R-

monomorphism : A B and every R-homomorphism : A E, there

exists an R-homomorphism : B E such that = . Now we formulate

some useful properties of injective and divisible modules. By the same reasons

mentioned in Chapter 6, and for the readers convenience, we will supply some of

them with suitable proofs. The proof of all omitted results can be directly found

in the books cited in Chapter 6.

Theorem 7.1 (Baers criterion). Let R be a ring and let E be an R-module. Then

E is an injective module if and only if for every right ideal J of R and for every

R-homomorphism : J E there exists an R-homomorphism : R E

such that x = x for each x J.

Proposition 7.2. Let R be a ring.

(1) Let {E | } be a family of R-modules. Then E is injective if

and only if E is injective for every .

(2) Let {E | } be a family of R-modules. If E is injective, then E

is injective for every .

(3) Let {E | } be a family of

R-modules such that set is nite. If E is

injective for each , then E is injective.

(4) An R-module A is injective if and only if A has an R-complement in every

R-module E A, that is there exists an R-module L such that E = A L.

The next theorem elucidates the signicance of injective modules.

Theorem 7.3. Let R be a ring. Then every R-module can be embedded in some

injective R-module.

Let A be a module over a ring R. Then an R-module E is said to be an

injective envelope of A if E satises the following conditions:

(IE1) A E;

(IE2) E is injective; and

Chapter 7. The KovacsNewman theorem 67

An R-module C is called an essential extension of an R-submodule A if

S A = 0 for every non-zero R-submodule S of C. An essential extension C

of a module A is called maximal , if there is no essential extension E of A and

monomorphism : C E satisfying a = a for every a A and C = E.

Theorem 7.4. Let A be a module over a ring R. Then there exists an R-module E

satisfying the following equivalent conditions:

(1) E is injective and E is an essential extension of A.

(2) E is a maximal essential extension of A.

(3) E is a minimal injective extension of A.

Moreover, if U and V are minimal injective extensions of A, then there exists an

isomorphism : U V .

In other words, for every R-module A there exists an injective envelope and

this injective envelope is unique (up to isomorphism).

The R-injective envelope of A is denoted by IER (A).

Proposition 7.5. Let R be a ring and suppose that y R is not a right zero-divisor.

If E is an injective R-module, then E is y-divisible.

Proof. Given 0 = e E, we dene a mapping : Ry E by (xy) = ex, x

R. By the choice of y, is a well-dened R-homomorphism and Ker = 0.

Therefore there exists an R-homomorphism : R E such that (xy) =

(xy) = ex. We have that

e = e = y = (1 y) = (1)y

We also will consider other properties of divisible modules.

Lemma 7.6. Let R be an integral domain.

(1) If E is an R-divisible R-module and C is an R-submodule of E, then E/C

is R-divisible too.

(2) If E is an R-divisible R-module for every , then E and E

are also R-divisible.

Proof. (1) Let e E and x R. There is some a E, such that ax = e. Then

e + C = ax + C = (a + C)x, that is,

(E/C)x = E/C.

(2) Suppose that (e ) E , where 0 = x R. For every ,

there is some a E , such that a x = e . Therefore ((a ) )x = (e ) that

is,

( E )x = E .

68 Chapter 7. The KovacsNewman theorem

a , if S,

b =

0, if S.

E

Then Supp((b ) ) = S. In particular, (b ) . By construction,

we have that ((b ) )x = (e ) , and hence ( E )x = E .

Proposition 7.7. Let R be an integral domain and let E be an injective R-module.

Then E is an R-divisible module.

Proof. Let 0 = x R and e E. We dene the mapping : Rx E by

(ux) = eu, u R. Clearly, is an R-homomorphism. Since E is R-injective, by

Theorem 7.1, there is an R-homomorphism : R E extending . We have

e = x = x = (1 x) = (1 )x.

We now consider an abelian group as a Z-module. An abelian group A is said

to be divisible, if A is a Z-divisible module; that is, A = kA for each 0 = k Z.

Proposition 7.7 has the following converse.

Proposition 7.8. Let R be an integral domain and let E be an R-module. If E is

R-divisible and R-torsion-free, then E is an injective module.

Proof. Let L be an ideal of R and let : L E be an R-homomorphism.

We assume that L = 0 , and then we pick an element 0 = x L. Since E is

R-divisible, there is an element e E such that ex = x. If y L, then

= e(xy) = e(yx) = (ey)x.

free. Dene now the mapping : R E by ug = eu for every u R. Then

y = ey = y, for each y L, so is an extension of . By Theorem 7.1, E is

injective.

We need to have a careful look at the case in which R is a Dedekind domain.

This case is extremely important for our purposes. In this case, as we will show,

the concepts of injectivity and divisibility are coincide.

Theorem 7.9. Let D be a Dedekind domain and let E be a D-module. If E is

divisible, then E is injective.

Proof. Let L be an ideal of D. Again we assume that L = 0. Let : L E

be a D-homomorphism. Since D is a Dedekind domain, there exists L1 , and so

there are some x1 , . . . , xk L and y1 , . . . , yk L1 such that

1 = x1 y1 + + xk yk .

Chapter 7. The KovacsNewman theorem 69

some e1 , . . . , ek E such that xj = ej xj for every 1 j k. Pick x L. Since

xyj LL1 = D,

= (e1 x1 )xy1 + + (ek xk )xyk = (e1 x1 y1 + + ek xk yk )x.

Since

x1 y1 + + xk yk LL1 = D,

e = e1 x1 y1 + + ek xk yk E.

Dene the mapping : D E by y = ey whenever y D. It is easy to see

that is a D-homomorphism and x = ex = x, and so is an extension of

. Then it suces to apply Theorem 7.1.

Corollary 7.10. Let R be a principal ideal domain and let E be an R-module. Then

E is injective if and only if E is R-divisible.

Corollary 7.11 (R. Baer). An abelian group A is divisible if and only if A is an

injective Z-module.

Let D be a Dedekind domain and let A be a D-module. We say that a D-

divisible module E is a minimal divisible module for A if E contains A and every

proper D-submodule B of E containing A is not D-divisible.

Corollary 7.12. Let D be a Dedekind domain.

(1) Each D-module A can be embedded in a divisible D-module.

(2) Let A be a D-module and let E be a divisible D-module such that A E.

Then E includes a minimal divisible submodule for A.

(3) Let A be a D-module. Then there exists a minimal divisible module for A,

and two minimal divisible modules for A are isomorphic.

A minimal divisible module for A (unique up to an isomorphism) will be

called the divisible envelope of A.

Lemma 7.13. Let D be a Dedekind domain and let A be a D-module.

Suppose that

{E } is a family of D-divisible submodules of A. Then E = E is also

D-divisible.

Proof. Indeed, a sum of submodules is a homomorphic image of the direct sum of

them, and then it suces to apply Lemma 7.6.

Corollary 7.14. Let D be a Dedekind domain and let A be a D-module. If A has

D-divisible submodules, then A has a unique largest D-divisible submodule, say div

(A).

Proof. In fact, div (A) is the sum of all D-divisible submodules of A.

70 Chapter 7. The KovacsNewman theorem

ule div (A) dened above is called the D-divisible part of A.

Lemma 7.15. Let R be a ring and let A and B be R-modules.

(1) If there are R-homomorphisms : A B and : B A such that =

A , then is a monomorphism, is an epimorphism, and B = Im Ker .

In particular, A is isomorphic to a direct summand of B.

(2) If B = A1 A2 and A1 = A, then there exists an R-monomorphism :

A B and an R-epimorphism : B A such that = A .

Proof. (1) If b = a Im Ker , then

a = aA = a = b = 0

and so b = 0. Hence Im Ker = {0}. On the other hand, if b B, then

b b Ker since

(b b) = b bA = 0.

Since (b) Im , b Im + Ker , that is

B = Im + Ker

and hence

B = Im Ker ,

as required.

(2) This is obvious.

Theorem 7.16. Let D be a Dedekind domain. Suppose that A is a D-module in-

cluding two submodules E and B, which satisfy the following conditions:

(1) E is D-divisible.

(2) B E = 0.

Then there exists a D-submodule C such that B C and A = E C.

Proof. Let 1 : E E B and 2 : E B A be the canonical embeddings.

Then the mapping : E B E given by (e + b) = e, where e E and

b B, is a D-homomorphism. By Proposition 7.7, E is injective. Hence there is a

D-homomorphism : A E such that 2 = . Then

1 2 = 1 = E .

By Lemma 7.15,

A = Im 1 2 Ker .

Obviously, Im 1 2 = E. If C = Ker , then A = E C. Note that, if b B,

then

b = (b2 ) = b = 0

and so B Ker = C.

Chapter 7. The KovacsNewman theorem 71

div (A) B, where B is a D-submodule including no D-divisible submodules.

Let F be the eld of fractions of the Dedekind domain D. If a F and

0 = x D, we have a = (ax1 )x. This means that the D-module F is divisible.

Also, note that if A is a D-module, by Corollary 7.12, there exists a divisible

module E such that E A.

Lemma 7.18. Let D be a Dedekind domain. Suppose that A is a D-module and put

T = tD (A). If A is divisible, then T is likewise divisible.

Proof. If a T , then AnnD (a) = J = 0. Pick 0 = x D. Since A is divisible,

there is some b A such that bx = a. If 0 = y J, since xy = 0 and 0 = ay =

(bx)y = b(xy), we have 0 = xy AnnD (b); that is, b T . Thus T is divisible, as

required.

Corollary 7.19. Let D be a Dedekind domain. Suppose that A is a D-module and

E is a minimal divisible module for A.

(1) If A is D-periodic, then E is likewise D-periodic.

(2) If A is D-torsion-free, then E is likewise D-torsion-free.

Proof. Put T = tD (E). By Lemma 7.18, T is divisible. If A is D-periodic, then

A T and the minimality of E assures that E = T . If A is D-torsion-free, then

A T = 0 .

E = E1 T.

Since E1

= E/T , E1 is divisible by Lemma 7.6. By the choice of E again, E = E1 .

Thus the result is proved.

Lemma 7.20. Let D be a Dedekind domain. Suppose that C = cD is a cyclic D-

module and that E is a minimal divisible module for C. If C is D-torsion-free,

then E

=D F , where F is the eld of fractions of D.

Proof. Since C is D-torsion-free, the mapping : D C, dened by the rule

x = cx, x D, is a D-homomorphism. Corollary 7.19 implies that E is D-torsion-

free. Let c1 C, 0 = y D, e1 , e2 be elements of E such that e1 y = c1 = e2 y.

Then

0 = e1 y e2 y = (e1 e2 )y

and, since E is D-torsion-free,

e1 e2 = 0,

e E such that ey = c1 . If c1 = cx for some x D, then put e = c xy .

72 Chapter 7. The KovacsNewman theorem

y 1 = c xy .

Let x1 C, 0 = y1 D and e1 = c xy11 . Then

ey = cx, e1 y1 = cx1

and we obtain

eyy1 = cxy1 , e1 y1 y = cx1 y

and

(e + e1 )yy1 = cx1 y + cxy1 = c(x1 y + xy1 ).

It follows that

x1 y + xy1

e + e1 = c .

yy1

Hence

x x1 x1 y + xy1 x1 y + xy1

( + )1 = ( )1 = c

y y1 yy1 yy1

x x1 x x1

= e + e1 = c + c = ( )1 + ( )1 .

y y1 y y1

Let u D. Put e2 = c ux

y . Then

It follows that (e2 eu)y = 0 and, then e2 = eu. Thus

x x x

e2 = (u )1 = eu = c u = ( )1 u.

y y y

This shows that 1 is a D-homomorphism. Let x

y Ker 1 , that is c xy = 0. Then

x

cx = c y = 0,

y

i.e., x Ann D (C) = 0. This means that xy = 0 and therefore Ker 1 = 0.

As Im 1 is a divisible submodule of E and C Im 1 , by the choice of E, we

conclude that E = Im 1 . Hence E

=D F .

Let D be a Dedekind domain. If A is a simple D-module, then there exists a

maximal ideal P of D such that A = D/P . By Corollary 6.17, D/P k and P/P k+1

are isomorphic as D-modules for every k N. In particular, for every k N the

D-module D/P k can be embedded in the D-module D/P k+1 . Therefore we may

consider the injective limit of the family of D-modules {D/P k | k N}. We put

CP =

The D-module CP is called a Pr

ufer P -module. By construction, CP is a P -

module such that P,k (CP ) =D D/P k and

= (D/P k+1 )/(P/P k+1 )

= D/P

Chapter 7. The KovacsNewman theorem 73

some k N such that C = P,k (CP ). In fact, if b

/ P,k (CP ), then C = bD.

We also note that the Pr ufer P -module CP is monolithic and its monolith is

P,1 (CP ).

Lemma 7.21. The Pr

ufer P -module is divisible.

Proof. This has been established in the book by L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and

I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Lemma 5.1].

Corollary 7.22. Let D be a Dedekind domain. Suppose that A is a simple D-

module and let E be a minimal divisible module for A. Then E

=D CP , where

P = AnnD (A).

Proof. By Corollary 7.19, E is a D-periodic module. By Corollary 6.25, E =

Q EQ , where EQ is the Q-component of E and =Ass D (A). In particular,

E = EP C, where C is the P -component of E, that is C = Q=P EQ . Then

Lemma 7.6 and the isomorphism EP = E/C at once give that EP is divisible. By

the choice of E, E = EP since A EP . Hence E is a P -module. By Proposition

6.13, if y P \ P 2 , then P = yD + P 2 . Let 0 = a1 A. Since E is divisible, there

are elements a2 , a3 , . . . , an , . . . A such that

an+1 x = an ,

for every n N. Obviously, Ann D (a2 ) =Ann D (a2 D) = P and so Ann D (a2 D) =

P k1 , where k1 > 1. Thus a2 D

= D/P k1 and, in particular, A2 = a2 D contains

copies of submodules isomorphic to

D/P

= P k1 1 /P k1

= A, . . . , D/P k1 1

= P/P k1 .

if Ann D (an ) = P

in this way, kn1

, we have that k1 < k2 < < kn < .

Therefore nN An has a submodule B which is isomorphic to

Hence B = E.

Lemma 7.23. Let R be a ring. Given a family of R-modules {A | }, suppose

that, for every ,E is an essential extension of A . Then E is an

essential extension of A .

Proof. Put

A= A and E = E .

Given 0 = e E, e = e , where =Supp ((e ) ) is nite. Let

such that 0 = e E . Since E is an essential extension of A , there is

some x1 R such that 0 = e x1 A . If \ {} satises e x1 = 0, then

74 Chapter 7. The KovacsNewman theorem

exists some \ {} such that e x1 = 0. Since E is an essential extension of

A , there is some x2 R such that

0 = e x1 x2 A .

0 = ex1 x2 = e x1 x2 + e x1 x2 A

and so eR A = 0. Proceeding in the same way, we obtain after nitely many

steps, that eR A = 0. It means that E is an essential extension of A, as

required.

Corollary 7.24. Let D be a Dedekind domain. If {A | } is a family of D-

modules and, for every ,

E is a D-divisible envelope of A , then E

is a D-divisible envelope of A .

Proof. By Lemma 7.6, U = E is divisible. By Corollary 7.12, U contains

the divisible envelope E of A = A . By Theorem 7.16, there exists a D-

submodule B such that U = E B. In particular, B A = 0 and then, by

Lemma 7.23, U is an essential extension of A. This means that B = 0 and so

E = U.

Let D be a Dedekind domain, and let A be a D-module. If P is a maxi-

mal ideal of D, let AP be the P -component of A. Since Ann D (P,1 (AP )) = P ,

P,1 (AP ) may be considered as a vector space over the eld D/P . By denition,

the corresponding dimension rP (A) =dimD/P (P,1 (AP )) is called the P -rank of

A. Note that rP (A) is an invariant of the module A.

Let R be an integral domain, and let A be an R-module. If B is a maximal

free subset of A, then |B| is called the torsion-free R-rank of A or the 0-rank of the

R-module A and it is denoted by r0 (A). It is worth mentioning that this invariant

for R-modules is analogous to the dimension of a vector space on a eld.

Theorem 7.25. Let D be a Dedekind domain and let F be the eld of fractions of

D. If E is a divisible D-module and = AssD (E), then E = ( P EP ) U and

(1) EP is the P -component of E;

(2) EP = (P ) C , where C is the Pr ufer P -module for every (P );

(3) U = U , where U =D F , for every .

Moreover, |(P )| = rp (E) and || = r0 (E).

Proof. Let T = tD (E). By Lemma 7.18, T is divisible, and, by Theorem 7.16, there

exists

a D-submodule U such that E = T U . Further, by Corollary 6.25, T =

P EP , where EP is the P -component of E and =Ass D (E). Since

EP is di-

visible by Lemma 7.6, there exists a set (P ) such that P,1 (EP ) = (P ) M ,

Chapter 7. The KovacsNewman theorem 75

By Corollary 7.12, EP contains a divisible envelope C(P ) of P,1 (EP ) and, by

Corollary 7.24,

C(P ) = C ,

(P )

(by Corollary 7.22). Moreover, by Theorem 7.16, there exists a submodule A(P )

such that

EP = C(P ) A(P ).

Since P,1 (EP ) C(P ) and EP is an essential extension of P,1 (EP ), A(P ) = 0;

that is, EP = C(P ). By the denition of (P ), |(P )| = rP (A).

On the other hand, since U = E/T , r0 (E) = r0 (U ). Let S be a maximal D-

free subset of U and dene V = aS aD. If u U , then uD V = 0 , and so U

is an essential extension of V . Since r0 (U ) = |S|, r0 (E) = |S|. Since C

= E/T , by

Lemma 7.6, U is divisible. By Corollary 7.12, U contains a D-divisible envelope

W of V , and, by Corollary 7.24, W = aS Va , where each summand Va is a

D-divisible envelope of aD. By Lemma 7.20, Va =D F . Finally, by Theorem 7.16,

there exists a submodule M such that U = W M and, since V W and U

is an essential extension of V , M = 0; that is, U = W . Thus the theorem is

proved.

Corollary 7.26. Let D be a Dedekind domain and let F be the eld of fractions of

D. Suppose that A is a D-module and let E be a divisible envelope of A.

(1) E = ( P EP ) U , where if = AssD (E), EP = (P ) C , and C is

ufer P -module for every (P ).

the Pr

(2) U = U , where U =D F , for every .

(3) |(P )| = rP (A) and || = r0 (A).

The above result nishes our preliminary work, and we are now ready to

prove the Kovacs-Newman theorem. The next lemma is the basis for that proof.

We remark that this lemma is originally shown for the ring D = Z, although we

can slightly modify its proof in such a way that it remains true for an arbitrary

Dedekind domain.

Lemma 7.27 (L.G. Kovacs and M.F. Newman [137]). Let D be a Dedekind domain,

G a periodic central-by-nite group, A a DG-module. Suppose that A satises the

following conditions:

(i) A is a monolithic DG-module with monolith M .

(ii) AnnD (A) = P = 0.

(iii) Either char(D/P ) = 0 or char(D/P ) (G).

76 Chapter 7. The KovacsNewman theorem

Then:

n

(1) A = A , where either A = D/P or A is a Pr

ufer P -module for

every . In particular, A is D-periodic and AssD (A) = P .

(2) If E is a proper DG-submodule of A, then there exists some k N such that

E = P,k (A).

Proof. (a) Put

C = (G), S = DC, L = P,1 (A) and A0 = tD (A).

Since the P -component of A contains the monolith, by Corollary 6.25, A0 is exactly

the P -component of A. Given some x Ann S (M ), we choose a nite subgroup

Cx C such that x DCx . By Theorem 5.9, there exists a DCx -submodule M1

such that L = M M1 . Then

Lx = M x M1 x M1 x M1 .

If Lx = 0, then M Lx M1 , a contradiction. Hence Lx = 0; that is,

AnnS (M ) =AnnS (L).

(b) Put T =AnnS (M ) so that T is an ideal of S. Since M P = 0, SP T .

By Theorem 5.5,

M = M0 M0 g1 M0 gm ,

where M0 is a simple S-module and g1 , . . . , gm G. It is rather easy to prove that

T =AnnS (M0 ). Since M0 is a simple S-module, there exists some a A such that

M0 = aS and Ann S (a) = T so that M0 = S/T . Moreover, T is a maximal ideal

of S, i.e. the factor-ring S/T is a eld. If b L and bS = 0, then T Ann S (b)

since AnnS (L) = Ann S (M ) = T . Since T is a maximal ideal, T = Ann S (b). This

means that bS is a simple S-module.

(c) Let B be a maximal S-submodule of L under B M = 0. If b L \ B,

then B does not include bS. Since bS is a simple S-submodule, bS B = 0. By

the choice of B, (bS + B) M = 0 , and so there are some x S and b1 B such

that 0 = b2 = b1 + bx M . Then bx = b2 b1 M + B. If bx = 0, then b1 = b2 .

Since M B = 0, b1 = b2 = 0, a contradiction. Hence bS (M + B) = 0. It

follows that bS B + M, since bS is simple. In other words, L = M B.

Let F be a nite subgroup of G such that G = CF . By Theorem 5.9, there

exists a DG-submodule B1 such that L = M B1 . Since M is the DG-monolith

of A, L = M .

(d) Pick y P \ P 2 and a M . Suppose that there is some n N such that

xy = a has solutions but xy n+1 = a has not. If 0 = b M , then there is some

n

(b1 u)y n+1 = (b1 y n+1 )u = bu = a,

a contradiction. By Proposition 6.13, P = Dy + P n+1 , and therefore either A0 =

P,n (A) or A0 is y-divisible. In the latter, A0 is D-divisible, cf. L.A. Kurdachenko,

J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Proposition 7.2].

Chapter 7. The KovacsNewman theorem 77

endomorphism. Hence Im j and Ker j are DG-submodules; moreover Im j

P,1 (A) = M . If A0 = P,j+1 (A), then Im j = 0 , and so Im j = M . In

this case, Ker j = P,j (A), and so P,j+1 (A)/P,j (A)

= M . In particular, this

factor is a simple DG-module. Therefore, if E is a DG-submodule of A0 , then

either E = P,j (A) for some j N or E = A0 .

(e) If Ann D (A0 ) = P t , then

A= A ,

where A = D/P t , for every (see D. W. Sharpe and P. Vamos [265, Theorem

6.14]). If A is D-divisible, then, by Theorem 7.16, A = B , where B is a

Prufer P-module for every . In the rst case, there exists some D-submodule

U such that A = A0 U (see I. Kaplansky [123]). In the second one, by Theorem

7.25, there exists a D-submodule U0 such that A = A0 U0 . Therefore, in any

case, A0 is a direct summand of A; that is, there exists a D-submodule W such

that A = A0 W .

(f) Suppose that Ann D (A0 ) = P t . If A = A0 , then the complement W of

A0 in A is a non-zero torsion-free D-submodule. Moreover,

AP t = A0 P t W P t = W P t W,

AP t , a contradiction that shows that A = A0 .

(g) Now suppose that A0 is D-divisible. Assume also that M is the S-monolith

of A. If 0 = a A, then aS is a non-zero S-submodule, and so M aS. Thus,

there is some x S such that 0 = ax M . Pick a nite subgroup Cx such

that x DCx . Since A0 is D-complemented in A, by Theorem 5.9, there is a

DCx -submodule V such that

where kx = |Cx |.

Suppose that char D = p > 0 so that char(D/P ) = p. It follows that (kx , p) =

1 and, then kx A = A and A0 V = 0. In other words, A = A0 V .

Suppose now that char D = 0 but char(D/P ) = p > 0. In this case, the

additive group of A0 is a p-group. Since (kx , p) = 1, A0 V = 0; that is,

A0 + V = A0 V . The mapping : a kx a, a A, is a DCx -endomorphism of

A so that Ker and Im are DCx -submodules. Since the Z-periodic part of A is

A0 ,

Ker = 0 , Im = kx A A0 V,

and

A0 = kx A0 Im .

78 Chapter 7. The KovacsNewman theorem

Therefore

Im = A0 (V Im ),

and we notice that V Im is a DCx -submodule. Since A = Im , we obtain

A = A0 V1 , where A0 = A0 1 and V1 = (V Im ) 1 .

Finally, suppose that char(D/P ) = 0. Consider P,1 (A) as a vector space over

the eld D/P . Since char (D/P ) = 0, P,1 (A) is Z-divisible. By the isomorphism

P,1 (A)

= P,j+1 (A)/P,j (A)

module A/A0 is D-torsion-free and char D = 0, A/A0 is Z-torsion-free. Hence A

is Z-torsion-free. It follows that the mapping

: a kx a, a A

A

= Im = A0 (V Im )

Therefore, in any case, A = A0 V2 , for some DCx -submodule V2 . We claim

that A0 x = 0. Otherwise ax Ax = A0 x V2 x = V2 x V2 . Since ax M and

M A0 , this leads to a contradiction, which shows our claim.

Put B =AnnA (x). Since x DC, B is a DG-submodule of A. Since A0 x =

0, B A0 is a proper DG-submodule of A0 . We have already proved that B

A0 = P,j (A), for some j N. It follows that Ann D (B A0 ) = 0 , and then

B = (B A0 ) B1 , where B1 is a D-torsion-free D-submodule provided B1 = 0

(see I. Kaplansky [123]). Then BP j = B1 P j B1 and, in particular, BP j is D-

torsion-free; this conditions assures that BP j = 0. For, otherwise M BP j and

so M B1 , a contradiction. Then B A0 . Since x S, A0 x is a DG-submodule

and, since A0 x = 0, M A0 x. Then ax A0 x; that is, ax = bx for some b A0 .

Thus (ab)x = 0, and so ab B A0 . It follows that a A0 . Therefore A = A0

also holds in this case.

(h) Now suppose that A0 is D-divisible but M is not S-monolith. By Theorem

5.5, there are a simple S-module M0 and elements g1 , . . . , gm G such that

M = M0 M0 g1 M0 gm .

Dene

M 1 = M 0 g 1 , . . . , Mm = M 0 g m .

For every 0 j m, choose Rj to be a maximal S-submodule of A under

s=j Ms Rj and Rj Mj = 0. Then every A/Rj is an S-monolithic module

with S-monolith (Mj + Rj )/Rj . Since Ann D (Mj ) =Ann D (M0 ) = P , by applying

Chapter 7. The KovacsNewman theorem 79

the result shown in the last paragraphs, we deduce that A/Rj is D-periodic and

Ass D (A/Rj ) = {P }. Put

X = R0 R1 Rm .

particular, X is D-torsion-free. By Remaks theorem

A/X

A/R0 A/R1 A/Rm ,

and so A/X is D-periodic. It follows that A/Xgj is likewise D-periodic, for every

0 j m. If

X1 = X Xg1 Xgm,

then, by Remaks theorem, again,

A/X1

A/X A/Xg1 A/Xgm ,

that X1 X, X1 is also D-torsion-free. Consequently, X1 = 0 and hence A is

D-periodic in this case.

Thus, the proof is now completed.

Theorem 7.28 (L.G. Kovacs and M.F. Newman [137]). Let D be a Dedekind do-

main, G a periodic central-by-nite group, A a DG-module. Suppose that B is a

DG-submodule of A satisfying the following conditions:

(1) B is DG-monolithic with monolith M .

(2) AnnD (M ) = P = 0.

(3) Either char(D/P ) = 0 or char(D/P ) (G).

If B is D-complemented in A, then B is DG-complemented in A.

Proof. By hypothesis, there exists a D-submodule C of A such that A = B C.

Let E be a maximal DG-submodule of A under E M = 0. If there exists

some j N such that BP j = 0, then AP j = CP j . In particular, AP j B = 0.

Clearly, we may choose E such that AP j E. By Lemma 7.27, A/E is D-periodic,

and Ass D (A/E) = {P }. Since B also satises the conditions of Lemma 7.27, there

exists a decomposition

B= B ,

ufer P -module for every

. In the rst case, by the choice of E, we have (A/E)P j = 0. By Lemma

7.27, there exists a decomposition

A/E = C ,

80 Chapter 7. The KovacsNewman theorem

where C

= D/P t for every . Since

Suppose now that B is D-divisible. By Lemma 7.27, A/E is likewise D-

divisible. Since

P,1 (A/E) = P,1 ((B + E)/E),

as above,

A/E = (B + E)/E and A = B E,

as required

Corollary 7.29. Let D be a Dedekind domain, G a periodic central-by-nite group,

A a DG-module. Suppose that B is a DG-submodule of A satisfying the following

conditions:

(1) B = B1 Bn , where every Bj is DG-monolithic with monolith Mj .

(2) For every 1 j n, AnnD (Mj ) = Pj = 0.

(3) Either char(D/Pj ) = 0 or char(D/Pj ) (G), for every 1 j n.

If B has a D-complement, then B has a DG-complement.

Corollary 7.30. Let F be a eld, G a periodic central-by-nite group, A an artinian

F G-module. If char F = 0 or char F (G), then A is a semisimple F G-module.

Chapter 8

This chapter deals with some specic criteria of semisimplicity that were obtained

by B. Hartley in [101, 103]. In these papers, Hartley considered a specic class

of modules that is wider than artinian modules over Chernikov groups. We will

consider here some results of [101] only.

Let us begin with some technical lemmas.

Lemma 8.1 ([101]). Suppose that r, m, n, k N satisfy m2 | rn 1. Then

1 + rn + + rn(k1) k(mod m2 ).

which is divisible by m2 .

Let G be a group, H a subgroup of G, R a ring and A an RH-module. We

dene

AG = A RH RG.

We consider now the eect of inducing simple modules from a subgroup of an

abelian group to the whole group.

Lemma 8.2 ([101]). Let G be a periodic abelian group and suppose that K is a

subgroup of G such that G/K is a Chernikov locally cyclic group. Let F be a nite

eld such that char F (G). Then there exists a subgroup H K satisfying the

following properties:

(1) H/G0 is nite.

82 Chapter 8. Hartleys classes of modules

F G-module.

Proof. It suces to consider the case K = 1. Having dealt with this case, we

may be assured that there is a nite subgroup H/K G/K such that if A is a

simple F (H/K)-module and CH/K (A) = 1 , then AG/K is a simple F (G/K)-

module. In this case, let V be a simple F Hmodule such that CH (V ) = K. We

may naturally view V as a faithful simple F (H/K)-module, and, then the induced

F (G/K)-module V G/K remains simple. We may think of this module as an F G-

module so that, as consequence of the denitions, it is isomorphic to V G . Thus

V G is simple.

Therefore, we suppose that K = 1. Then G is a Chernikov locally cyclic

group, and we may assume that G is innite. Suppose (G) = {p1 , . . . , pk }. Then

G = G1 Gk ,

where Gj is a cyclic pj -subgroup or a Pr

any nite subgroup containing all elements of G of order dividing p21 p2k . The

group G has an ascending chain

H = H0 H 1 H j

G= Hj ,

jN

and all the indexes |Hj+1 : Hj | = qj are prime. Since qj {p1 , . . . , pk }, qj (H),

and hence qj2 divides |Hj |. Therefore Hj has elements of order qj2 , and then

Suppose that |F | = r = pt and let n be the smallest natural number such that |L|

divides rn 1; the existence of n is guaranteed since (p, |L|) = 1. Let H be the

unique largest subgroup of G of order dividing rn 1. Then L H, and so n is

the smallest natural number such that |H| divides rn 1. Put q0 = n. We show

by induction on j N that if nj = q0 q1 qj , then Hj is the largest subgroup of

G of order dividing rnj 1 and nj is the smallest natural number j such that |Hj |

divides rj 1.

Suppose that we have already shown this for some j 0. Let X be any nite

subgroup including H such that |X| divides rnj+1 1. Then

Chapter 8. Hartleys classes of modules 83

rnj (qj+1 1) + + 1.

rnj 1. By Lemma 8.1,

Since s divides the left-hand side of (8.2), we nd that s = qj+1 . It also follows, that

(qj+1 )2 does not divide that left-hand side of (8.2), and hence either |X : Hj | = 1

or |X : Hj | = qj+1 . Since G has at most only one subgroup of any given nite

order, it follows that X Hj+1 . By Lemma 8.1, (8.1) assures that (8.2) holds

with s = qj+1 . Therefore |Hj+1 | divides rnj+1 1, and so Hj+1 itself is the largest

subgroup of G with this property. Furthermore, if |Hj+1 | divides rd 1, then, by

induction, d has the form d = nj u, for some u N. Then qj+1 divides

2

),

Let now Fj be the nite eld of order rnj . Since |Hj | divides (rnj 1), there

is a monomorphism : Hj U (Fj ). The additive group of Fj is made into

an F Hj -module by the action ah = a(h), where a Fj and h Hj . Moreover,

CHj (Fj ) = 1. Since |Hj | | rd 1 if and only if nj | d, it follows that Hj generates

the eld Fj ; and so we obtain in this way a simple F Hj -module. Since every simple

module with trivial centralizer arises in this way, we have just seen

such that A has an identity centralizer in Hj . (8.3)

dimension nj qj+1 = nj+1 over F . Since the F Hj -module AHj+1 is a direct sum

of copies of A, every element of prime order acts xed-point freely on AHj+1 .

Consequently, every simple submodule of AHj+1 is faithful for Hj+1 ; that is, its

corresponding centralizer is trivial. By (8.3), AHj+1 is a simple F Hj+1 -module.

Iterating the above argument, we nd that AHd is simple for every d > j. Since

AG is the union of the F Hd -modules AHd for every d > j, AG is simple. It suces

to take j = 0.

Lemma 8.3. Let L be a nil-ideal of a ring R, and let : R R/L the canonical

epimorphism. If a is an element of R such that a is an idempotent, then there is

some b R such that aba = e is an idempotent and a = e.

84 Chapter 8. Hartleys classes of modules

Proof. We have

0 = a (a)2 = a (a2 ) = (a a2 ),

and so aa2 L. Then there exists some n N such that (aa2 )n = 0. Obviously,

we may assume that n 2. Moreover, (1 a)n = 1 ac, for some c R such that

ac = ca. In particular,

0 = (a a2 )n = an (1 a)n = an (1 ac);

obtain an = an (ac)n = a2n cn , since ac = ca. Put e = (ac)n . Then

Let R be a ring, e1 , e2 idempotents of R. We say that e1 , e2 are orthogonal if

e1 e2 = e2 e1 = 0. Let e be a non-zero idempotent of the ring R. We say that e is a

primitive idempotent if e cannot be expressed in a sum of two non-zero orthogonal

idempotents.

If R is a ring, then J(R) denotes the Jacobson radical of R.

Lemma 8.4. Let R be an artinian ring.

(1) If e is a non-zero idempotent of R, then the R-module eR is directly inde-

composable if and only if e a primitive idempotent.

(2) If e is a primitive idempotent, then eR includes an unique maximal R-

submodule eJ(R); in particular, eR/eJ(R) is a simple R-module.

Proof. (1) If e = e1 + e2 and e1 , e2 are non-zero orthogonal idempotents, then

eR = e1 R + e2 R. Let a e1 R e2 R. Then there are x1 , x2 R such that

a = e1 x1 = e2 x2 . Thus e1 x1 = e1 e1 x1 = e1 e2 x1 = 0, and so eR = e1 R e2 R.

Conversely, suppose that R1 , R2 are R-submodules of R such that eR = R1 R2 .

Since R1 , R2 are R-submodules, e1 e2 , e2 e1 R1 R2 = 0. Clearly, e1 , e2 are

idempotents, so that e1 , e2 are orthogonal idempotents.

(2) Consider R/J(R) as a right R-module, and let M be the set of maximal

right ideals of R. We claim that M is nite. Otherwise, M has a countably innite

subset {Mn | n N} such that

M1 Mn = M1 Mn Mn+1 ,

Chapter 8. Hartleys classes of modules 85

right ideals

M1 > M1 M2 > > M1 Mn >

that contradicts the fact that R is artinian. Thus the set M is nite, and it follows

that

R/J(R)

R/M.

MM

composition length; Corollary 4.3 also yields that

(eR + J(R))/J(R)

=R (eR)/(eR J(R))

is a semisimple R-module. In particular, eR J(R) J(eR). The mapping :

x ex, x R is an R-endomorphism; therefore eR/eJ(R) is likewise a semisimple

R-module, so that eJ(R) J(eR). On the other hand, J(R) J(R), and thus

eJ(R) = J(eR). Since J(R) is a two-sided ideal, eJ(R) J(R). Hence eJ(R) =

J(R) eR. Since eR contains an idempotent e, eR = eJ(R). Let B be an R-

submodule of eR such that eJ(R) does not include B. Then J(R) does not include

B, and (B + J(R))/J(R) is a non-zero R-submodule of the semisimple module

R/J(R). By Corollary 4.3, (B + J(R))/J(R) is a direct summand of R/J(R).

Hence (B + J(R))/J(R) contains a non-zero idempotent, say f + J(R). Since

R is artinian, J(R) is a nilpotent ideal (see D. S. Passman [219, Lemma 5.11,

Lemma 5.1]). By Lemma 8.3, there exists an idempotent 0 = g B such that

f +J(R) = g+J(R). In other words, we may assume that f is an idempotent. Since

f + B eR, there exists some y R such that f = ey. Then ef = e2 y = ey = f .

Put z = f e B. Since ez = ef e = f e = f ee = ze, z 2 = f (ef )e = f (f e) = f e = z.

It follows that

e = z + (e z), and

z(e z) = ze z = (f e)e z 2 = f e z = z z = 0;

2

(e z)z = ez z 2 = ze z = z z = 0;

Thus e = z + (e z) is a sum of two orthogonal idempotents. Moreover, since

0 = f = f 2 = (ef )(ef ) = e(f e)f = e(zf ),

z = 0. Since e is a primitive idempotent, e z = 0; that is, e = z. But in this case

e B, thus B = eR. It follows that eJ(R) contains every proper submodule of

eR. This means that eR/eJ(R) is a simple R-module, as required.

Lemma 8.5 ([101]). Let G be an abelian group and suppose that G has a nite

subgroup K such that G/K is a Chernikov locally cyclic group. Let F be a nite

eld such that char F (G). Then there exists a nite subgroup H K satisfying

the following properties:

86 Chapter 8. Hartleys classes of modules

is a primitive idempotent in R = F G, and eR is a minimal ideal of R such

that CG (eR) = K.

(2) If A is a simple R-module such that CG (A) = K, then A

=R eR, for some

primitive idempotent e B such that CH (eB) = K.

Proof. We choose a subgroup H satisfying the properties (1) and (2) of Lemma

8.2. Thus H is nite because K is nite.

(1) Since char F (H), B is a semisimple F H-module by Corollary 5.15.

In particular J(F H) = 0. By Lemma 8.4, eB is a simple F H-submodule. Now

it is immediate from the denition that eR is isomorphic as right R-module to a

module obtained by including the F H-module eB up to G. Since CH (eB) = K,

by the choice of H and Lemma 8.2, eR is a simple R-module; and so is a minimal

ideal of R. By Lemma 8.4, e is a primitive idempotent of F G. Since eR

= (eB)G ,

it is straightforward to obtain that CG (eR) = K.

(2) Since A is a simple R-module, there exists some maximal ideal M of R

such that A =R R/M . By Corollary 5.15, the F H-module A is semisimple. Let C

be a simple F H-submodule of A. By Lemma 5.4, there is a subset S of G such

that

A= Cx.

xS

Since G is abelian, Cx

=F H C. It follows that A and every F H-submodule of A is

a direct sum of copies of C, and hence CH (C) = K. Since B is nite dimensional

and semisimple, by Corollary 4.3,

B = (B M ) D1 Dk ,

8.4, there exists a primitive idempotent ej such that Dj = ej B. Since ej B are

pairwise non-isomorphic as B-modules, it follows that k = 1. Now B/(B M ) is

naturally isomorphic to an F H-submodule of the F H-module A. Hence, if e = e1 ,

then eB = C and CH (eB) = K. By (1), eR is a minimal ideal of R. Since M does

not include eR, R = M eR, and hence R/M =R eR.

Lemma 8.6 ([101]). Let G be a Chernikov abelian group having a locally cyclic sub-

group of nite index. Suppose that F is a nite eld such that char F (G) and

let A be a simple F G-module such that CG (A) is nite. Then there is an uniquely

determined primitive idempotent e F G such that A =F G e(F G). This corre-

spondence determines a bijection between the isomorphism classes of the simple

F G-modules A with CG (A) nite and the primitive idempotents in F G.

Proof. The factor-group G/CG (A) is locally cyclic (see L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal

and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Theorem 2.3]). Thus, the existence of e follows from

Lemma 8.5. Since G is abelian, eF G and (1 e)F G are mutual annihilators in

Chapter 8. Hartleys classes of modules 87

such that e1 F G

=F G eF G, we obtain

(1 e)F G = (1 e1 )F G and eF G = e1 F G.

Finally, if e is any primitive idempotent of F G, then e F H, for some nite

subgroup H of G and since eF G = (eF H)G , we have thar CG (eF G) H.

Lemma 8.7 ([101]). Let G be a periodic abelian group such that (G) is nite, and

suppose that K is a nite subgroup of G. If F is a nite eld, then the number of

isomorphism types of simple F G-modules A such that CG (A) = K is nite.

Proof. We clearly may assume that K = 1. Then G is a locally cyclic p -group,

where p =char F (see L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Theorem

2.3]). Since (G) is nite, G is Chernikov. By Lemma 8.5, A

= eF G, where e is a

primitive idempotent in F H and H is a nite subgroup satisfying the conditions

of Lemma 8.2. Since H is nite, the set of such primitive idempotents is nite.

This shows the result.

(called the terms of S) of A is called a series of A if it satises the following

conditions:

(i) S is linearly ordered by inclusion.

(ii) If 0 = a A, then there are terms of S that do not contain a, and the union

of all such terms is a term V (a) of S.

(iii) If 0 = a A, then there are terms of S that contain a, and the intersection

of all such terms is a term (a) of S.

(iv) Each term of S has the form V (a) or (a), for some 0 = a A.

(v) 0 , A S.

Thus a belongs to \ V (a). The corresponding factor-module (a)/V (a) is

called a factor of S. If S and S1 are series of A, S1 is said to be a renement of S

if every term of S is a term of S1 . A series that has no renement other than itself

is called a composition series (more precisely, an RG-composition series). Clearly,

in such series every factor is a simple RG-module. As in groups, every series of

submodules can be rened to a composition series.

Lemma 8.8 ([101]). Let G be a periodic abelian group, and let F be a eld with

char F = p, where, if p > 0, then p (G). Suppose that A is an F G-module and

put L = AnnF G (A). If A has a composition series whose factors fall into nitely

many isomorphism types, then F G/L is a direct sum of nitely many elds, and

A is a semisimple F G-module.

88 Chapter 8. Hartleys classes of modules

of S is isomorphic to one of the nitely many pairwise non-isomorphic F G-modules

X1 , . . . , Xn . For each 1 j n, we put Lj =Ann F G (Xj ) and

U = L1 Ln .

Let

: F G/U (F G/L1 ) (F G/Ln ) = B

be the homomorphism given by (x + L) = (x + L1 , . . . , x + Ln ), x F G.

Clearly, is both a ring homomorphism and an F G-homomorphism. Since

the F G-modules A/L1 , . . . , A/Ln are simple and pairwise non-isomorphic, every

F G-submodule of B is a direct sum of some of them and, since the image of

F G/U in B projects onto each summand F G/Lj , it must be the whole of B.

Hence F G/U = B as rings. Since every Xj is a simple F G-module, F G/Lj is a

eld and so F G/U is a direct sum of nitely many elds.

Obviously, U L, and we claim that equality holds. This will show that

F G/L is a direct sum of nitely many elds. Hence, it is a semisimple artinian

ring. Therefore A, which is naturally an F G/L-module, is semisimple.

Let u U . Then there is a nite subgroup H of G such that u F H. By

Corollary 5.15, the F H-module A is semisimple. Let C be a simple F H-submodule

of A, and choose 0 = c C arbitrary. Then c (c) \ V (c), where (c), V (c) S.

Since C is a simple F H-submodule, (c) C and V (c) C = 0, so that C is

isomorphic to an F H-submodule of (c)/V (c). Since u U F H, it follows that

Cu = 0. Since A is a direct sum of copies of the F H-submodule C, it follows

that Au = 0. Therefore u L, and U = L as claimed.

Lemma 8.9 ([101]). Let G be a Chernikov abelian group and suppose we have an

innite set {K | } of distinct subgroups. Then there exists a subgroup B G

such that

(1) B is contained in only nitely many subgroups K ; and

(2) B = nN Bn , where

B1 B2 Bn

and each Bn is contained in innitely many subgroups K .

Proof. We proceed by induction on the sum of the ranks of the Sylow p-subgroups

of G. Since G contains nitely many elements of prime order, it follows that some

of such elements lie in innitely many subgroups K . Then there exist a non-

identity subgroup X1 and an innite subset 1 such that X1 K , for every

1 . This means that innitely many subgroups K /X1 are distinct. Applying

the same argument, there exist a non-identity subgroup X2 /X1 and an innite

subset 2 1 such that X2 /X1 K /X1 , for every 2 . Iterating, we obtain

a tower of subgroups of G

1 = X0 < X1 < < Xn < ,

Chapter 8. Hartleys classes of modules 89

each

of which is contained in innitely many of the subgroups K . Put X =

nN Xn . If X lies in nitely many subgroups K , then it suces to dene B = X

and Bn = Xn , for every n N. Otherwise, the result follows by applying induction

to G/X.

Let G be a locally nite group. Suppose that F is a eld of characteristic

p 0, and let A be an F G-module. Then A is said to be an Mc -module over F G if

for each p -subgroup H of G the set of centralizers in A of subgroups of H satises

the minimal condition (B. Hartley [101]) where,as usual, by 0 we mean the set

of all primes. It is straightforward that A is an Mc -module over F G if and only

if each p -subgroup H of G has a nite subgroup K such that CA (H) = CA (K).

Note that every artinian F G-module is trivially an Mc -module.

Theorem 8.10 ([101]). Let G be a Chernikov group. Suppose that F is a nite eld,

and let A be an Mc -module over F G. If char F (G), then A is semisimple F G-

module.

Proof. First we suppose that G is abelian. Let S be any composition series of A. If

0 = a A, then we put Ka = CG ((a)/V (a)). Suppose, if possible, that innitely

many distinct subgroups of G lie in K = {Ka | 0 = a A}. By Lemma 8.9, there

exists an ascending chain of subgroups

B1 B2 Bn

such that if B = jN Bj , then B is contained in nitely many subgroups Ka

whereas each Bj is contained in innitely many of them. Since A is an Mc -module,

there is a nite subgroup E of B such that CA (B) = CA (E). Then there exists

some j N such that E Bj , and so there is some a A such that E Ka , but

Ka does not include B. If C and D are F G-submodules of A such that C D and

we put C1 /D = CC/D (E), by Corollary 5.15, there exists some F E-submodule

C2 such that C1 = C2 D. By the choice of C1 , C2 CA (E), and therefore

CC/D (E) = (CC (E) + D)/D. Since E Ka , the above argument gives that

= (C(a) (B) + V (a))/V (a) C(a)/V (a) (B).

occur among Ka . This and Lemma 8.7 give that the composition factors (a)/V (a)

fall into nitely many isomorphism types as F G-modules. By Lemma 8.8, A is a

semisimple F G-module.

In the general case, let G0 be a normal abelian subgroup of G having nite

index. Then A is an Mc -module over F G0 , and so A is a semisimple F G0 -module.

Let C be a non-zero F G-submodule of A. Since C is an F G0 -submodule, by

Corollary 4.3, there exists an F G0 -submodule D such that A = CD. By Theorem

5.9, there exists an F G-submodule U such that A = C U . Applying Corollary

4.3 again, we obtain that A is a semisimple F G-module, as required.

90 Chapter 8. Hartleys classes of modules

Lemma 8.11 (A.D. Gardiner, B. Hartley and M.J. Tomkinson [82, Lemma 3.2]).

Let G be a locally nite group, and suppose that F is a eld with char F = p > 0.

If A is a simple F G-module such that CG (A) = 1, then Op (G) = 1.

Proof. Assume the contrary, and choose 1 = x Op (G). Put X = x , and let a

X

be an element of A such that ax = a. Dene A0 = a . Since X is nite, A0 is a

nite subgroup of the additive group of A. If 0 = u A0 , then uF G = A. Hence,

there exists a nite subgroup Gu G such that u(F Gu ) A0 . Put

H = x, Gu | 0 = u A0 .

every non-zero element of A0 generates C as F H-submodule. Thus if we choose an

F H-submodule C1 of C maximal under C1 A0 = 0, then C1 is a maximal F H-

submodule of C and C/C1 is a simple F H-module. Now x Op (G) H Op (H).

Since C/C1 is a simple F H-module, cf. K. Doerk and T.O. Hawkes [56, Theorem

10.5], Op (H) CH (C/C1 ). However A0 = (A0 + C1 )/C1 as X-groups, and so x

acts as the identity on A0 . This contradiction proves the result.

submodules of A is called the Frattini submodule of A and denoted by F rattF G (A).

Theorem 8.12 ([101]). Let G be a Chernikov group. Suppose that F is a nite eld,

and let A be an Mc -module over F G. Then A is a semisimple F G-module if and

only if FrattF G (A) = 0.

suppose that F rattF G (A) = 0. We clearly may assume that CG (A) = 1. If char

F = p and L = F Op (G) is the augmentation ideal of the group-ring F Op (G),

by Lemma 8.11, AL M , for every maximal F G-submodule M. Hence, AL

F rattF G (A) = 0. It follows that Op (G) = 1.

Let H be a normal abelian subgroup of G of nite index in G. Since Op (H) =

1, p (H). Clearly, A is an Mc -module over F H, and so, by Theorem 8.10,

A is a semisimple F H-module. Let B be a simple F H-submodule of A. Choose T

to be a transversal to H in G, and put

C= Bx.

xT

by Lemma 1.1 and Lemma 1.2, C satises Max-F H and Min-F H. But C is an

F G-submodule, so it actually satises Max-F G and Min-F G. If M is a maximal

F G-submodule of A, then either M C, or A = M + C. In the second case, we

note that

C/(C M )

=F G A/M

Chapter 8. Hartleys classes of modules 91

that F rattF G (C) = 0. Since C satises Min-F G, there are nitely many maximal

submodules M1 , . . . , Mn of C such that

M1 Mn = 0 .

By Remaks theorem,

C

C/M1 C/Mn .

By Corollary 4.4, C is a semisimple F G-submodule. It follows that C SocF G (A).

From the choice of C we obtain that A =SocF G (A), that is A is a semisimple F G-

module.

It is worth mentioning that Theorem 8.10 and Theorem 8.12 can fail if (G)

is innite. Specic examples of this were constructed by B. Hartley in [101]. For

the readers convenience, we quote them here but we have omitted their proofs.

Theorem 8.13 ([101]). Let p be a prime. Then there exists a group G satisfying

the following conditions:

(1) G =Drq gq , where |gq | = q and is an innite set of primes.

(2) there are 20 pairwise non-isomorphic simple F G-modules which are faithful

for G, where F = Fp is the nite eld of p elements.

(3) the ring F G contains no primitive idempotents and no minimal ideals.

(4) There is an Mc -module A over F G such that F rattF G (C) = 0 but A is

not semisimple.

B. Hartley [103] continued the study of Mc -modules over group-rings. In this

case, the underlying group has a periodic abelian subgroup of nite index. We also

quote the main result of the above paper, omitting the proof as well. We will need

the following denition.

Suppose that G is a locally nite group, F is a eld and A is an F G-module.

Then A is called a strong locally semisimple module if G has a nite subgroup

K such that A is a semisimple F H-module whenever H is a nite subgroup such

that H K (B. Hartley [103]).

Theorem 8.14. Let G be a periodic abelian-by-nite group. Suppose that F is a

eld, and let A be an Mc -module over F G. Then the following three conditions

are equivalent:

(1) F rattF G (A) = 0.

(2) A is a strong locally semisimple module.

(3) every composition factor of A has an F G-complement.

Chapter 9

In this chapter we consider a more general topic than the semisimplicity of mod-

ules over group rings. In a semisimple module all submodules are complemented

(Corollary 4.3), and so, in particular, every simple submodule has a complement.

On the other hand, if a simple module A has a complement in every module E in-

cluding A, then A is injective (see Proposition 7.2). The commutative rings R such

that every simple R-module is injective have been already described. By a result

due to I. Kaplansky, such rings are necessarily von Neumann regular rings. We are

not going to study the non-commutative case in depth here. We will focus on mod-

ules over group rings and our objectives in this chapter are some important results

that were obtained by D.R. Farkas and R.L. Snider [69] and B. Hartley [107]. If

A is a simple RG-module where R is a commutative ring, then L = AnnR (A) is

a maximal ideal of R, and we may think of A as an F G-module where F = R/L

is a eld. Therefore we will focus on modules over a group ring F G, where F is a

eld.

The rst problem that arises here is the characterization of the injectivity

of the trivial F G-module. A eld F can be thought as a right F G-module under

the trivial action. Specically, if a F and x F G, then ax = a(x), where

denotes the augmentation map. If H is a subgroup of the group G, then, by

considering maps from ideals of F H to F , we can easily show the following result.

Lemma 9.1. Let F be a eld, and let G be a group. If H is a subgroup of G and

F is F G-injective, then F is likewise F H-injective.

Lemma 9.2 (D.R. Farkas and R.L. Snider [69]). Let G be a nite group. Then a

eld F is F G-injective if and only if charF (G).

Proof. If char F (G), by Corollary 5.15, F G is semisimple; then it is clear that

F is F G-injective.

Suppose that char F = p > 0, and F is F G-injective. Suppose that the

result is false, and let x be an element of G of order p. By Lemma 9.1, F is

F x-injective. Let L be the augmentation ideal of F x. We recall that L admits

94 Chapter 9. The injectivity of some simple modules

c(x 1) = 0, a contradiction.

Theorem 9.3 (G.O. Michler and O.E. Villamayor [193], O.E. Villamayor [278]).

Let G be a group. Then a eld F is F G-injective if and only if G is locally nite

and char F (G).

Proof. Suppose that F is F G-injective but G is not locally nite. Then there exist

g1 , . . . , gn G such that G1 = g1 , . . . , gn is innite. Put

G

R=F F G ,

n

Therefore,

g1 z = = gn z = z,

and it follows that gz = z for every g G1 . Thus the coecients of z are constant

on the left cosets of G1 . Since Supp z is nite and G1 innite, we have z = 0. Hence

Ker = 0 , and is a monomorphism. Let : F G F be the augmentation

map of F G. Since F is F G-injective, there exists a mapping : R F such

that = . If 1 j n, let

j = (0, . . . , 0, 1, 0, . . . , 0) R

be the n-tuple with all zeros unless a unique 1 is in the place j, and dene j = j .

Then

= ((g1 1)1 + + (gn 1)n ) = (g1 1)1 + + (gn 1)n = 0,

a contradiction. This contradiction shows that G is locally nite. The other con-

dition follows from Lemma 9.1 and Lemma 9.2.

Conversely, suppose that G is a locally nite group and char F (G). Let

L be a non-zero right ideal of F G, and let : L F a non-zero mapping. Pick

u L such that u = 0. Since G is locally nite, H = Supp u is nite and

L F H = 0. By Lemma 9.2, the restriction of to L F H can be extended

Chapter 9. The injectivity of some simple modules 95

to F H; that is, there exists some F such that a = a = (a) for every

a LF H. Pick b L. There exists a nite subgroup S such that Supp b S and

H S. As above, there exists some F such that b = (b) and u = (u).

Then ( )(u) = 0. But (uw) = 0 since u = 0. Therefore = . Thus b = b

and can be extended. By the criterion of Baer (Theorem 7.1), F is F G-injective,

as required.

In a natural way, Theorem 9.3 leads us to the following class of algebras. Let

A be an algebra over a eld F . Then A is said to be a locally Wedderburn algebra

if every nite set of elements in A generates a semisimple subalgebra having nite

dimension over F .

Now we study the conditions of injectivity of simple F G-modules. Let R be

a ring and A be a simple R-module, and put E =EndR (A). If EndR (A), then

Ker and Im are R-submodules of A. Therefore, if = 0, then Im = A and

Ker = 0. Hence, every non-zero endomorphism of a simple R-module A is an

automorphism. In other words, E is a division ring. Thus we can naturally assume

A to be in a vector space over E. On the other hand, let G be a group and let B

be an RG-module. If x RG, then the mapping x : b bx, b B is an R-

endomorphism, and the mapping : x x , x RG is a ring homomorphism

of RG in the ring EndR (B) of all R-endomorphisms of B.

Lemma 9.4 (D.R. Farkas and R.L. Snider [69]). Let W be a locally Wedderburn al-

gebra over a eld F . Suppose that A is a simple W -module and put E = EndW (A).

If dimE (A) is nite, then A is injective.

Proof. Suppose that the result is false. By the criterion of Baer (Theorem 7.1),

there exist a right ideal L of W and a W -homomorphism : L A, which

cannot be lifted to W . Given a subalgebra V of W , we put

assumption yields

D(V ) = .

V M

Since all modules over such an algebra are injective, D(V ) = , for each V

We pick U M such that the dimension d of L/(L U ) is minimal. Since

M.

V M D(V ) = , there exists a subalgebra V1 M such that D(V1 ) does not

include D(U ). If V2 M contains a basis for U and V1 , then U V2 implies

96 Chapter 9. The injectivity of some simple modules

and

+ AnnA (L V2 ) = + Ann A (L U ) = D(U ),

contradicting the minimality of d.

The next result is due to B. Hartley and leads us in a natural way to the

class of abelian-by-nite groups.

Lemma 9.5 (B. Hartley [107]). Let A be a simple F G-module, where G is an

abelian-by-nite group and F is a eld. If E = EndF G (A), then dimE (A) is nite.

Proof. Let K = (F G) be the image of F G in End F (A). Consider rst the case

in which G is abelian. Then x is an F G-endomorphism for every x F G. Given

E, we choose a xed non-zero element a of A. Since A is a simple F G-module,

there exists some z F G such that a = az. If b is an arbitrary element of A,

then there exists some x F G such that b = ax. Therefore

In the general case, let H be an abelian normal subgroup of G of nite

index, and put R = (F H). By Theorem 5.5, there are nitely many simple

F H-submodules B1 , . . . , Bn such that

A = B1 Bn .

For each 1 j n, we put Lj =Ann R (Bj ). By the result shown in the above

paragraph, each R/Lj is a eld and clearly

ring. Let S be a transversal to H in G. Then K = xS xR and so, in particular,

K satises the minimal condition for R-submodules and a fortiori for right ideals.

Since K is a simple ring with the minimal condition for right ideals, the classical

WedderburnArtin structure theorem (see, for example, [66, Theorem 7.9]) shows

that there are a positive integer r and a division ring D such that K = Mr (D), the

ring of r r-matrices over D. Moreover, A is isomorphic to the natural Mr (D)-

module of r-row vectors with entries in D. Of course, this module has dimension

r over its endomorphism ring D, which proves the general case.

Let F be a eld of characteristic p 0. Following B. Hartley [107], we say

that a locally nite p -group G is restricted if every simple F G-module has nite

dimension over its endomorphism ring (as usual, 0 denotes the set of all primes).

Our next goal is to prove here an important result due to B. Hartley, in which

it is shown that a restricted group is abelian-by-nite. To deal with this, some

technical results are needed.

Chapter 9. The injectivity of some simple modules 97

Lemma 9.6 ([69]). Let S be a ring, and let R be a subring of S. Suppose that

A is a simple R-module, B is a simple S-module, and : A B is an R-

monomorphism. Put E = EndR (A) and D = EndS (B). If X is a subset of A

linearly independent over E, then X is linearly independent over D.

Proof. Suppose that

(a1 )1 + + (an )n = 0,

where a1 , . . . , an are dierent elements of X and 1 , . . . , n D. Applying the

Jacobson-Chevalley Density Theorem (see, for example, C. Faith [67, Theorem

19.22]), for every 1 j n, there exists some uj R such that aj uj = aj ,

whereas ak uj = 0, provided k = j. Then

= a1 uk 1 + + an uk n = ak k .

Lemma 9.7 ([107]). Let F be a eld with char F = p, and suppose that G is

a restricted locally nite p -group. If V is a subgroup of G and U is a normal

subgroup of V , then V /U is likewise restricted.

Proof. Let A be a simple F (V /U )-module. We can think of A as a simple F V -

module by allowing U to act trivially; this does not aect the endomorphism

dimension. Then A = F V /M , for some maximal right ideal M of F V . Since

M (F G) is a proper right ideal of F G, there is a maximal right ideal L of F G

including M , and necessarily L F V = M . Thus we have an F V -monomorphism

of A = F V /M into the simple F G-module F G/L. By assumption, the latter

has nite endomorphism dimension. Lemma 9.6 implies that A also has nite

endomorphism dimension.

Now we consider some needed facts about linear groups over division rings.

Lemma 9.8 ([107]). Let F be a eld, and suppose that D is a division algebra over

F and A is a vector space of nite dimension over D. Let G be a locally nite

p -subgroup of GL(D, A). Then:

(1) For each prime q, the Sylow q-subgroups of G are Chernikov.

(2) if for every subgroup H of nite index the DH-module A is indecomposable,

then every nite abelian normal subgroup of G is cyclic.

Proof. We think of F as naturally embedded in the ring of D-endomorphisms

of A. Let R be the subring of EndD (A) generated by F and G. Thus, R is a

homomorphic image of F G.

(1) Let Q be a nite elementary abelian q-subgroup of G, and let K be the

image of F Q in R. Then K is a nite dimensional F -algebra. We may write

1 = e1 + + et ,

98 Chapter 9. The injectivity of some simple modules

A = Ae1 Aet ,

dimD (A). Furthermore,

K = Ke1 Ket ,

and the summands are elds. We note that the projection of Q into each summand

has order 1 or q, and |Q| divides q t , q t |q n . In particular, every elementary abelian

q-subgroup of G is nite. By a result due to S. N. Chernikov [43, Theorem 4.1]

every Sylow q-subgroup of G is Chernikov.

(2) Suppose the contrary, and let U be a nite noncyclic abelian normal

subgroup of G. Denote by L the subring of EndD (A) generated by F and U . Then

L is not a eld, and so there exist non-zero orthogonal idempotents e1 , e2 L

such that 1 = e1 + e2 . It follows that

A = Ae1 Ae2

and the latter two summands are non-zero D-subspaces. Let C = CG (U ). Then

G/C is nite, and, since C commutes with e1 and e2 , Ae1 and Ae2 are C-invariant.

Thus A is a direct sum of two non-zero C-invariant subspaces. This contradiction

proves this result.

Before dealing with the proof of the basis theorem, we require another result

about modules for normal subgroups. Let H be a normal subgroup of a group G

and let U be an F H-module. If g G, by denition, the conjugate F H-module

U g has U as underlying space with the H-action

S = {g G | U g

=F H U }.

classes of conjugates of U and the set of the right cosets Sg, g G. Indeed these

facts are all well known (see B. Huppert [115]).

Lemma 9.9 ([107]). Let F be a eld, and suppose that H is a normal subgroup of

a restricted group G. If U is a simple F H-module, then the stabilizer S of U in G

has nite index in G.

Proof. If |G : S| is innite, then U has innitely many pairwise non-isomorphic

conjugates under G. As in Lemma 9.7, U can be embedded in a simple F G-module

A. If g G, then U g =F H U g; so the F H-module A has innitely many homoge-

neous components. Each one of these is invariant under the ring E =End F G (A).

Thus, dimE (A) is innite, and G cannot be restricted.

Chapter 9. The injectivity of some simple modules 99

The next proposition is the key step of the proof of the basis result. We show

it independently because the result is interesting in its own way.

Proposition 9.10 ([107]). Let F be a eld with charF = p. Suppose that G is

a locally nite p -group. If G is not abelian-by-nite, then there exists a simple

F G-module A that satises one of the following equivalent conditions:

(1) G/CG (A) is not abelian-by-nite.

(2) (F G) satises no non-trivial polynomial identity.

Proof. We rst show that (1) and (2) are equivalent. Indeed, if Q = G/CG (A)

is abelian-by-nite, then (see D.S. Passman [216, Theorem 5.1]) the algebra F Q

satises the standard identity; hence, so does the image of F G in EndF (A), because

this is a homomorphic image of F Q. Conversely, suppose that R = (F G) satises

a non-trivial polynomial identity. Since R is a primitive ring, by a result due to

Kaplansky (see D. S. Passman [216, Theorem 6.4]), R can be embedded in a ring

of matrices over a eld, which is a eld extension of F . By B.A.F. Wehrfritz [280,

Corollary 9.4], G/CG (A) is abelian-by-nite.

Thus, it suces to show (1). First of all, we note that G has a countable

subgroup H that is not abelian-by-nite (D.S. Passman [216, Lemma 13.2]). Ap-

plying the argument of Lemma 9.7, every simple F H-module B can be embedded

in a simple F G-module A. Moreover, if H/CH (B) is not abelian-by-nite, neither

is G/CG (A). Therefore, replacing G by H, we may assume that G is countable.

Then G has an ascending chain of nite subgroups

H1 H 2 Hn

such that

G= Hn .

nN

[S] S1 S2 Sn ,

is the monomorphism induced by the natural projection of F Hn onto Sn resulting

from writing F Hn as a direct sum of minimal ideals. Let rn be the smallest natural

number m such that Sn satises the standard identity sm . Clearly

r1 r2 rn ,

Case 1. There exists a sequence [S] for which rn . We note that [S]

induces

[S1 ] A1 A2 An ,

100 Chapter 9. The injectivity of some simple modules

into An+1 is an F Hn -monomorphism. Having obtained An , we map it into Sn+1

through the sequence [S], and then project onto a suitable minimal right ideal

An+1 of Sn+1 . The injective limit of the sequence [S1 ] is a simple F G-module

A, and the image (F G) of F G in EndF (A) cannot satisfy a standard identity,

since it includes isomorphic copies of the Sn for each n N. If Q = G/CG (A) is

abelian-by-nite, then F Q satises an standard identity; hence, so does (F G),

a contradiction. This nishes Case 1.

Suppose now that for each j 1 and for a minimal (two-sided) ideal Uj of

F Hj , there exists some k j and a minimal ideal Uk of F Hk such that there is a

monomorphism Uj Uk and Uk fails to satisfy some standard identity satised

by Uj . Then we may clearly construct a sequence [S] to which Case 1 applies. In

the contrary case, by omitting some of the Hn and re-indexing the remainders, we

may suppose that H1 and S1 satisfy the following:

Case 2. For every sequence [S] beginning with S1 , we have rn = r for each

n N.

As indicated above, any sequence [S] induces a sequence [S1 ]. If n N, we put

En =End F Hn (An ). Clearly, En =End Sn (An ). Let dn be the dimension of An over

En . By Lemma 9.6, the image of an En -basis of An in An+1 is En+1 -independent,

and so

d1 d2 dn .

Applying the JacobsonChevalley Density Theorem (see, for example, C. Faith [67,

Theorem 19.22]), we get that Sn is isomorphic to a ring of dn dn matrices over

En , which includes a ring of dn dn matrices over F . Since each Sn satises the

standard identity sr , the AmitsurLevitzki theorem (D.S. Passman [216, Lemma

4.2]) shows that dn are bounded by a number depending only on r. By considering

a sequence [S] in which the least such bound is attained by omitting the rst few

terms and re-indexing the remainders, we may suppose

d1 = = dn = = d,

for every sequence [S] starting with S1 .

Consider now a sequence [S] and its induced sequence [S1 ]. Let e be a central

idempotent of F H1 generating S1 , that is, the identity of the ring S1 . If n 1, we

know that the image in An of an E1 -basis of A1 is an En -basis of An . Therefore

the projection of e in Sn xes by right multiplication an En -basis of An and it has

to be the identity of Sn . Write

F Hn = T 1 T s ,

where T1 , . . . , Ts are minimal ideals and the ordering is such that

e = a1 + + at ,

where t s and 0 = aj Tj for every 1 j t. Then each Tj can be taken as

the nth -term Sn of a sequence [S]. Therefore aj is the identity of each such Tj ,

Chapter 9. The injectivity of some simple modules 101

readily follows that e is a central idempotent of F G and so eF G satises sr .

From D.S. Passman [215], |G : F C(G)| is nite and [F C(G), F C(G)] is

nite. Since G is a p -group, F G is semisimple, and then for every 1 = g

[F C(G), F C(G)] there exists a simple F G-module Ag such that g CG (Ag ). Let

Y be a nite subset such that [F C(G), F C(G)] = Y . If every group G/CG (Ag )

has an abelian subgroup Vg /CG (Ag ) of nite index, then putting

W = F C(G) ( Vg ),

gY

we obtain that

[W, W ] [F C(G), F C(G)] ( CG (Ag )) = 1 .

gY

cannot be abelian-by-nite. Thus, one of the groups G/CG (Ag ) cannot be abelian-

by-nite, and all is done.

Now we consider some particular cases of the mentioned theorem, which are

needed for its proof. The next result was originally proved by R. L. Snider in [267],

but we prefer to follow the proof given by B. Hartley in [107].

Proposition 9.11. Let F be a eld with char F = p, and suppose that G is a

restricted p -group. If G is locally nilpotent, then G is abelian-by-nite.

Proof. Suppose the contrary. By Lemma 9.7 and Proposition 9.10, we may assume

that there exists a simple F G-module A such that CG (A) = 1. Put E =End

F G (A). Since G is restricted, dimE (A) is nite. We have

G = Dr q(G) Gq ,

in particular, it is abelian-by-nite. Therefore, there is an innite subset (G)

such that Gq is not abelian for every q . Since each one of these Gq has a nite

non-abelian subgroup, by Lemma 9.7 we may assume that

G = Dr q(G) Gq ,

may even assume that 2 (G) and every proper subgroup and factor group of

Gq is abelian. If q (G), it follows that Gq is nilpotent of class 2, Zq = (Gq ) is

cyclic, and |[Gq , Gq]| = q. Moreover, Gq has a non-cyclic maximal abelian normal

subgroup Uq (see D. Gorenstein [91, Theorem 5.4.10]). Let Vq be a subgroup of

Uq , maximal under Vq Zq = 1. Then Uq /Vq is cyclic, Vq = 1. Moreover, if

102 Chapter 9. The injectivity of some simple modules

then U/V is locally cyclic. This means that there exists a simple F U -module B

such that V = CU (B) (see L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157,

Chapter 2]). Let H = NG (V ) so that

H = Dr q(G) H Gq .

Clearly, H contains the stabilizer S of B in G. Since Vq Zq = 1, Vq is not

normal in Gq ;hence, Gq = H Gq for all q (G). Therefore, |G : H| is innite,

and |G : S| is innite. By Lemma 9.9, G cannot be restricted, a contradiction.

Proposition 9.12 ([107]). Let F be a eld with char F = p. Suppose that G is a

periodic restricted p -group. If G is metabelian, then G is abelian-by-nite.

Proof. Suppose the contrary. By Lemma 9.7 and Proposition 9.10, we assume that

there exists a simple F G-module A such that CG (A) = 1. Put E =End F G (A).

Since G is restricted, dimE (A) = n is nite and then G can be embedded into the

linear group GLn (E). We may suppose that n is minimal subject to the existence

of a counterexample, which can be embedded in this way. If G has a subgroup L

of nite index such that A = A1 A2 , where A1 and A2 are non-zero L-invariant

submodules, then by Lemma 9.7, L/CL (A1 ) and L/CL (A2 ) are restricted so that,

by the minimality of n, each L/CL (Aj ) is abelian-by-nite, 1 j 2. Therefore,

L is abelian-by-nite, and so is G; a contradiction that shows that this case cannot

occur.

By Lemma 9.8, the Sylow q-subgroups of G are Chernikov for every prime q.

It also follows that every nite abelian normal subgroup of G is cyclic. Let H be

the smallest normal subgroup of G such that G/H is locally nilpotent. Since G is

metabelian, H is certainly abelian. The Sylow q-subgroup Hq of H is Cernikov,

and m (Hq ) is nite, for every m N. Since the latter is normal in G, it has

to be cyclic. Therefore Hq , and hence H is locally cyclic. Then there exists a

monomorphism : H U (K), where K is the algebraic closure of F . Put

M = F [H]. Since every element of H is algebraic over F , M is a subeld of K.

We may extend by linearity over F to the whole group ring F H. If a M and

v F H, the action (a, v) a(v) makes M into an F H-module, which clearly

is simple (see, for example, L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157,

Chapter 2]). Let S be the stabilizer of the F H-module M in G. By Lemma 9.9,

|G : S| is nite. We are going to show how the F H-module structure of M can

be extended to an F S-module structure in such a way that the resulting module

has innite endomorphism dimension, then obtaining a contradiction. A crucial

consideration for this is the fact that G splits over H (B. Hartley [104]); that is,

there exists a subgroup B such that G = HB and H B = 1.

If g S, the conjugate module gM g 1 is F H-isomorphic to M . Thus, there

exists an F -linear isomorphism : M M such that

(av) = a(g 1 vg),

for every a M and v F H. Thus,

(av) = a(g 1 vg),

Chapter 9. The injectivity of some simple modules 103

is an F H-automorphism of M , we may assume that 1 = 1. Putting a = 1, we

obtain that

v = (g 1 vg),

for every v F H; hence we have that

(av) = av,

of the Galois group of M over F . Further, is uniquely determined (in terms

of g) by

(av) = a(g 1 vg) and 1 = 1,

via v = (g 1 vg). We dene = g so that is a mapping from S into .

Since v = (g 1 vg), we readily obtain that is a homomorphism.

Let be the translation subgroup of the group of all F -linear automorphisms

of M . Thus consists of all maps y : a ay, where a M and 0 = y M .

If , then 1 y = (y) , and so normalizes . Since G splits over H,

S likewise splits over H. Actually, if B is a complement of H in G (as indicated

above), B S is a complement of H in S. Then the mapping : hb (h) b,

where h H and b B S, is a well-dened map of S into the group of

semilinear transformations of M . Let h H and b V . Then

hb = h b = h(bh b1 )(bb ).

Thus

= (h) (b)((bh b1 ))b) (b ) = (h) (b)(h ) (b ).

F S-module. The action of F H remains unchanged, and so M is certainly simple.

Let be any F S-endomorphism of M . If w F H, then

w = (1w)v = 1vw.

M . If b B S and a M , then

every b B S, we nd that is induced by the multiplication by an element of

104 Chapter 9. The injectivity of some simple modules

the xed eld P of (B S). It is easy to see that such multiplication induces an

F S-endomorphism of M, and so End F S (M ) can be identied with P . Thus, it

suces to show that M has innite dimension over P . This claim will follow if we

prove that (B S) is innite. To see this, pick b B S. Then b Ker if and

only if (w)(b) = w, for all w F H. Matching = b in w = (g 1 wg),

we see that the above assertion is equivalent to (b1 wb) = w, for all w F H,

or, since is F -linear, to the same condition with w H. Thus, b Ker if and

only if [w, b] = 1, for all w H. Since is a monomorphism of H, we conclude

that Ker ( |BC ) = CBC (H) = C. Since H is abelian and C is locally nilpotent,

HC = H C is likewise locally nilpotent. By Lemma 9.7, HC is restricted, and by

Proposition 9.11, HC is abelian-by-nite. If |(B S) : C| is nite, then |S : HC|

is nite. Since |G : S| is nite, |G : HC| is nite. This implies that G is abelian-

by-nite, which was assumed not to be so. Hence, C has innite index in B S;

so that (B S) is innite, and we are done.

The next result was proved by R.L. Snider in [267], but we follow the proof

given by B. Hartley in [107].

Proposition 9.13. Let F be a eld with char F = p. Suppose that G is a restricted

p -group. If the conjugacy classes of G are nite (that is, G is an F C-group), then

G is abelian-by-nite.

Proof. Suppose the contrary. If Z = (G), recall that G/Z is residually nite (see

M.J. Tomkinson [272, Theorem 1.9]). If G/Z has an abelian subgroup U/Z of nite

index, then U is nilpotent of class at most 2 and restricted. By Proposition 9.11,

U is abelian-by-nite, and so is G. This contradiction shows that G/Z cannot

be abelian-by-nite. This and Lemma 9.7 assure that we may assume that G is

residually nite.

Let L1 be an arbitrary nite normal subgroup of G. Since G is residually

nite, there exists a normal subgroup H of G of nite index such that H L1 = 1.

By our assumption, H cannot be abelian and then H has a nite non-abelian G-

invariant subgroup L2 . Applying the above argument to L1 L2 and proceeding

in this way, we nd that G contains the direct product

L = L1 L2 Ln

Lemma 9.7, we may assume that

G = L = DrnN Ln ,

is metabelian (see D.J.S. Robinson [242, 9.1.9]), so that we have a metabelian

counterexample G. It suces to apply Proposition 9.12 to get a contradiction.

Lemma 9.14 ([107]). Let F be a eld with char F = p. If G is a restricted locally

nite p -group, and F C(G) is nite, then G is nite.

Chapter 9. The injectivity of some simple modules 105

Proof. Put Q = G/F C(G). Since F C(G) is nite, we actually have F C(Q) = 1.

We claim that Q is nite. Otherwise, it is easy to see that Q has a countably

innite subgroup H such that F C(H) = 1. By Lemma 9.7, H is restricted. On

the other hand, by a result due to E. Formanek and R.L. Snider [71], the group

ring F H is primitive. Applying the JacobsonChevalley Density Theorem (see C.

Faith [67, Theorem 19.22]) to a faithful simple F H-module (which necessarily has

nite dimension n over its endomorphism ring E), we nd that F H = Mn (E). In

particular, F H is simple. Consideration of the augmentation ideal leads us to the

contradiction H = 1.

We are now in a position to show one of the relevant results of this chapter.

Theorem 9.15 ([107]). Let F be a eld with char F = p and suppose that G is

a locally nite p -group. Then every simple F G-module has nite endomorphism

dimension if and only if G is abelian-by-nite.

Proof. By Lemma 9.5, every periodic abelian-by-nite group is restricted.

Conversely, assume that G is restricted but G is not abelian-by-nite. Let

L be the locally nilpotent radical of G. By Lemma 9.7 and Proposition 9.11, L

includes an abelian normal subgroup L0 of nite index. Form the product R of

the abelian normal subgroups of nite index of L. Since |L : L0 | is nite, we have

R = L0 L1 Ln ,

in L. Clearly,

L1 Ln (L),

so that |L : (L)| is nite. Hence L has a characteristic abelian subgroup Z of nite

index. By our assumption, the factor-group G/Z is innite. By Lemma 9.7 and

Lemma 9.14, D/Z = F C(G/Z) is innite, and, by Lemma 9.7 and Proposition

9.13, D/Z includes an abelian normal subgroup U/Z of nite index. Then U/Z

is innite, and U is metabelian. By Lemma 9.7 and Proposition 9.12, U includes

an abelian normal subgroup V of nite index. Since L contains every subnormal

abelian subgroup of G, V L. Therefore, U/(U L) is nite. Since L/Z is nite,

so is (U L)/Z. It follows that U/Z is nite. This contradiction establishes the

result.

did above, we consider modules over locally Wedderburn algebras. Concretely, we

consider a locally Wedderburn algebra W of countable dimension over a eld F and

a simple W -module A with endomorphism ring E. By Lemma 9.4, A is injective if

dimE (A) is nite; however, we need to study the case in which dimE (A) is innite.

We suppose this is the case. Since A

=W W/M , where M is a maximal right ideal of

W , dimF (A) is countably innite. Let {wn | n N} and {an | n N} be the basis

of W and A, respectively. We recall the construction introduced by B. Hartley

106 Chapter 9. The injectivity of some simple modules

satisfying the following conditions:

(a) Wn is a nite dimensional semisimple subalgebra of W such that Wn1 Wn

and {w1 , . . . , wn } Wn .

(b) An is a nite dimensional Wn -submodule of A such that An1 An , Dn1

An and {a1 , . . . , an } An .

(c) Bn and Cn are Wn -submodules of An such that Bn is simple and An =

Bn Cn .

(d) Dn is a simple Wn -submodule of A such that the E-span An E of An does not

include Dn , and the homogeneous component Dn of Dn in the Wn -module

A has innite E-dimension.

(e) If En =End Wn (Bn ) and n : An Bn is the projection associated with

the decomposition An = Bn Cn , then Bn1 n = 0 , and (An1 n )En

does not include Dn1 n .

(f) There exists a Wn1 -monomorphism of Dn1 into Dn .

In (d), as in other places, the homogeneous component of Dn means the sum

of all Wn -submodules of A isomorphic to Dn . Of course, this is an E-submodule.

We start the construction with n = 1. Let W1 be any nite dimensional

semisimple subalgebra of W containing w1 . Let A1 be any nite dimensional W1 -

submodule of A containing a1 . Let B1 be any simple submodule of A1 . Since W1

is nite dimensional and semisimple, there exists some W1 -submodule C1 of A1

such that A1 = B1 C1 . Note that A1 E is nite dimensional over E, and W1 -

invariant. Let X1 be the sum of A1 E, and all those homogeneous components of

the W1 -module A that are nite dimensional over E. Then dimE (X1 ) is nite, and

there exists a simple W1 -submodule D1 of A such that X1 does not include D1 .

Clearly, (d) holds for D1 , and we have just established (a)(d) in the case n = 1.

Now suppose that n 1, and we have already constructed (Wj , Aj , Bj , Cj , Dj )

for every j n satisfying the properties (a)-(f). By (d), there exists some d Dn ,

which is E-independent of An . By the JacobsonChevalley Density Theorem (see

C. Faith [67, Theorem 19.22]), there exists some w W such that An w = 0 and

0 = dw Bn . Pick a nite dimensional semisimple subalgebra Wn+1 of W such

that Wn Wn+1 , wn+1 Wn+1 and w Wn+1 . Let An+1 be a nite dimensional

Wn+1 -submodule of A such that An An+1 , Dn An+1 and an+1 An+1 . Then

(a) and (b) hold for j = n+1. We can clearly choose a direct decomposition An+1 =

Bn+1 Cn+1 such that Bn+1 is simple and the projection n+1 : An+1 Bn+1 is

non-zero. This gives (c). Since n+1 is a monomorphism, and w Wn+1 , we have

0 = (dw)n+1 = dn+1 w. Thus w does not annihilate Dn n+1 , whereas it clearly

annihilates An n+1 because it annihilates An itself. It follows that (An n+1 )En+1

does not include Dn n+1 , which proves (c).

Chapter 9. The injectivity of some simple modules 107

and An+1 E is Wn+1 -invariant. Adding to it the sum of those homogeneous com-

ponents of the Wn+1 -module A that are nite dimensional over E, we obtain a

nite dimensional Wn+1 -invariant E-subspace Xn+1 of A. Since, by (d), Dn has

innite E-dimension, Xn+1 does not include Dn . Therefore Xn+1 does not include

some simple Wn -submodule S = Dn . We have A = Xn+1 T , where

T = T ,

and every T is a simple Wn+1 -submodule. It follows that there is some such

that the projection of S into T is non-zero. We put Dn+1 = T . Then (d) and (f)

hold for Dn+1 , and the construction is done.

It follows from (a) and (b) that

(g) W = nN Wn and A = nN An .

It is worth mentioning that condition (d) is only required to assure that the

induction may be carried out. In fact, we will not make use of it any longer.

Lemma 9.16 ([107]). Suppose that Bn+1 and Dn+1 are not isomorphic, and they

form the direct sum Yn+1 = Dn+1 An+1 . Then Yn+1 has a Wn -submodule Ln =

Dn such that Ln An+1 = 0 , and no Wn -complement to An in Ln + An lies in

a Wn+1 -complement to An+1 in Yn+1 .

Proof. It will be convenient to identify An+1 with the external direct sum Bn+1

Cn+1 (see (c)). In this case An is identied with the submodule

{(0, an+1 , an+1 ) | a An } Dn+1 Bn+1 Cn+1

where n+1 is the projection of An+1 onto Cn+1 associated with the decomposition

(c). First, we notice that each Wn+1 -complement to An+1 in Yn+1 is isomorphic to

Dn+1 , and, since Bn+1 and Dn+1 are not isomorphic, projects trivially into Dn+1 .

Next, we identify Dn in some way with a Wn -submodule of Dn+1 (which is possible

by (f)). Because of (e), there certainly exists a Wn -monomorphism of Dn into

Bn+1 such that An n+1 does not include Dn . Let Ln = {(a, a, 0) | a Dn }.

Clearly Ln is a Wn -submodule of Yn+1 such that Ln An+1 = 0. Choose an

element a Dn such that a An n+1 . Then any complement Z to An in

Ln + An contains an element of the form

(a, a + an+1 , an+1 ) with a An .

By the choice of a, the second component of this element is non-zero. Therefore,

the projection of Z into Bn+1 is non-zero and cannot lie in a Wn+1 -complement

to An+1 in Yn+1 .

Lemma 9.17 ([107]). Suppose that Bn

= Dn for every n N and form the direct

sum Yn+1 = Bn+1 An+1 . Then Yn+1 includes a Wn -submodule Mn = Bn such

that Mn An+1 = 0 , and no complement to An in Mn + An lies in a complement

to An+1 in Yn+1 .

108 Chapter 9. The injectivity of some simple modules

Proof. In this case, we will identify Yn+1 with the external direct sum Bn+1

Bn+1 Cn+1 , An+1 with the set of elements with zero as the rst coordinate, and

An with {(0, an+1 , an+1) | a An }. Since Bn

= Dn for every n N, and we

have the property (e), we obtain

(h) There is a Wn -monomorphism n+1 : Bn Bn+1 such that (An n+1 )En+1

does not include Bn n+1 .

Let

Mn = {(bn+1 , bn+1 , 0) | b Bn }.

By (e), n maps Bn monomorphically; thus Mn An+1 = 0 , and Mn is a Wn -

submodule isomorphic to Bn . Now any complement to An+1 in Yn+1 has the form

{(b, b, b ) | b Bn+1 },

d Bn such that dn+1 (An n+1 )En+1 . The existence of d is assured by (h).

Then any complement to An in Mn + An contains an element of the form

can identify it as an element of the form (b, b, b ), obtaining dn+1 = b and

dn+1 + an+1 = b. Substituting for b in the second equation and rearranging,

we get

dn+1 = dn+1 an+1 (An n+1 )En+1 .

But this contradicts the choice of d. Therefore, no complement to An in Mn + An

lies in a complement to An+1 in Yn+1 .

Now we are ready to establish the second main result of this chapter.

Theorem 9.18 ([107]). Let W be a locally Wedderburn algebra of countable dimen-

sion over a eld F and let A be a simple W -module with endomorphism ring E.

Then exactly one of the following statements holds:

(1) dimE (A) is nite, and A is injective; or

(2) dimE (A) is innite, and A can be embedded in an indecomposable W -module

of composition length 2.

Proof. Consider

= {n N | Bn+1

= Dn+1 }.

We split the proof into two cases.

Case 1. The set N \ is innite.

In this case, we form the direct sum Yn = Dn An as in Lemma 9.16.

If Bn+1 is not isomorphic to Dn+1 , then we embed Yn as a Wn -submodule of

Chapter 9. The injectivity of some simple modules 109

Otherwise, using (f), we embed Dn in Dn+1 in any way and again embed An

in An+1 by the natural inclusion. Taking the direct limit of the direct system so

obtained and making suitable identications, we obtain a W -module Y that is the

union of the sequence

Y1 Y2 Yn ,

where each Yn is a Wn -submodule and Y contains A in such a way that A Yn =

An . Furthermore, Yn = Dn An , and for innitely many n N, no complement

to An in Yn lies in a complement to An+1 in Yn+1 . Now

Y /A = (A + Dn )/A,

nN

and

(A + Dn )/A

=Wn Dn /(A Dn )

=Wn Dn .

position length 2. Now let T be any non-zero W -submodule of Y, and choose n

such that Yn T = 0. If An T = 0, then T A. Otherwise, Yn T is a com-

plement to An in Yn . But we can arrange that no complement to An in Yn lies in a

complement to An+1 in Yn+1 . Therefore, the Wn+1 -submodule of An+1 generated

by Yn T meets An+1 non-trivially. It follows that A T = 0 and so T A.

Consequently, A is the unique simple submodule of Y , which is indecomposable.

If Case 1 does not hold, then by suppressing nitely many terms in our

sequence and re-indexing the rest, we reduce to

Case 2. Bn

= Dn for all n N.

The proof of the theorem in Case 2 now follows from Lemma 9.17, exactly

as it did with Case 1.

which every simple F G-module is injective.

Theorem 9.19 ([107]). Let F be a eld of characteristic p 0, and let G be a

countable group. Then every simple F G-module is injective if and only if G is a

periodic abelian-by-nite p -group.

Proof. Suppose that every simple F G-module is injective. If G is not a locally

nite p -group, then the F G-module F , which is clearly simple, is not injective

by Theorem 9.3. Thus we must consider only the case, when G is a locally nite

p -group. Suppose that G is not abelian-by-nite. By Theorem 9.15, there exists

a simple F G-module A that has innite endomorphism dimension. Clearly the

group algebra F G is a locally Wedderburn algebra of countable dimension over

F . By Theorem 9.18, A can be embedded in an indecomposable F G-module of

composition length 2. This shows that A cannot be injective, a contradiction.

110 Chapter 9. The injectivity of some simple modules

module, then by Lemma 9.5, A has nite endomorphism dimension. By Lemma

9.4, A is injective.

Theorem 9.19 was formerly obtained by D.R. Farkas and R.L. Snider [69]

under the additional assumption that F contains all roots of identity if char F = 0.

Chapter 10

modules

In the rst chapter of this book we considered a celebrated result due to H. Fitting

known as the Fitting lemma (Proposition 1.5). This result raises very interesting

questions about artinian modules over group rings concerned with direct decom-

positions of modules that are determined by a group action. Since we may obtain

very fruitful results studying this topic and make them available in the scope of

this book, we develop them here. To deal with this, it is convenient to formulate

the Fitting lemma in the following way.

ring and G is a nite nilpotent group. Then A = C E, where the RG-chief factors

U/V of C (respectively of E) satisfy G = CG (U/V ) (respectively, G = CG (U/V ).

This fact raises related issues such as the discovery of complements to the

upper RG-hypercenter (see the denition below) and the studying of certain exten-

sions of modules that are very near to modules of nite composition length. These

problems have found very important applications in the study both of groups and

modules with niteness conditions. Moreover, they are also related to the ques-

tion of the existence of complements for some residuals in groups. We quote some

papers dedicated to these problems: Z.Y. Duan [60, 61, 63], D.Y. Duan and M.J.

Tomkinson [64], B. Hartley and M.J. Tomkinson [111], M.L. Newell [204, 205],

D.J.S. Robinson [237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 243, 246, 247], E. Schenkmann [253],

M.J. Tomkinson [271, 273, 275], D.I. Zaitsev [301, 302, 304, 307, 308, 310]; see

also the survey L.S. Kazarin and L.A. Kurdachenko [132].

Chapter 3 we dene the XC-center and the upper XC-hypercenter of a group and

associated constructions. Proceeding in a similar way, we can translate the above

concepts in those of the RG-center and the upper RG-hypercenter of modules over

a group ring RG that is connected with some formation of groups.

112 Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules

(respectively, X-eccentric) if G/CG (C/B) X (respectively, G/CG (C/B) X).

In general, the X-central and the X-eccentric factors of a group G can appear

randomly in a composition series of G. Thus, discovering the cases in which all the

X-central factors of a group or of a normal subgroup of it can be gathered in some

place, while all the X-eccentric factors can be gathered in another place, appears

to be a very interesting project. In this setting and for this purpose, R. Baer [8]

introduced two important subgroups in a nite group G to rule out the X-centrality

and the X-eccentrality with respect to G. These are the XC-hypercenter XC (G)

of G and the X-hypereccenter E (G) of XG. The XC-hypercenter was dened

in Chapter 3 (actually, in Chapter 3 it is denoted as the upper XC-hypercenter),

while the X-hypereccenter is dened in the following way. Every G-chief factor of

the normal subgroup XE (G) is X-eccentric and XE (G) is a maximal normal

subgroup under this property. Clearly XC (G) XE (G) = 1 always holds,

but the decomposition

G = XC (G) XE (G)

usually fails. Baer himself achieved an important result in this direction, which we

quote now (see R. Baer [8]).

Theorem. Suppose that X is a local formation of nite groups and A is a normal

subgroup of a nite group G such that Q = G/CG (A) is XC-nilpotent. Then

A = (A XC (G)) (A XE (G).

In passing, we mention that, under these assumptions, the stronger restriction

G X holds, since for a local formation X, the XC-nilpotency of G implies that

G X (see K. Doerk and T. O. Hawkes [56, Theorem IV.3.2]). We consider the

question of the existence of Baers decomposition for certain types of artinian

modules. Our results concern innite groups and artinian modules, all of which

are associated in some way to a specic formation of groups. To proceed to the

description, we need rst to develop the concepts involved. As we did before for

groups (see Chapter 3) we obtain a generalization of the RG-center and the upper

RG-hypercenter with respect to certain formations of groups.

Let R be a ring, G a group, X a class of groups and A an RG-module. As

above, if B C are RG-submodules of A, the factor C/B is said to be X-central

(respectively, X-eccentric) if G/CG (C/B) X (respectively, G/CG (C/B) X).

To rule out these factors, we dene

X is a formation of groups, then XCRG (A) is an RG-submodule of A.

Proof. If a1 , a2 XCRG (A), then

G/(CG (a1 RG) CG (a2 RG)) G/CG (a1 RG) G/CG (a2 RG),

Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules 113

and

CG (a1 RG) CG (a2 RG) CG ((a1 a2 )RG).

It follows that G/CG ((a1 a2 )RG) X; that is, a1 a2 XCRG (A).

Now, suppose a XCRG (A) and x RG. Then a3 = ax aRG and so

a3 RG aRG. Thus CG (a3 RG) CG (aRG) and it follows that G/CG (a3 RG)

X, whence ax XCRG (A).

The submodule XCRG (A) is called the XC-RG-center of A (in brief, the XC-

center of A). Proceeding in a manner similar to the one we used for groups, we

construct the upper XC-RG-central series of the module A as

0 = A0 A1 A A+1 A ,

where A1 = XCRG (A), A+1 /A = XCRG (A/A ), for all ordinals < and

XCRG (A/A ) = 0. The last term A of this series is called the upper XC-RG-

hypercenter of A (in short, the XC-hypercenter of A) and is denoted by XCRG (A);

the terms A are called the XC-RG-hypercenters of A. If A = A , then A is said

to be XC-RG-hypercentral ; if is nite, then A is called XC-RG-nilpotent .

We note that, if X = I is the class of all identity groups, then XCRG (A) =

RG (A) is called the RG-center of A and XCRG (A) = RG (A) is called the upper

RG-hypercenter of A. If X = F is the class of all nite groups, then XCRG (A) =

F CRG (A) is called the F C-center of A and XCRG (A) = F CRG (A) is called the

upper F C-hypercenter of A.

An RG-submodule C of A is said to be X-RG-hypereccentric if it has an

ascending series

0 = C0 C1 C C+1 C = C

RG-module, for every < .

We say that the RG-module A has the Baer decomposition for the formation

X or A has the Baer X-RG-decomposition (in short, the Baer X-decomposition)),

if the following equality holds:

A = XCRG (A) XERG (A),

where XERG (A) is the maximal X-RG-hypereccentric RG-submodule of A. Note

that in this case, XERG (A) contains every X-RG-hypereccentric RG-submodule

and, in particular, it is unique. In fact, let B be an X-RG-hypereccentric RG-

submodule of A and put E = XERG (A). If (B + E)/E is non-zero, it has a

non-zero simple RG-submodule U/E. Since (B + E)/E = B/(B E), U/E is RG-

isomorphic to some simple RG-factor of B, and it follows that G/CG (U/E) X.

On the other hand, (B + E)/E A/E = XCRG

(A); that is. G/CG (U/E) X.

This contradiction shows that B E. Hence XERG (A) contains every X-RG-

hypereccentric RG-submodule and, as we claimed, it is unique.

114 Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules

if X = F, we called it the F-decomposition. The rst results on the existence of

the Z-decomposition in innite modules were obtained by B. Hartley and M.J.

Tomkinson [111]. Later on, in the paper [301], D.I. Zaitsev proved that every

artinian ZG-module over a hypercentral group G has the Z-decomposition. The

next natural step is to consider the formation F of all nite groups. The existence

of the F-decomposition in artinian modules over F C-hypercentral groups has been

studied in the papers Z.Y. Duan [60, 62, 63], L.A. Kurdachenko, B.V. Petrenko

and I.Ya. Subbotin [159], and D.I. Zaitsev [307, 308]. The study of the existence of

the partial cases of the F-decomposition has played an important role in the study

of the general case of the existence of the X-decomposition. Actually, its solution

has allowed us to obtain solutions for many important formations X. To deal with

this, it is convenient to split the complete study into two cases:

(1) F X; and

(2) X is a proper formation of nite groups.

A formation X is said to be overnite if it satises the following conditions:

(i) If G X, and H is a normal subgroup of G of nite index, then H X.

(ii) If G is a group, H is a normal subgroup of nite index of G, and H X,

then G X.

(iii) I X.

Clearly, an overnite formation always contains F . The most important exam-

ples of these formations are polycyclic groups, Chernikov groups, soluble minimax

groups, soluble groups of nite special rank, and soluble groups of nite section

rank.

Lemma 10.2 (L.A. Kurdachenko, B.V. Petrenko and I.Ya. Subbotin [159]). Let X

be a formation of groups. Suppose that A is an RG-module, where R is a ring and

G is a group. If B is an RG-submodule of A, then XCRG (B) XCRG (A).

Proof. Let

0 = B0 B1 B B+1 B ,

and

0 = A0 A1 A A+1 A

be the upper XC-central series of B and A, respectively. It suces to show that

B A , for every ordinal , which will immediately imply the conclusion.

We proceed by transnite induction. Clearly B1 A1 . Suppose that > 1.

If is a limit ordinal, by induction,

B = B A = A ,

< <

Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules 115

If B A1 , then B A and we are done. Therefore, we may assume that

A1 does not include B . Pick c B , put C = cRG and choose d C and g

CG ((C + B1 )/B1 ). Then there exists some bd B1 such that dg = d + bd .

Therefore,

(d + A1 )g = dg + A1 = d + bd + A1 = d + A1 .

It follows that

and so

module, where R is a ring and G is a group. Let B and C be two RG-submodules of

A such that B C. If the non-zero RG-factors of both B and B/C are X-eccentric,

then every non-zero factor of C is X-eccentric.

U = V . If V B, then there is nothing to prove, so suppose that V + B = B. If

the factor (U + B)/(V + B) is non-zero, then G/CG ((U + B)/(V + B)) X. The

inclusion CG (U/V ) CG ((U +B)/(V +B)) implies that G/CG (U/V ) X. Finally,

let now U +B = V +B. Here (V +B)/V is non-zero and (V +B)/V =RG B/(BV ),

so that G/CG ((V + B)/V ) X. By the inclusion CG ((V + B)/V ) CG (U/V ),

we have G/CG (U/V ) X.

module, where R is a ring and G is a group. Let

0 = B0 B1 B B

some < , and U = V , then U/V is X-eccentric.

Suppose that > 1. If 1 exists, by Lemma 10.3, every non-zero RG-factor of

116 Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules

U= (U B ), V = (V B ),

< <

and

U/V = ((U B ) + V )/V ).

<

G/CG ((U B )/(V B ) X. Since

Corollary 10.5 ([159]). Let X be a formation of groups. Suppose that A is an RG-

module, where R is a ring and G is a group. Let {B | } be a family of

RG-submodules of A such that every non-zero RG-factor of B is X-eccentric, for

every . If B = B , then every non-zero RG-factor of B is X-eccentric.

Proof. Let be the least ordinal of cardinal ||. Then

{B | } = {B | < }.

If < , dene C = < B . Then

=RG B+1 /(B+1 C ).

to apply Corollary 10.4.

Corollary 10.6 ([159]). Let X be a formation of groups. Suppose that A is an RG-

module, where R is a ring and G is a group. Let {B | } be a family of RG-

submodules of A such that each member B has the Baer X-RG-decomposition.

Then B = B has the Baer X-RG-decomposition.

Proof. If , by hypothesis, we have

B = C E ,

where C = XCRG (B ) and E = XERG (B ). Dene

C= C and E = E .

By Lemma 10.2, C XCRG (B). Further, every non-zero RG-factor of E is X-

eccentric by Corollary 10.5. It follows that C E = 0 , and thus B = C E.

Therefore C = XCRG (B) and E = XERG (B), as required.

Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules 117

group.Then any RG-module A has a largest RG-submodule having the Baer X-

RG-decomposition.

Lemma 10.8 ([159]). Let A be an RG-module, where R is a ring and G is a group.

Suppose that H is a normal subgroup of G of nite index, and let B be an RH-

submodule of A such that A = BRG. If X is an overnite formation of groups and

B has the Baer X-RH-decomposition, then A has the Baer X-RG-decomposition.

Proof. Let {g1 , . . . , gn } be a transversal to H in G. Then

A = Bg1 + + Bgn .

If C and E are RH-submodules of B such that C E, put L = CH (C/E). If

g G, then CH (Cg/Eg) = g 1 Lg. Therefore

H/CH (Cg/Eg) = H/(g 1 Lg)

= H/L.

Consequently, if the RH-factor C/E is X-central (respectively X-eccentric), then

so is the RH-factor Cg/Eg. This means that the RH-module Bg has the Baer

X-RH-decomposition.

Let a XCRH (A) and put A0 = aRH and A1 = aRG. Then

A1 = A0 g1 + + A0 gn .

If U = CH (A0 ), then H/U X. It follows that H/CH (A0 g) X, for every g G

and so ag XCRH (A). In particular, XCRH (A) is an RG-submodule of A.

Furthermore,

CH (A1 ) = g11 U g1 gn1 U gn ,

hence H/CH (A1 ) X. Since X is overnite, G/CG (A1 ) X, and thus XCRH (A)

XCRG (A). As the converse inclusion is also valid, we get XCRH (A) = XCRG (A).

Applying transitive induction, we obtain that XCRH (A) = XCRG (A).

Suppose that B = B1 B2 , where B1 = XCRH (B) and B2 = XERH (B).

Then

B3 = B2 g1 + + B2 gn

is an RG-submodule of A. By Corollary 10.5, B3 XERH (A), whereas, by Lemma

10.2,

B1 g1 + + B1 gn XCRG (A)

and hence XERH (A) = B3 . In particular, XERH (A) is an RG-submodule of A.

Let U and V be RG-submodules of XERH (A) such that U V but U = V . Then

U/V is a non-zero RH-factor of XERH (A) and so H/CH (U/V ) X. Since X is

overnite, G/CG (U/V ) X. Thus, XERH (A) = XERG (A), as required.

Lemma 10.9 ([159]). Let A be a nitely generated DG-module, where D is a

Dedekind domain and G is a policyclic-by-nite group. Suppose that A is mono-

lithic with monolith M, and let 1 = g (G) such that M (g 1) = 0. Then

there is some m N such that A(g 1)m = 0.

118 Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules

DG-submodule of A, P Spec(D). Let T be the D-periodic part of A. Since A

is monolithic, T is the P -component of A. Since DG is a noetherian ring (see D.

S. Passman [217, Theorem 10.2.7]), A is a noetherian DG-module by Lemma 1.1.

According to L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Lemma 1.9],

L =Ann D (T ) = 0 , and then there exists some d N such that L = P d . There

exists some D-submodule C such that A = T C (see I. Kaplansky [123]). In

particular, AL C and AL T = 0. Since M T , this means that A = T .

Put T1 = P,1 (T ) and think of T1 as an F G-module, where F = D/P is a

eld. Put R = F x, where x is an innite cyclic group and dene an action on

x on T1 by ax = ag, where a T1 . Then R is a principal ideal domain and T1

is an RG-module. Since M (g 1) = M (x 1) = 0, the (x 1)-component of

T1 is non-zero, and as above, we obtain that T1 is equal to its (x 1)-component.

Since the RG-module T1 is also noetherian, there must exist some t N such

that T1 (x 1)t = T1 (g 1)t = 0. If y P \ P 2 , then the mapping : a

ay, a P,2 (T ) = T2 is a DG-endomorphism of T2 and so Ker and Im are

DG-submodules of T2 . Since Im = T2 y T1 , (Im )(g 1)t = 0; that is,

T2 (g 1)t T1 and T2 (g 1)2t = 0. A simple inductive argument shows that

A(g 1)dt = 0.

Suppose now that P = 0. Since M is a simple DG-submodule, M is D-

divisible. Then we may consider M as a KG-module, where K is the eld of

fractions of D. Since A is monolithic, A is D-torsion-free. Let B = A D K so that

B is also D-torsion-free. Clearly B is a monolithic KG-module with KG-monolith

M . Put S = K y, where y is an innite cyclic group and dene an action of y

on B by bx = bg, b B. Obviously, B is a nitely generated KG-module, so that

B is a nitely generated SG-module. Since S is also a principal ideal domain, as

above, the ring SG is also noetherian (see D.S. Passman [127, Theorem 10.2.7]).

Again, M (x 1) = M (g 1) = 0 and, in particular, Ann S (M ) = 0. In this

case, we have already proved that there is some m N such that B(g 1)m = 0.

In particular, A(g 1)m = 0.

Corollary 10.10 ([159]). Let A be a nitely generated DG-module, where D is a

Dedekind domain, G is a polycyclic-by-nite group, and CG (A) = 1. If 1 = g

(G) and CA (g) = 0, then A = A(g 1).

Proof. Pick 0 = a CA (g). Since g (G), CA (g) is a DG-submodule. Let Ba

be a maximal DG-submodule of A under a Ba . Then A/Ba is a monolithic

DG-module with monolith (aDG + Ba )/Ba = M/Ba . Then (M/Ba )(g 1) = 0 ,

and it suces to apply Lemma 10.9.

Lemma 10.11 ([159]). Let A be a nitely generated DG-module, where D is a

Dedekind domain, G is a locally polycyclic-by-nite group, and CG (A) = 1. If

1 = g (G) and CA (g) = 0, then A = A(g 1).

Proof. Let

A = a1 DG + + an DG

Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules 119

and suppose that A = A(g 1). Then there exist some b1 , . . . , bn A such

that aj = bj (g 1), for every 1 j n. Pick 0 = c CA (g) and choose a

nitely generated subgroup H of G such that g H and c, b1 , . . . , bn B =

a1 DH + + an DH. If b B, then there are some x1 , . . . , xn DH such that

b = a1 x1 + + an xn = b1 (g 1)x1 + + bn (g 1)xn

= (b1 x1 + + bn xn )(g 1).

In other words, B = B(g 1). On the other hand, c CA (g) B = CB (g) and, in

particular, CB (g) = 0. By Corollary 10.10, B = B(g 1), a contradiction.

Theorem 10.12. Let A be an artinian DG-module, where D is a ring and G is a

locally soluble F C-hypercentral group. If X is an overnite formation of groups,

then A has the Baer X-DG-decomposition.

Proof. If G X, then A = XCDG (A). Thus we may assume that G X.

Suppose that the result is false. Let M be the family of DG-submodules B

of A such that B does not have the Baer X-DG-decomposition. Since A M,

M = . Since A is artinian, M has a minimal element C. By Corollary 10.7, C

contains the largest DG-submodule M of A having the Baer X-DG-decomposition.

By the choice of C, we deduce that M contains every proper DG-submodule of C.

In particular, M is a maximal DG-submodule of C. Decompose M = M1 M2 ,

where M1 = XCDG (M ) and M2 = XEDG (M ).

First, we suppose that G/CG (C/M ) X. We may replace C by C/M2 to

assume that M = XCDG (M ). We also may suppose that CG (C) = 1. Put

S = SocDG (C) so that S M . Since S is a direct sum of nitely many simple

DG-submodules, G/CG (S) X and, in particular, CG (S) = 1. By Lemma 3.15,

G

CG (S) F C(G) = 1. Pick some 1 = x CG (S) F C(G). By Corollary 3.4, x

is central-by-nite and the index |G : CG (xG )| is nite. Therefore either xG

G

includes a nite minimal G-invariant subgroup X or x includes a G-invariant

nitely generated torsion-free abelian subgroup Y . We note that if X is nite,

then X is also abelian since G is locally soluble. Dene Z = X in the rst case

and Z = Y in the second, and let H = CG (Z). Then Z (H), and |G : H| is

nite. By Theorem 5.5, there exist some n N such that we may express

We claim that H/CH (B/M ) X. Otherwise, since

= H/CH (B/M )

for every g G, we obtain H/CH (C/M ) X and it follows that G/CG (C/M ) X,

a contradiction. Thus our claim has just been proven. Since M does not include

B, BDG = C. Thus B does have the Baer X-DH-decomposition. Otherwise, C

would have the Baer X-DG-decomposition by Lemma 10.8.

120 Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules

have the Baer X-DH-decomposition. Since B L, L = . By Theorem 5.2,

C is an artinian DH-module and so L has a minimal element E. By Lemma

10.8, M cannot include E and so B = E + M . By Corollary 10.7, E contains

the largest DH-submodule E1 having the Baer X-DH-decomposition. By Lemma

10.8, E1 DG M and, in particular, E1 M . Moreover, E M = E1 since B/M

is a simple DH-module. Since

E/E1 = E/(E M )

=DH (E + M )/M = B/M,

we obtain that

H/CH (E/E1 ) X.

Let W =Soc DH (C). Since C is an artinian DH-module,

W = L1 Ls ,

(H), Lj (DX) is a DH-submodule of Lj , and then either Lj (DX) = 0 or

Lj (DX) = Lj . Consequently,

W = CW (X) W (DX).

that W (DX) is a DG-submodule of W . We claim W (DX) = 0. Otherwise,

W (DX)Soc DG (A) = 0. Since X CG (Soc DG (A)),

which is a contradiction. Thus we have just proven our claim; that is, W (DX) =

0 , so that W CC (X). It follows that E CC (X) = 0. If e E \ E1 , then E1

does not include eDH and so eDH = E. In particular, E is a nitely generated

DH-submodule. Since G is F C-hypercentral, G is locally (polycyclic-by-nite)

by Corollary 3.20. By Lemma 10.11, E(g 1) = E, for every g X, and thus

E(g 1) E1 . Since M = XCDG (M ), E1 = XCDH (E1 ) by Lemma 10.8. The

mapping

: a + E1 a(g 1) + E1 (g 1), a E, and g X,

is a DH-homomorphism. If E(g 1) = E1 (g 1), then the inclusion E(g 1) E1

implies that

H/CH (E(g 1)/E1 (g 1)) X.

Since E(g 1)/E1 (g 1) =DH E/E1 , CH (E/E1 ) = CH (E(g 1)/E1 (g 1)).

Since H/CH (E/E1 ) X, we get to a contradiction, which shows that E(g 1) =

E1 (g1), for every g X. In this case, it follows that E = CE (g)+E1 , and then, by

the choice of E, E = CE (g), because CE (g) is a DH-submodule. Since this is true

for every g X, we deduce E CC (X). In particular, M does not include CC (X).

Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules 121

contradiction.

Now we suppose G/CG (C/M ) X. Proceeding as above, we may assume

M = XEDG (M ) and CG (C) = 1. Since CG (C/M ) = 1, we may pick 1 = y

CG (C/M ) F C(G). Note that Y = yG is central-by-nite and |G : CG (Y )| is

nite. Put R = CG (Y ). We may suppose again that Y is abelian; that is, Y (R).

Let Q be the family of all DR-submodules Q of C of M does not include Q. Since

C Q, Q = . By Theorem 5.2, C is an artinian DR-submodule and so Q has a

minimal element U . By Lemma 10.8, M = XEDR (M ). For each g Y , U (g 1)

and CU (g) are DR-submodules, because g (R) and U (g 1) =DR U/CU (g).

By the choice of Y , U (g 1) M . If CU (g) M , then U/CU (g) has one non-zero

X-central DR-factor. On the other hand, since U (g 1) M , every non-zero

DR-factor of U (g 1) is X-eccentric. This contradiction shows that M does not

include CU (g). By the choice of U , we obtain that U = CU (g). Since this holds

for every g Y , U CC (Y ). In particular, M does not include CC (Y ). Since Y

is normal in G, CC (Y ) is a DG-submodule. Then C = CC (Y ), because M include

every proper DG-submodule of C. Hence Y CG (C) = 1, and we come to a

contradiction also in this case.

We note that the case D = Z of this result was considered by L.A. Kur-

dachenko, B.V. Petrenko and I.Ya. Subbotin [160]. Also, it is worth mentioning

that, since every overnite formation X contains F, every F C-hypercentral group

is likewise X-hypercentral.

Corollary 10.13 ([159]). Let D be a Dedekind domain and G a locally soluble F C-

hypercentral group. If A is an artinian DG-module, then A has the F-decomposition.

Corollary 10.14 (Z.Y. Duan [60]). Let G be a locally soluble group, having an

ascending series of normal subgroups, every factor of which is nite or cyclic. If

A is an artinian ZG-module, then A has the F-decomposition.

Corollary 10.15 (D.I. Zaitsev [308]). Let G be a hypernite locally soluble group.

If A is an artinian ZG-module, then A has the F-decomposition.

Corollary 10.16. Let A be an artinian DG-module, where D is a Dedekind domain

and G is a locally soluble F C-hypercentral group. Then A has the Baer X-DG-

decomposition for the following formations X:

(1) X = P, the formation of all polycyclic groups.

(2) X = C, the formation of all Chernikov groups.

(3) X = S2 , the formation of all soluble minimax groups.

(4) X = S , the formation of all soluble groups of nite special rank.

(5) X = S0 , the formation of all soluble groups of nite section rank.

122 Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules

for what formations of nite groups does the Baer decomposition exist? Also note

that we did not even complete the case of the formation I of all identity groups.

In the next results, we will rst consider the existence of the Z-RH-decomposition

in artinian RG-modules when H is a hypercentral normal subgroup of G. As we

shall see, these results will play an important role in nding the answers for both

questions.

Lemma 10.17 (L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [158]). Let A be an

RG-module, where R is a ring and G is a group. Suppose that Y and H are normal

subgroups of G such that H Y and G/Y is nite. Suppose also that B/C is a

chief RG-factor of A such that RH (B/C) = 0. If U/V is a chief RY -factor such

that C V U B, then RH (U/V ) = 0.

Proof. By Theorem 5.5, the RG-submodule B has an RY -submodule E C such

that E/C is a simple RY -module and

module and H is a normal subgroup of Y , RH ((E/C)gi ) is an RY -submodule,

hence, RH ((E/C)gi ) = 0 for every i, 1 i n. Since the RY -module B/C

is semisimple, the chief RY -factor U/V is RY -isomorphic with some (E/C)gi . It

follows that RH (U/V ) = RH ((E/C)gi ) = 0, as required.

Lemma 10.18 ([158]). Let A be an RG-module, where R is a ring and G is a group.

Let X be a formation of groups, and suppose that H is a normal subgroup of G

such that A has an RH-submodule B satisfying the following conditions:

(1) Every non-zero RH-factor of B is X-eccentric.

(2) XCRG (A/B) = A/B.

Then B is an RG-submodule of A.

Proof. The proof of this lemma is rather obvious.

Lemma 10.19 ([158]). Let A be an artinian RG-module, where R is a ring and G

is an F C-hypercentral group. Suppose that H is a normal hypercentral subgroup

of G and A has an RH-submodule B satisfying the following conditions:

(1) If U/V is a non-zero RH-factor of B, then CH (U/V ) = H.

(2) CH (A/B) = H.

Then B is an RG-submodule of A, and there exists an RG-submodule M such that

A = B M.

Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules 123

element M . Clearly, we may assume that CG (M ) = 1.

Suppose that M1 = M B = 0. By Corollary 3.16, (H) F C(G) = 1.

G

Pick 1 = x (H)F C(G), and dene X = x . Then the subgroup Y = CG (X)

has nite index in G, and H Y . In particular, X (Y ). Now put

a minimal element U . Put U1 = M1 U . If z X, then z (H) and so the

mapping z : u u(z 1), u U is an RY -endomorphism; and, therefore,

U (z 1)/U1 (z 1) is an RY -epimorphic image of

U/U1 = U/(M1 U )

=RY (U + M1 )/M1

= M/M1 = M/(M B) =RY (M + B)/B = A/B.

It follows that

H = CH (U (z 1)/U1 (z 1)).

On the other hand, A(z 1) B by the condition (2). Since U (z 1) and U 1(z 1)

are RY -submodules, they are RH-submodules too. Thus, if U (z 1) = U1 (z 1),

by condition (1), H = CH (U (z1)/U1 (z1)). This contradiction shows U (z1) =

U1 (z 1). In this case, U = U1 + CU (z), hence, M = M1 + U = M1 + U1 + CU (z) =

M1 + CU (z), which implies CU (z) M1 . By the choice of U , U = CU (z). Since

this holds for every z X, U = CU (X) and, in particular, U CM (X). Note that

CM (X) is an RG-submodule since X is normal in G. Then

A = B + M = B + M1 + U = B + CM (X),

Therefore M B = 0 , hence, A = B M , as required.

Lemma 10.20 ([158]). Let A an artinian DG-module, where D is a Dedekind do-

main and G is an F C-hypercentral group. Suppose that H is a normal hypercentral

subgroup of G and A has a DG-submodule B satisfying the following conditions:

(1) B DH (A).

(2) A/B is a simple DG-module.

(3) CH (A/B) = H.

Then there exists a DG-submodule M such that A = B M .

124 Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules

for some DG-submodule M . For then

A = A1 + B = ((A1 B) M ) + B = B M,

element a A \ B. Put

element M . Clearly, we may assume that CG (M ) = 1. Suppose that M1 =

M B = 0. By Corollary 3.16, (H) F C(G) = 1. Let 1 = x (H) F C(G)

and dene X = < x >G . Then the subgroup Y = CG (X) has nite index in G

and H Y . In particular, X (Y ). Since

M/M1 = M/(M B)

= (M + B)/B = A/B

that U/M1 is a simple DY -module and

a minimal element Q. Put Q1 = M1 Q = M Q. Let R/S be a chief DY -factor

of M1 . Since H is a normal subgroup of G, DH (R/S) is a DY -submodule of R/S.

Since M1 ZDH (A), DH (R/S) = 0. It follows that CH (R/S) = H. Since

Q/Q1 = Q/(M1 Q)

=DY (Q + M1 )/M1 = U/M1 ,

or DH (Q/Q1 ) = 0. If H CY (Q/Q1 ), then H CY (U/M1 ) too. But we have

already proved that this is impossible. Thus CY (Q/Q1 ) does not include H. If

Q1 = 0, then we consider the DG-submodule QDG. In this case Q is a simple

DY -submodule, so QDG is a semisimple DY -submodule; that is,

V, and there exists an index 1 j m such that V =DY Qwj . In particular,

CY (V ) = CY (Qwj ). However, CY (Qwj ) = wj1 CY (Q)wj . Since Q =DY U/M1

and CH (U/M1 ) = H, we obtain that CH (Q) = H and

Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules 125

It follows that CV (H) = 0. On the other hand, B DH (A) and, in particular,

CV (H) = 0. This contradiction shows that QDG B = 0. Since A/B is a

simple DG-module, QDG + B = A. By the choice of M , QDG = M . Since we

supposed M B = 0, we may also assume that Q1 = 0. Note that Q can be

generated by every element a Q \ M1 . If z X, then z (Y ). By Lemma

10.11, Q(z 1) = Q. Since Q is a minimal element of L, Q(z 1) L. This means

that Q(z 1) + M1 = U . It follows that Q(z 1) M1 because the DY -module

U/M1 is simple. Since z (Y ), the mapping z : u u(z 1), u U is a DY -

endomorphism. Thus the factor Q(z 1)/Q1 (z 1) is a DY -epimorphic image of

Q/Q1 . Since Q/Q1 is a simple DY -module, then either

Q(z 1)/Q1 (z 1)

=DY Q/Q1 or Q(z 1) = Q1 (z 1).

We have already proved that CY (Q/Q1 ) does not include H, so, in the rst case,

CY (Q(z 1)/Q1 (z 1)) does not either contains H. On the other hand, Q(z 1)

M1 and we have already shown that the centralizer of every chief DY -factor of

M1 contains H. Then the rst case is impossible, and so Q(z 1) = Q1 (z 1). In

this case Q = Q1 + CQ (z). Since z (Y ), CQ (z) is a DY -submodule of Q, then

U = M1 + Q = M1 + Q1 + CQ (z) = M1 + CQ (z),

which yields CQ (z) L. By the choice of Q, Q = CQ (z). Since this holds for every

z X, Q = CQ (X). In particular, Q CM (X). Since U = M1 , we deduce that

M1 cannot include CM (X). Since M/M1 is a simple DG-module and X is normal

in G, M1 + CM (X) = M . Therefore

A = B + M = B + M1 + CM (X) = B + CM (X)

which shows that M B = 0 against our assumption. Hence, A = B M .

domain and G is an F C-hypercentral group. If H is a normal hypercentral subgroup

of G, then A has the Z-DH-decomposition.

Proof. Suppose that the result is false. Let M be the family of all DG-submodules

B of A that does not have the Z-DH-decomposition. Clearly M = . Since A is an

artinian DG-module, M has a minimal element C. By Corollary 10.7, C contains

the largest DG-submodule M having the Z-DH-decomposition. By the choice of

C, M must include every proper DG-submodule. In particular, M is a maximal

DG-submodule of C.

Let M = M1 M2 , where M1 = DH (M ) and M2 = DH (M ). Since H is

a normal subgroup of G, DH (C/M ) is a DG-submodule of C/M . Then either

126 Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules

C/M and consider the factor-module C/M1 . By Lemma 10.20, there exists a DG-

submodule M3 /M1 such that

In this case, M3 = DH (C) and so C = M3 M2 . Now suppose that DH (C/M ) =

0. By Lemma 10.20, there exists a DG-submodule M4 /M2 such that

and we come to M4 = DH (C). Thus C = M1 M4 .

Corollary 10.22. Let A be a DG-module, where D is a Dedekind domain and G is

a hypercentral group. If A is artinian, then A has the Z-decomposition.

Note that, for D = Z and G = H the above result was proven by D. I.

Zaitsev in [301]. Note that the result gives a positive answer for the question that

we raised above involving the formation I.

Consider now another question, namely, the existence of the Baer decompo-

sition for some natural formation of nite groups. Before dealing with it, we rst

notice that innite groups behave badly with respect to some properties automati-

cally satised by a nite group. For example, suppose that X is a formation of nite

groups and G is a group such that G RX. If G is nite, then G X. However,

if G is innite, the situation can be totally dierent. To avoid this complication,

we consider the following formation of nite groups.

A formation X of nite groups is said to be innitely hereditary concerning

a class of groups H if it satises the following condition:

(IH) Whenever an H-group G belongs to the class RX, then every nite factor-

group of G belongs to X.

It is worth mentioning that many formations of nite groups are innitely

hereditary concerning the class of F C-hypercentral groups; for example:

(1) A F, the nite abelian groups;

(2) Nc F, the nite nilpotent groups of class at most c;

(3) Sd F, the nite soluble groups of derived length at most d;

(4) S F, the nite soluble groups;

(5) B(n) F, the nite groups of exponent dividing n;

among others. Moreover, all these ve examples and

(6) N F, the nite nilpotent groups;

(7) U F, the nite supersoluble groups

Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules 127

are innitely hereditary concerning both the classes of the F C-groups and hyper-

nite groups.

Theorem 10.23 ([158]). Let X be a formation of nite groups, and let A be an

artinian DG-module, where D is a Dedekind domain and G is an innite locally

soluble XC-hypercentral group. If X is innitely hereditary concerning the class of

F C-hypercentral groups, then A has the Baer X-DG-decomposition.

Proof. Since G is innite, G X. Suppose that A does not have the Baer X-DG-

decomposition. Let M be the family of all DG-submodules B of A that does not

have the X-DG-decomposition. Then M = . Since A is an artinian DG-module,

M has a minimal element C. By Corollary 10.7, C includes the largest DG-

submodule M having the X-DG-decomposition. By the choice of C, M contains

every proper DG-submodule of C, and so M is a maximal DG-submodule of C.

Let

M = M1 M2 ,

where M1 = XCDG (M ) and M2 = XEDG (M ). Suppose that G/CG (C/M ) X.

Replacing C by C/M2 , we assume that M = XCDG (M ). By Corollary 10.13,

C = F CDG (C) FEDG (C).

Since C is indecomposable and M FDG (C), C = FDG (C). In particular, the

factor-module C/M is nite.

Let L be the set of normal subgroups H of G such that G/H X, and let

S be the intersection of the members of L. In other words, S is the X-residual

of G. If S = 1, then G RX. Since X is innitely hereditary concerning the

class of F C-hypercentral groups, the nite factor-group G/CG (C/M ) X. This

contradiction shows that this case cannot appear, and so S = 1. The group G

has an ascending series of normal subgroups

1 = G0 G1 G G+1 G = G

such that G/CG (G+1 /G ) X for every < . It follows that

CG (G+1 /G ) S.

<

By a result

due to Sh. S. Kemhadze [135, Theorem 1], the Baer radical of G

contains < CG (G+1 /G ). Note that the Baer radical of the group G is locally

nilpotent (see D. J. S. Robinson [234, Theorem 2.31]), and a locally nilpotent F C-

hypercentral group is hypercentral, so that, in particular, S is hypercentral. Since

G/S RX, CG (C/M ) S. Further, M has an ascending series of DG-submodules

0 = U0 U1 U U+1 U = M

such that G/CG (U+1 /U ) X, for every < . It follows that

CG (U+1 /U ) S,

<

128 Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules

Therefore M = DH (C). By Theorem 10.21, C = M E, where E = JEDG (M ).

Since E =DG C/M , E = XEDG (A), a contradiction.

Suppose now that G/CG (C/M ) X. In this case, we replace C by C/M1 to

assume M = XEDG (M ). By Corollary 10.13,

C = F CDG (C) FEDG (C).

Since C is indecomposable and G/CG (C/M ) is nite, we obtain C = F CDG (C).

The DG-submodule M has an ascending series of DG-submodules

0 = U0 U1 U U+1 U = M

such that U+1 /U is a DG-chief factor and G/CG (U+1 /U ) X for every < .

It follows that CG (U+1 /U ) does not include S, and then DS (U+1 /U ) = 0

for every < , which means that M = DH (C). By Theorem 10.21, C = M E,

where E = DH (C). Since E

=DG C/M , E = XCDG

(A), another contradiction.

Corollary 10.24 ([158]). Let X be a formation of nite groups and let A be an

artinian DG-module, where D is a Dedekind domain and G is an innite locally

soluble XC-hypercentral group. Then A has the Baer X-DG-decomposition, pro-

vided X is one of the following formations: A F, Nc F, Sd F, S F, and

B(n) F.

Proof. It suces to show that the formation of all nite soluble groups is innitely

hereditary concerning the class of F C-hypercentral groups. To do this, it will suf-

ce to show that if an F C-hypercentral group G belongs to the class R(SF), then

it is locally soluble. So, G will be hyperabelian, and then its nite factor-groups

will be soluble. Let K a nitely generated subgroup of G. By Corollary 3.20, K is

nilpotent-by-nite. In particular, K satises Max, and so K has a maximal normal

soluble subgroup S. Assume that K = S. Then K has a subnormal subgroup L

such that L S and L/S is a nite non-abelian simple group. Since L R(S F),

L has a family {L | } of normal subgroups such that any L/L is nite

soluble and

L = 1 .

group. This contradiction shows that L S = L, for each . Then

L/L = L S/L

= S/(S L ).

It follows that each L/L is a nite soluble group of derived length at most d,

where d is the derived length of the soluble radical S. By Remaks theorem

L

L/L ,

Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules 129

a contradiction that shows K = S. Hence, K is soluble.

Corollary 10.25 ([158]). Let X be a formation of nite groups, and let A be an

artinian DG-module, where D is a Dedekind domain, and G is an innite locally

soluble XC-hypercentral group. If G is an F C-group, then A has the Baer X-DG-

decomposition, provided X is one of the following formations: A F, Nc F, N F,

Sd F, S F, B(n) F, U F.

Corollary 10.26 ([158]). Let X be a formation of nite groups, and let A be an

artinian DG-module, where D is a Dedekind domain, and G is an innite locally

soluble XC-hypercentral group. If G is a hypernite group, then A has the Baer

X-DG-decomposition, provided X is one of the following formations: A F, Nc F,

N F, Sd F, S F, B(n) F, U F.

Corollary 10.27 ([158]). Let X be a formation of nite groups, and let A be an

artinian DG-module, where D is a Dedekind domain, and G is an innite XC-

hypercentral group. If G is a soluble Chernikov group, then A has the Baer X-DG-

decomposition.

Proof. Let R be the X-residual of the group G. Since G/R is residually nite and

G is Chernikov, G/R is nite. This means that any formation X of nite groups

is innitely hereditary concerning the class of Chernikov groups, and it suces to

apply Theorem 10.23.

Consider now another important type of modules with niteness conditions,

namely, noetherian modules. In this case, the situation is not so satisfactory as it

is in the case of artinian modules. As a matter of fact, we can not ask about the

existence of X-decompositions in noetherian modules, even in the case X = I, as

the following elementary example shows. Let U = u v be a free abelian group

of rank 2, and let g be a cyclic group of order 3. We construct the semidirect

product G = U g, in which g acts on U by ug = v and v g = u1 v 1 . Then

every non-identity G-invariant subgroup of U has nite index and, in particular,

the Z g-module U is noetherian. However, U is directly indecomposable and has

central G-chief factors and non-central G-chief factors.

Due to this, we may consider only a certain weakened version of the Baer

X-RG-decomposition, as the following one. Given a DG-module A, then we de-

0 +1

ne

DG (A) = Ag, DG (A) = (DG (A))g for every ordinal and DG (A) =

< DG (A) for a limit ordinal , where g = (DG) is the augmentation ideal

of DG. Thus we have just constructed the lower DG-central series of the module

A,

0 1

A = DG (A) DG (A) DG

(A) DG

+1

(A) DG (A).

notherian modules [236]

130 Chapter 10. Direct decompositions in artinian modules

RG-module. Then there is some k 0 such that

k

RG (A) RG (A) = 0 .

k

In particular, RG (A) has no non-zero G-central factors. Moreover, RG (A) =

+1

RG (A).

The interested reader can nd the proof of this result in the book of D.J.S.

Robinson [242, 15.3]. In the paper [236], Robinson has been able to construct

an example showing that the discussed result cannot be extended to the case

of hypercentral groups having an upper central series of length + 1. For

hypercentral groups, D.I. Zaitsev [302] has been able to obtain the following even

weaker form of the Z-decomposition for noetherian modules.

Theorem 10.29. Let G be a hypercentral group and let A be a noetherian ZG-

module. Then A has a non-zero ZG-central factor if and only if A = DG (A).

In the paper [308] D. I. Zaitsev introduced the following weak form of the

F-decomposition for noetherian modules:

Theorem 10.30. Let G be a hypernite group and A a noetherian ZG-module. Then

A has a non-zero nite ZG-factor if and only if A has a proper ZG-submodule

having nite index.

Finally, Z.Y. Duan [61] proved that every noetherian ZG-module over a hy-

pernite locally soluble group G has the F-decomposition.

Chapter 11

modules over F C-hypercentral groups

One of the rst important problems of the theory of artinian modules is the eval-

uation of their socular height. We initially discussed this question in Chapter 4,

studying the conditions under which this socle height is at most , where is the

rst innite ordinal. We showed that this is valid for artinian R-modules over a

commutative ring R (Theorem 4.12). For artinian modules over a more general

group ring, this question can be reformulated in the following way.

Let G be a group, D a Dedekind domain. What can be said about a group G if

the socular height of an arbitrary artinian DG-module (D is a Dedekind domain)

is at most ? Or more generally, what can be said about a countable group G if

an arbitrary artinian DG-module (D is a Dedekind domain) has a countable set

of generators as a D-module?

In his paper [105], B. Hartley has constructed several impressive examples of

uncountable artinian monolithic ZG-modules for dierent types of groups G in-

cluding some nilpotent groups (see Theorem 4.14). All these examples are uniserial

modules, so, in particular, they are monolithic. We note that in all these examples

the factor-group G/CG (ZG (A)) is not abelian-by-nite. Therefore the question

about the study of nilpotent groups G such that G/CG (ZG (A)) is abelian-by-

nite arises naturally. In Chapter 9 we realized that abelian-by-nite groups play

a special role in the theory of artinian modules over group rings, and this will be

supported by the results stated below. We consider the problem of countability

for a fairly wide generalization of nilpotent groups, namely, for F C-hypercentral

groups. These results have been obtained by L.A. Kurdachenko, N.N. Semko and

I.Ya. Subbotin [164].

We begin with the following theorem that has many applications.

Theorem 11.1. Let G be an F C-hypercentral group, D a Dedekind domain, A an

artinian monolithic DG-module, H = CG (DG (A)). Then A is a DH-hypercentral

module.

132 Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules

submodules

0 = A0 A1 A A+1 A = A,

of A.

Suppose that the result is false. Then there must exist an ordinal such

that CH (A+1 /A ) = H but the upper DH-hypercenter of A+1 contains A (and

hence, the upper DH-hypercenter of A+1 coincides with A ). Put C = A+1 ,

and B = A . There is no loss if we assume that CG (C) = 1. Let G1 be a normal

subgroup having nite index in G. By the HartleyZaitsev theorem (Theorem 5.5),

C/B = (L/B)x,

xS

where L/B is a simple DG1 -submodule, and S is a nite subset. Suppose that

CH ((L/B)g) = H for some element g S. If x S, then we have

= (g 1 x)1 Hg 1 x = H,

CH ((L/B)g) = H for every g S.

We claim that CH (B) = 1. Otherwise, by Lemma 3.15, F C(G) CH (B) =

G

1. Let 1 = h F C(G) CH (B), and put H1 = h , and G1 = CG (H1 ). Then

G1 is a normal subgroup of G having nite index. As we have seen above

C/B = (L/B)x,

xS

choice of h, the mapping : c c(h 1), c C is a DG1 -endomorphism, so

that Ker = CC (h), and Im = C(h 1) are DG1 -submodules. The equation

CG (C) = 1 shows that Ker = C. Since B Ker , Im is a semisimple

DG1 -submodule of nite composition length. In particular, Im contains some

simple DG1 -submodule R. It happens that R must be isomorphic to some DG1 -

submodules (L/B)x, x S, and by the argument given above, CH (R) = H. The

niteness of the index |G : G1 | implies that

DG1 -submodule of nite composition length. If we suppose that RDG B = 0,

then this intersection contains a simple DG1 -submodule Q. As above, Q Is a

Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules 133

the other hand, B is DH-hypercentral; therefore, the inclusion Q B together

with the DG1 -simplicity of Q imply the equation CH (Q) = H, a contradiction.

This contradiction yields that RDG B = 0. In particuar, RDG DG (A) =

0, which is impossible. This nal contradiction establishes our claim; that is,

CH (B) = 1.

Choose in H an arbitrary nitely generated subgroup K. Since K acts triv-

ially on all factors of the ascending series of B, K is residually nilpotent (see P.

Hall and B. Hartley [99, Theorem A2]). It follows that the set of all elements of

H having nite order is a (characteristic) locally nilpotent subgroup of H (see, for

example, [235, Theorem 6.14]). In particular, F C(H) is a locally soluble subgroup.

Let M be the set of all DG-submodule M such that B does not contain M . Since

A is artinian, M has a minimal element E. We note that E B = 0. Otherwise,

E B = 0 , and then the inclusion DG (A) B leads to a contradiction, be-

cause A is DG-monolithic. Hence E B = 0. Since C/B is a simple DG-module,

B + C = E, so that

C/B = (B + E)/B

=DG E/(E B)

if we assume that CG (E) = 1. Let 1 = x F C(G) H, and put X = xG .

We noted above that F C(H) is locally soluble. Then X includes a non-identity

G-invariant abelian subgroup Y . By the choice of X, and Y , Z = CG (Y ) has nite

index in G, and Y (Z). By Theorem 5.5, we have

E/(E B) = (U/(E B))x,

xS

Let now U be the set of all DZ-submodules M of U such that E B does not

contain M . By Theorem 5.2, U is an artinian DZ-module, and then U has a

minimal element V . We have now U = V + (B E), because U/(B E) is a simple

DZ-module, so that

U/(B E) = (V + (B E))/(B E)

=DZ V /(V B)

strated above CH (V /(V B)) = H. If we assume that V B = 0; then, using

the arguments given above, we come to a contradiction. This contradiction shows

that W = V B = 0. Since W is a DH-hypercentral submodule, CW (y) = 0

for each element y Y , and thus CV (y) = 0. The submodule W cannot contain

any vDZ for every element v V \ W . The choice of V yields that vDZ = V , and,

in particular, V is a cyclic DZ-submodule. By Corollary 3.20, every nitely gen-

erated subgroup of an F C-hypercentral group is nilpotent-by-nite. Thus Lemma

10.11 implies that V (y 1) = V . By the choice of V , W contains every proper

134 Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules

: v v(y 1), v V is a DZ-homomorphism. It follows that V (y 1)/W (y 1)

is a DZ-homomorphic image of V /W . If V (y 1)/W (y 1) is non-zero, then by

the simplicity of V /W, we have V /W

=DZ V (y 1)/W (y 1). In particular,

CH (V (y 1)/W (y 1)) = CH (V /W ) = H.

its simple DZ-factors is H-central. Then CH (V (y 1)/W (y 1)) = H. This

contradiction shows that V (y 1) = W (y 1). It follows that for each element

v V, there exists an element w W such that v(y 1) = w(y 1); that is,

(v w)(y 1) = 0. Thus, we see that W cannot contain CV (y). Clearly, CV (y)

is a DZ-submodule, and, by the choice of B, we have CV (y) = V . This holds for

each element y Y , therefore CV (Y ) V . Moreover, CV (Y ) is a DG-submodule,

because Y is a normal subgroup of G, and B cannot contain CV (Y ). By the choice

of E, we obtain that CV (Y ) = E. In other words, Y CG (E) = 1. This nal

contradiction proves the theorem.

an artinian DG-module. If B is a nitely generated DG-submodule of A, then it

has nite DG-composition series. In particular, the socular height of A is at most

.

Proof. There is no loss if we assume that B is a cyclic DG-submodule; that is,

B = bDG, for some element b A. Let R be a normal abelian subgroup of G

having nite index in G. The DR-module A is artinian by Theorem 5.2. Put

C = bDR. Thus C =DR DR/Ann DR (b). Since R is abelian, the group ring DR

is commutative so that J =Ann DR (b) is a two-sided ideal of DR, and we may

consider the factor-ring DR/J, which is artinian. But an artinian commutative

ring is also noetherian ( see R. Sharp [263, Theorem 8.44]). So the DR-submodule

C is both artinian and noetherian; that is, C has nite DR-composition series.

Since R has nite index in G,

sition length. Then B has nite composition length as DG-module. It follows that

every nitely generated DG-submodule of A lies in some term of the upper socular

series of A that corresponds to a nite ordinal. This means that the socular height

of A is at most .

artinian monolithic F G-module. Suppose that dimF A is uncountable, but every

proper F G-submodule of A has countable dimension, and CG (A) = 1. Then

CG (F G (A)) has no non-identity periodic G-invariant subgroups.

Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules 135

we notice that the set T of all elements of H having nite order is a (characteristic)

subgroup of H. Suppose the contrary. Let T = 1. Since G is an F C-hypercentral

group, T F C(G) = 1 by Lemma 3.15. Let 1 = x F C(G) T , and put

G

X = x . Then X is nite by Corollary 3.4. Furthermore, X has a non-identity

G-invariant abelian subgroup Y , because T is locally nilpotent. Then Z = CG (Y )

has nite index in G, and Y (Z). There is no loss if we assume that Y is a

q-subgroup, for some prime q. By Theorem 11.1, A is an F H-hypercentral module,

and hence A is likewise F Y -hypercentral. It follows that the natural semidirect

product A Y is a hypercentral group.

Suppose rst that char F = 0. In a hypercentral group, all elements of nite

order form a (characteristic) subgroup, that is, in this case, B Y = B Y , and

Y CG (B) = 1, a contradiction. Let now char F = p > 0. If we suppose that

q = p, then, by elementary properties of hypercentral groups, we obtain again

that A Y = A Y , which leads to the contradiction Y CG (A) = 1. Suppose

that q = p. Let M be the set of all F Z-submodules U having uncountable F -

dimension. Since A is an artinian F Z-module by Theorem 5.2, M has a minimal

element C. Thus dimF C is uncountable but every proper F Z-submodule of C has

countable dimension over F . The inclusion Y (Z) implies that the mapping

: c c(y 1), c C is an F Z-homomorphism for every element y Y . It

follows that Ker = CC (y), and Im = C(y 1) are F Z-submodules of C, and

C(y 1) =F Z C/CC (y). If C(y 1) is a proper F Z-submodule of C, then it has

countable dimension. By the isomorphism C(y 1) =F Z C/CC (y), the submodule

CC (y) must have uncountable dimension. By the choice of C, C = CC (y). Since

this holds for each element y Y , CA (Y ) C. Since Y is a normal subgroup of

G, CA (Y ) is an F G-submodule. The inclusion CA (Y ) C shows that CA (Y ) has

uncountable dimension too. Under the conditions of this lemma, this implies that

CA (Y ) = A. In other words, Y CG (A) = 1. This contradiction shows that

C(y 1) = C.

Consider now the natural semidirect product C y , y Y . Since char F =

p, the additive group of C is an elementary abelian p-subgroup. The niteness of

y implies that E = C y is nilpotent ( see, for example, [235, Lemma 6.35]).

Clearly, [E, E] = C(y 1) = C, and, in particular, E/[E, E] is nite. This implies

that E is nite too (see, for example, [234, Theorem 2.2]). This nal contradiction

proves that T = 1.

Proposition 11.4. Let D be a Dedekind domain, P a maximal ideal of D, y P \P 2 ,

and A a P -module over the ring D. Then A is D-divisible if and only if A = Ay.

Proof. If A is divisible, then clearly A = Ay. Conversely, suppose that A = Ay.

Let a A, and 0 = x D. If x P , then xD + P = D. Since A is a P -module,

Ann D (a) = P s for some s N. By Lemma 6.7, xD + P s = D, and so 1 = xu + y

where u D, and y P s . We have now

136 Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules

n N. By Theorem 6.3, Lemma 6.7 and Lemma 6.8, xD = P t Q, where P +Q = D.

It follows that x P t \P t+1 , and so x = x1 z, where x1 P t , and z Q. Moreover,

z P . From the equation A = Ay t we obtain that a = a1 y t , for some element

a1 A. Since Ann D (a) = P s , we have P s+t Ann D (a1 ). Proposition 6.13 yields

that P t = Dy t + P t+s , so x1 = y t u + v, u D, and v P t+s . From x P t+1 it

follows that u P . Since P is a prime ideal, u P , z P , and we can conclude

that uz P . Hence, uzP + P = D. This implies that uzD + P t+s = D, so

1 = uzx2 + x3 , where x2 D, and x3 P t+s . Then

where a2 = a1 x2 . Thus Ann D (a1 ) =Ann D (a2 ); that is, P t+s Ann D (a2 ). It

follows that

Lemma 11.5. Let G be a countable F C-hypercentral group, F a eld, and A an

artinian monolithic F G-module. Suppose that dimF A is uncountable, but every

proper F G-submodule of A has countable dimension over F . If CG (A) = 1, then

CG (F G (A)) = 1.

Proof. Put H = CG (F G (A)). Suppose that the result is false, that is H = 1.

Since G is F C-hypercentral, H F C(G) = 1 by Lemma 3.15. All elements of

an F C-group having nite order form a (characteristic) subgroup ( see Corollary

3.4). By Lemma 11.3, H has no non-identity periodic G-invariant subgroups, so

that H F C(G) is torsion-free. But a torsion-free F C-group is abelian (see again

Corollary 3.4), so H F C(G) is an abelian torsion-free subgroup.

G

Let 1 = x F C(G) H, and put X = x . The subgroup X is nitely

generated torsion-free abelian, and its centralizer Z = CG (X) has nite index in

G, and X (Z). Let M be the set of all F Z-submodules having uncountable

F -dimension. Since A is an artinian F Z-module by Theorem 5.2, M has a minimal

element C. Thus, dimF C has uncountable F -dimension, but every proper F Z-

submodule of C has countable dimension over F . The inclusion Y (Z) implies

that the mapping : c c(y 1), c C is an F Z-homomorphism for all elements

y Y . It follows that Ker = CC (y), and Im = C(y 1) are F Z-submodules

of C, and C(y 1) =F Z C/CC (y). If C(y 1) is a proper F Z-submodule of C,

then it has countable dimension. By the isomorphism C(y 1) =F Z C/CC (y),

the submodule CC (y) must have uncountable dimension. By the choice of C this

gives that C = CC (y). Since this holds for every element y Y , CA (Y ) C.

Since Y is a normal subgroup of G, CA (Y ) is an F G-submodule. The inclusion

CA (Y ) C shows that CA (Y ) has uncountable dimension too. By hypothesis, this

implies that CA (Y ) = A. In other words, Y CG (A) = 1. This contradiction

shows that C(y 1) = C. By Theorem 11.1, A is an F H-hypercentral module, so

Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules 137

is a hypercentral group. Let D = F x, where x is a non-identity element of X.

Since x has innite order, D is a principal ideal domain, in particular, D is a

Dedekind domain. Obviously, the ideal P = (x 1)F x is prime. Since C x

is a hypercentral group, the D-module C coincides with its P -component. The

equation C(x 1) = C, together with Proposition 11.4 implies that C is a D-

divisible module. By Theorem 7.25,

C= A ,

the set of indexes cannot be nite. It follows that dimF C = dimF P,1 (C),

and, in particular, dimF P,1 (C) is uncountable. The inclusion X (Z) shows

that P,1 (C) is an F Z-submodule of C. By the choice of C, every proper F Z-

submodule of C has countable dimension. This contradiction gives the required

result.

Theorem 11.6. Let G be a countable F C-hypercentral group, F a eld, and A an

artinian F G-module. If the factor-group G/CG (Soc F G (A)) is abelian-by-nite,

then dimF A is countable. In particular, if the eld F is countable, then A is

likewise countable.

Proof. Consider rst the case when the module A is monolithic. In this case Soc

F G (A) = F G (A). Put H = CG (F G (A)). Suppose again that dimF A is uncount-

able. Let M be the set of all F G-submodules having uncountable F -dimension.

Since A is an artinian F G-module, M has a minimal element B. In other words,

dimF B is uncountable, but every proper F G-submodule of B has countable di-

mension over F . By Lemma 11.5, H CG (B). Therefore, we can think of B as

an F (G/H)-module. The factor-group G/H is abelian-by-nite, and now Lemma

11.2 yields that the socle height of B is at most . Since A is artinian, every factor

of the upper socle series is decomposed into a direct sum of nitely many simple

submodules. Thus B has an ascending series of submodules

0 = B0 B1 Bn Bn+1 B

with simple factors, and . Each factor of this series is a cyclic F G-module,

so that it is an epimorphic image of the F G-module F G. Since G is countable,

dimF F G is countable. Thus, every factor of this series has nite or countable

dimension over F . Hence dimF B is countable, and we come to a contradiction.

Consider now the general case. Suppose that

Soc F G (A) = M1 Mk ,

where M1 , . . . , Mk are simple F G-modules. For each index j, 1 j k, let Uj be

a maximal F G-submodule under the following properties:

M1 , . . . , Mj1 , Mj+1 , . . . , Mk Uj ,

Uj Mj = 0 .

138 Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules

Then the factor-module A/Uj is monolithic, and with the monolith (Mj + Uj )/Uj .

Clearly, H CG ((Mj + Uj )/Uj ), so that G/CG ((Mj + Uj )/Uj ) is abelian-by-

nite. Applying the above paragraph, we obtain that every A/Uj has countable

dimension over F . But

U1 Uk = 0 .

A

A/U1 A/Uk ,

Lemma 11.7. Let R be an integral domain, F the eld of fraction of R, G a group,

and A an artinian RG-module. If A is R-torsion-free, then E = A R F is an

artinian F G-module.

Proof. Let {En | n N} be a descending chain of F G-submodules of E. Then

{A En | n N} is a descending chain of RG-submodules of A. Since A is

artinian, there exists some k N such that A Ek = A Ek+n for every n N.

The R-module Ek /(A Ek ) is periodic, so that Ek /(A Ek+n ) is likewise periodic

for every n N. This means that the R-divisible envelope of every A Ek+n

coincides with Ek . On the other hand, that envelope is Ek+n . Hence Ek = Ek+n

for every n N. This proves that E is an artinian F G-module.

Theorem 11.8. Let G be a countable F C-hypercentral group, D a Dedekind domain

and A an artinian DG-module. If G/CG (SocDG (A)) is abelian-by-nite, then |A|

|D|0 . In particular, if D is countable, then A is countable.

Proof. If D is a eld, then our assertion follows from Theorem 11.6. Therefore we

may suppose that D is not a eld. In particular, this implies that D is innite.

Let T be the D-periodic part of A. By Corollary 6.25,

T = AQ ,

Q

DG-submodule of A. Since A is artinian, the set is nite. Put BQ = Q,1 (AQ ).

Then we may think of BQ as an FQ G-module, where FQ = D/Q is a eld. By

Theorem 11.6, BQ has countable dimension over FQ . Let y Q \ Q2 , and consider

the ideal yD + Qn . By Proposition 6.13,

yD + Qn = Qk

Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules 139

yD + Qn = Q

D-endomorphism such hat Ker = BQ , and Im = (CQ )y = (CQ )Q BQ , so

that CQ /BQ is isomorphic to some D-submodule of BQ . It follows that

Similar arguments give that |Q,n (AQ )| |D| for every n N, and, consequently,

|AQ || |D|. Since is nite, |T | |D|.

The factor-module A/T is D-torsion-free. By Lemma 11.7, E = (A/T ) R F

is an artinian F G-module, where F is the eld of fractions of the integral domain

D. Since D is innite, |F | = |D|. By Theorem 11.6,

With the help of some additional restrictions on G, one can obtain conditions

under which the socle height of any artinian DG-module A is at most .

Let G be a group. From now on, we denote by P (G) the maximal normal

periodic subgroup of G.

Lemma 11.9. Let G be an F C-hypercentral group with P (G) = 1. If G has a

nite 0-rank, then G has a normal nilpotent torsion-free subgroup of nite index.

Proof. The elements of A1 = F C(G) having nite order form a characteristic

subgroup (see Corollary 3.4), so that the equation P (G) = 1 implies that A1 is

torsion-free. Since it has a nite 0-rank, it follows that A1 has a nitely generated

subgroup B1 such that A1 /B1 is periodic. Put C1 = (B1 )G . The inclusion B1

F C(G) implies that C1 is a nitely generated subgroup, and the index |G : CG (C1 )|

is nite. Put E1 /C = P (G/C1 ) CG (C1 )/C1 so that C1 (E1 ), and E1 /C1 is

periodic. By Corollary 3.3, it follows that [E1 , E1 ] is also periodic. In particular the

elements of E1 having nite orders form a characteristic subgroup. It turns out that

E1 is an abelian torsion-free subgroup. Since the operation of taking roots in an

abelian torsion-free group is unique, CG (C1 ) = CG (E1 ) because E1 /C1 is periodic,

and hence the index |G : CG (E1 )| is nite. Put Z1 = CG (E1 ), and A2 /E1 =

F C(G/E1 ) Z1 /E1 . As above, it can be shown that A2 /E1 is an abelian torsion-

free group. Iterating the previous arguments, we nd a normal subgroup E2 such

that E1 E2 , E2 /E1 is abelian and torsion-free, and Z2 = Z1 CG (E2 /E1 ) has

nite index in G. Moreover, if G/E2 is innite, then A3 /E2 = F C(G/E2 ) Z2 /E2

is torsion-free abelian. Proceeding by ordinary induction, we continue the process

of construction of subgroups En . Since the 0-rank of G is nite, this process cannot

be innite; that is, after nitely many steps we come to a nilpotent torsion-free

subgroup En having nite index.

140 Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules

Lemma 11.10. Let D be a Dedekind domain with innite set Spec (D), G be

a locally (polycyclic-by-nite) group of nite 0-rank, and A an artinian DG-

module. Then A is D-periodic. If AP is the P -component of A, P AssD (A) and

p =char(D/P ), then the additive group of AP is a p-group whenever p > 0, and

the additive group of AP is torsion-free whenever p = 0.

Proof. Since A is artinian, A has an ascending series of DG-submodules {A | <

}, every factor A+1 /A of which is a simple DG-module. According to L.A. Kur-

dachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Corollary 1.16], Ann D (A+1 /A )

Spec (D) for every index < . It is not hard to see now that A is D-periodic.

Let P Ass D (A), and suppose that p =char (D/P ). If p > 0, then the

additive group of D/P is an elementary abelian p-group. By Corollary 6.17,

P/P 2 =D D/P , and so the orders of the elements of D/P 2 divide p2 . By the same

logic, we obtain that the orders of the elements of D/P n divide pn . If a AP ,

then Ann D (a) = P n for some n N, so that aD =D D/P n . In particular, the

n

order of a divides p . This means that the additive group of AP is a p-group. If

p = 0, then the additive group of D/P is torsion-free. Using again the isomor-

phism P/P 2 =D D/P , we obtain that the additive group of D/P 2 is torsion-free.

And similarly we obtain that the additive group of D/P n is torsion-free for each

n N. If a AP , then Ann D (a) = P n for some n N, so that aD =D D/P n . In

particular, it follows that the order of a is innite.

Corollary 11.11. Let D be a Dedekind domain with innite set Spec(D), G be a

locally (polycyclic-by-nite) group of nite 0-rank, and A an artinian monolithic

DG-module. Then P =Ann(DG (A)) = 0 and A is a P -module. Furthermore, if

p = char D/P > 0, then the additive group of AP is a p-group; and if p = 0, then

the additive group of A is torsion-free.

Proof. Indeed, by Lemma 11.10, A is D-periodic. By Corollary 6.25,

A= AQ ,

Q

inclusion DG (A) AP implies that A = AP .

Lemma 11.12. Let G be an F C-hypercentral group, D a Dedekind domain, A a

monolithic D-periodic DG-module, H = CG (DG (A)), CG (A) = 1 , and p =

char(D/Ann D (DG (A)). Suppose also that A is DH-hypercentral. If p > 0, and

the group G has nite section p-rank, then H has a normal nilpotent torsion-free

subgroup of nite index. If p = 0, and G has nite 0-rank, then P (H) = 1, and

H has a normal nilpotent torsion-free subgroup of nite index.

Proof. Using Lemma 2.10, it is not hard to see that if an F C-hypercentral group

has nite section p-rank for some prime p, then it has also nite 0-rank. In other

words, in each of these cases, the 0-rank of the group is nite. Let L be an arbi-

trary nitely generated subgroup of H. Since L acts trivially on the factors of an

Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules 141

[99, Theorem A2]. It follows that the set T of all elements of H having nite order

form a (characteristic) locally nilpotent subgroup of H (see, for example, [235,

Theorem 6.14]).

Suppose that p > 0, and let P be the Sylow p-subgroup of T , and Q the

Sylow p -subgroup of T . Since every abelian subgroup of P is Chernikov, P is

likewise Chernikov (see for example, [234, Theorem 3.32]). Let D be the divisible

part of P . Proceeding as we did in the proof of Corollary 11.11, we obtain that

the additive group of A is a p-group. The natural semidirect product A T is a

hypercentral group, because A is F H-hypercentral. But, then Theorem 3.10 shows

that D Q CH (A), that is the periodic part of H is nite. Applying Lemma

11.9 to H/T we obtain that H/T is nilpotent-by-nite and almost torsion-free.

According to D.I. Zaitsev [291, Lemma 3], we obtain that H is nilpotent-by-nite

and almost torsion-free. Let now p = 0. Proceeding as we did in the proof of

Corollory 11.11, we obtain that the additive group of A is torsion-free. Since the

natural semidirect product A T is a hypercentral group, and all elements of

hypercentral group having nite orders form a subgroup, then A T = A T ,

that is, T CG (A) = 1. Applying Lemma 11.9 to H, we obtain that H/T is

nilpotent-by-nite and almost torsion-free.

Corollary 11.13. Let G be an F C-hypercentral group, D a Dedekind domain with

innite set Spec(D), A an artinian monolithic DG-module, H = CG (DG (A)),

CG (A) = 1, and p = char(D/Ann D (DG (A)). If p > 0, and the group G has

nite section p-rank, then H has a normal nilpotent torsion-free subgroup of nite

index. If p = 0, and G has nite 0-rank, then P (H) = 1, and H has a normal

nilpotent torsion-free subgroup of nite index.

Proof. By Lemma 11.10, A is D-periodic. Theorem 11.1 yields that A is a DH-

hypercentral module. Thus all conditions of Lemma 11.12 are satised.

Lemma 11.14. Let G be a nilpotent torsion-free group of nite 0-rank, and let p

be a prime. If H is a subgroup satisfying r0 (H) = r0 (G), then G has a subgroup

L with the following properties:

(1) H L and the index |L : H| is nite.

(2) There exists a subnormal series

L = L0 L1 Ln = G,

all factors of which are periodic p-divisible groups.

Proof. Since G is nilpotent, H is subnormal with defect at most k, where k is the

nilpotency class of G. Let

H = H 0 H1 H n = G

be a subnormal series. We proceed by induction on n. If H is normal in G, then

the equation r0 (H) = r0 (G) yields that G/H is periodic. Since G is a nilpotent

142 Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules

torsion-free group of nite 0-rank, then G has nite special rank. It follows that the

Sylow p-subgroup P/H of G/H is Chernikov (see, for example, [235, Corollary 1

to Theorem 6.36]). Denote by D/H the divisible part of P/H. Note that the center

of a nilpotent periodic group contains every divisible subgroup (see, for example,

[234, Lemma 3.13]), so that P/H = (D/H)(L/H) for some nite G-invariant

subgroup L/H. Clearly, G/L is p-divisible.

Let now n > 0, and suppose that our statement has been shown for subnormal

subgroups whose defect is less than n. In particular, there is a subgroup L1 H1

such that the index |L1 : H1 | is nite, and L1 is a member of a nite subnormal

series of G with p-divisible factors. There is no loss if we suppose that H1 is normal

in L1 . The family {H g | g L1 } is nite, that is,

{H g | g L1 } = {g11 Hg1 , . . . , gs1 Hgs }.

From H1 /H g = H1g /H g = H1 /H, we obtain that H1 /H g is periodic for each

element g L1 . By Remaks Theorem,

H1 /K

H1 /(g11 Hg1 ) H1 /(gs1 Hgs ),

where K = g11 Hg1 gs1 Hgs is an L1 -invariant subgroup. This embedding

shows that L1 /K is also periodic. Let be the set of all prime divisors of the

number |L1 : H1 |, and put = {p}. We have

L1 /K = U/K V /K,

where U/K is the Sylow -subgroup, and V /K is the Sylow -subgroup. By the

choice of , we obtain the inclusion V /K H1 /K, which proves that H is V -

invariant. Since is nite, U/K is a Chernikov group. Let D/K be the divisible

part of U/K. Since the center of a nilpotent periodic group includes every di-

visible subgroup (see, for example, [234, Lemma 3.13]), U/K = (W/K)(D/K)

for some nite L1 -invariant subgroup W/K. Put U1 /K = U/K H/K, and

V1 /K = V /K H/K. We have already noted that V1 /K is normal in V /K.

Since (U/K)/(W/K) is abelian, (U1 /K)(W/K) is normal in U/K. It follows that

L/K = (U1 /K)(W/K)(V1 /K) is normal in L1 /K. By the choice of L1 /L, we ob-

tain that the factor-group L1 /L is p-divisible so that L is a member of a nite

subnormal series of G with p-divisible factors. The niteness of W/K, and the

equation L/K = (H/K)(W/K) imply that |L : H| is nite; that is, conditions (1)

and (2) hold.

Corollary 11.15. Let G be a nilpotent torsion-free group of nite 0-rank, and let p be

a prime. Then G has a nitely generated subgroup L with the following properties:

(1) r0 (L) = r0 (G).

(2) There exists a subnormal series

L = L0 L1 Ln = G,

all factors of which are periodic p-divisible groups.

Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules 143

Proof. Let

1 = Z0 Z1 Zn = G

be the upper central series of G. For every 1 j n, we choose elements

such that Zj / gj,1 , . . . , gj,k(j) Zj1 is periodic, that is

r0 ( gj,1 , . . . , gj,k(j) Zj1 /Zj1 ) = r0 (Zj /Zj1 ).

Put now H = gj1 , . . . , gjk(j) |1 j n . The subgroup H is nitely generated,

and r0 (H) = r0 (G). It suces to apply Lemma 11.14 to H.

Lemma 11.16. Let G be an F C-hypercentral group, F a eld of characteristic p, A

a monolithic F G-module, H = CG (F G (A)), and CG (A) = 1. Suppose also that

if p = 0, then G has nite 0-rank, and if p > 0, then G has nite section p-rank.

If A is an F H-hypercentral module, then the length of the upper F H-hypercentral

series of A is at most .

Proof. Corollary 11.13 yields that H has a normal nilpotent subgroup L having

nite index in H. Let |H/L| = k. Then H k L, and, in particular, H k is torsion-

free nilpotent. Clearly, H k is also G-invariant. Since the orders of the elements

of H/H k are bounded, and H has nite special rank, it follows that H/H k is

nite. In order to avoid additional notation we can assume that L is a G-invariant

subgroup of H. By Corollary 11.15, L has a nitely generated subgroup K such

that r0 (L) = r0 (K), and there exists a nite subnormal series

K = K0 K1 Kn = L,

whose factors are periodic, and p-divisible. Let a be an arbitrary element of A. The

natural semidirect product A H is a hypercentral group, because A is an F H-

hypercentral module. Then the subgroup a, K is nitely generated and nilpotent.

It follows that a is contained in some F K-hypercenter of A corresponding to a

nite ordinal m. It follows that the length of the upper F K-central series of A

is at most . Put C = F K (A). Since K is normal in K1 , C is naturally an

F K1 -submodule.

Suppose rst that p > 0. Since K1 /K is p-divisible, Lemma 3.10 yields the

inclusion C CA (K1 ); this proves that the F K1 -center of the module A co-

incides with its F K-center. Similarly, we prove that every F K1 -hypercenter of

the module A coincides with its F K-hypercenter having the same number. Us-

ing the p-divisibility of the factors K2 /K1 , . . . , Kn /Kn1 , and ordinary induction,

we obtain at last that every F L-hypercenter of the module A coincides with its

F K-hypercenter having the same number. Since C is F H-hypercentral, from the

niteness of H/L, and reasoning as above, we can deduce that H/CH (C) is a nite

nilpotent group. It follows that E = C H is nilpotent (see, for example, [235,

144 Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules

Lemma 6.34]). In other words, C has an F H-central series of nite length. The

same is valid for each factor of the upper F L-central series, which means that the

length of the F H-central series of the module A is at most .

Now let p = 0. In this case, the additive group of the module A is torsion-

free. Since the natural semidirect product A K1 is a hypercentral group, and the

elements of a hypercentral group having nite order form a subgroup, A K1 =

A K1 , that is C CA (K1 ), and hence the F K1 -center of the module A coincides

with its F K-center. As above, it follows that every F L-hypercenter of the module

A coincides with its F K-hypercenter having the same number. Since C is F H-

hypercentral, we obtain again that H/CH (C) is a nite nilpotent group. It turns

out that C CA (H), and hence the F H-center of A coincides with its F K-

center. Therefore, every F H-hypercenter of the module A coincides with its F K-

hypercenter having the same number. Thus, in this case, the length of the F H-

central series of the module A is at most .

Lemma 11.17. Let G be a group, D be a Dedekind domain, and A a simple DG-

module. If Q = G/CG (A) has a normal abelian subgroup R of nite index, then

the periodic part T of R has nite special rank.

Proof. By Theorem 5.5,

A= Cx,

xS

DR-submodule; therefore t(R/CR (Cx)) is a locally cyclic p -group, where p =char

(D/Ann D (A)) for every x S (see L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin

[157, Corollaries 2.4, 2.5]). The equation

CR (Cx) = CR (A) = 1 ,

xS

R

DrxS R/CR (Cx),

Lemma 11.18. Let G be a group of nite special rank. If [G, G] is nite, then

G/(G) is also nite.

Proof. We rst consider the case, when G is a periodic group. Put K = [G, G],

and C = CG (K) so that K C (C). Thus C is nilpotent. Put = (K), and

let P be the Sylow -subgroup of C, and Q the Sylow -subgroup of C. Clearly,

Q is G-invariant. Since Q K = 1, Q (G). Denote by D the divisible part of

P . Since G is an F C-group, D (G). By the niteness of the set , we obtain

that P is Chernikov so that P/D is nite. Then C/DQ is nite. Since K is nite,

G/C is nite. Then G/DQ is nite, and it follows that G/(G) is nite.

Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules 145

(G). The factor-group G/U is periodic (see D. J.S. Robinson [234, Theorem 4.32]).

Applying the result shown in the above paragraph, Z/U = (G/U ) has nite index

in G/U . Let z Z, and g G so that [g, z] U, and then [g, z] U [G, G] = 1.

It follows that Z = (G), and hence G/(G) is nite as required.

Proposition 11.19. Let G be an F C-hypercentral group, F a eld of characteristic

p, and A an artinian monolithic F G-module. Suppose further that if p > 0, then G

has nite section p-rank, and if p = 0, then G has nite 0-rank. If the factor-group

G/CG (F G (A)) is abelian-by-nite, then every nitely generated F G-submodule of

A has nite F G-composition series. In particular, the socular height of A is at most

.

Proof. Put H = CG (F G (A)). By Corollary 11.13, H has a normal torsion-free

subgroup L having nite index. We proceed by induction on r0 (L). If r0 (L) = 0,

then H is nite. By Lemma 11.17, and Lemma 11.18, G is abelian-by-nite, and it

suces to apply Lemma 11.2. Let now r0 (L) > 0. In this case (L) = 1, which,

by Corollary 3.16 gives that (L) F C(G) = 1. Pick 1 = x F C(G) (L), and

G

put X = x and Y = CG (X). Then X is a nitely generated abelian torsion-free

subgroup, Y is a normal subgroup of nite index, and X (Y ). The F Y -module

A is artinian by Theorem 5.2. Theorem 11.1 yields that A is F H-hypercentral.

By Theorem 11.6, the length of the upper F H-hypercentral series of A is at most

. In particular, every element b of A is contained in some F H-hypercenter of A

with a nite number m(b). Thus, the F Y -submodule B = bF Y is F H-nilpotent.

Then B is F g-nilpotent for each element g H so that B(g 1)m(b) = 0.

Since x (Y ), the mapping a a(x 1)n , a B, is an F Y -endomorphism for

every n N. Put B0 = B, and Bn+1 = Bn (x 1), n > 1. Then Bn is a nitely

generated F Y -submodule for every n N.

Suppose that A is a monolithic F Y -module. There is some t m(b) such that

B(g1)t+1 = 0 but B(g1)t = 0. Then x CL (Bt ), and hence r0 (L/CL (Bt ) <

r0 (L). It follows that Bt has a nite F Y -composition series. As we have already

noted above the mapping : a a(x 1), a Bt1 is an F Y -endomorphism,

and Im = Bt (x 1) = Bt , and Ker = Bt so that Bt1 /Bt =F Y Bt . It follows

that Bt1 /Bt , and hence Bt1 have nite F Y -composition series. Proceeding by

ordinary induction, after nitely many steps we obtain that B0 = B has nite

F Y -composition series. By the niteness of G/Y , the F G-submodule BF G has

nite F Y -composition series, thus BF G has also nite F G-composition series.

Consider now the general case. By Theorem 5.5,

M = F G (A) = Cx,

xS

by Ux a maximal submodule among the F G-submodules that con-

we denote

tains x=vS Cv and meets Cx trivially. Then the factor-module A/U x is F Y -

monolithic with the monolith (Cx + U x)/U x. By the result shown in the above

146 Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules

thermore,

Ux

xS

( U x) M = 0 .

xS

U x = 0 .

xS

A

A/U x.

xS

In this setting

B

x S(B + U x)/U x,

so that B has nite F Y -composition series. Finally, by the niteness of G/Y , the

F G-submodule BF G has nite F Y -composition series; thus BF G has also nite

F G-composition series.

Theorem 11.20. Let G be an F C-hypercentral group, D a Dedekind domain with

innite set Spec(D), A an artinian monolithic DG-module, and p the characteris-

tic of D/AnnD (DG (A)). Suppose further that if p > 0, then G has nite section

p-rank, and if p = 0, then G has nite 0-rank. If the factor-group G/CG (F G (A))

is abelian-by-nite, then every nitely generated DG-submodule of A has nite

DG-composition series. In particular, the socular height of A is at most .

Proof. Put H = CG (DG( A)). By Lemma 11.10, A is a P -module, where P =

Ann D (DG (A)). Pick b A, and put B = bDG. Then Ann D (b) = P n for some

n N, that is, B = P,n (B). We proceed by induction on n. If n = 1, then

b P,1 (A). Think of P,1 (A) as an F G-module, where F = D/P is a eld. By

Proposition 11.19, B has nite DG-composition series. Let now n > 1. Pick some

y P \ P 2 . By Proposition 6.13, yD + P m = P for every m N. The mapping

: c cy m , c B is a DG-endomorphism, and hence By m is a nitely generated

DG-submodule for every m N. In particular, By n1 is a nitely generated

DG-submodule. Since y AnnD (By n1 ), the equation P = yD + P n implies

that AnnD (By n1 ) = P . By the induction hypothesis, By n1 has nite DG-

composition series. Furthermore, Im = (By n2 )y = By n1 and Ker = By n1 ,

so that

By n2 /By n1

= By n1 .

Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules 147

Proceeding by ordinary induction, after nitely many steps we obtain that B has

nite DG-composition series.

Corollary 11.21. Let G be an F C-hypercentral group of nite section rank, D a

Dedekind domain with innite set Spec(D), and A an artinian DG-module. If the

factor-group G/CG (Soc F G (A)) is abelian-by-nite, then every nitely generated

DG-submodule of A has nite DG-composition series. In particular, the socular

height of A is at most .

Proof. As in some of the above proofs, the general case can be reduced to the case

of a monolithic module, and for the latter it suces to apply Theorem 11.20.

Lemma 11.22. Let F be a eld of characteristic p, G a periodic group, and A a

monolithic F G-module. Suppose further that the following conditions hold:

(1) G has a normal abelian subgroup U of nite index.

(2) If p > 0, then U is a p -subgroup.

Then A has nite FG-composition series.

Proof. Let M be the F G-monolith of A. Applying Theorem 7.28, we have that

A=M B

M= Cx,

xS

A/B has nite F U -composition series. This remains true for every factor-module

A/Bg, g G. Since G/U is nite, the set {Bg | g G} is nite. Let

C = Bg1 Bgm

is an F G-submodule, by its construction, C M = 0. It follows that C = 0.

By Remaks Theorem

A

A/Bg1 A/Bgm ,

which shows that A has nite F U -composition length. Then A has nite F G-

composition length.

Proposition 11.23. Let G be an F C-hypercentral group, F a eld of characteristic

p, A a monolithic F G-module, and H = CG (F G (A)). Suppose further that G

satises the following conditions:

148 Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules

(1) A is F H-nilpotent.

(2) If p > 0, then G has nite section p-rank.

(3) If p = 0, then G has nite 0-rank.

If G/H is abelian-by-nite, then A has nite F G-composition series.

Proof. By Lemma 11.12, H contains a normal torsion-free subgroup L of nite

index. We proceed by induction on r0 (L). If r0 (L) = 0, then H is nite. Moreover,

if p > 0, then H is a p-subgroup. By Lemma 11.17 and Lemma 11.18, G is periodic,

and abelian-by-nite. Let U/H be a normal abelian subgroup of G/H having nite

index. Put M = F G (A). By Theorem 5.5,

M= Cx,

xS

simple F U -submodule for every x S, and therefore U/CU (Cx)) is a locally cyclic

p -group (see L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [158, Corollaries 2.4

and 2.5]). The equation

CU (Cx) = CU (A) = H

xS

U/H

Dr xS U/CU (Cx),

which establishes that U/H is a p -group. By Lemma 11.17 and Lemma 11.18,

G is abelian-by-nite. Now it is not hard to obtain that G has a normal abelian

p -subgroup V of nite index. In this case, it suces to apply Lemma 11.22.

Let now r0 (L) > 0. In this case, it suces to repeat almost word for word

the arguments given in the proof of Proposition 11.19.

p, A a monolithic F G-module, and H = CG (F G (A)). Suppose further that G

satises the following conditions:

(1) A is F H-nilpotent.

(2) dimF (F G (A)) is nite.

(3) If p > 0, then G has a nite section p-rank.

(4) If p = 0, then G has nite 0-rank.

If G/H is periodic, then A has nite F G-composition series.

Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules 149

Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Corollary 6.13]). Let U be a normal

subgroup of G having nite index such that U/H is nilpotent. By Theorem 5.5,

M= Cx,

xS

simple F U -submodule for every x S; therefore U/CU (Cx)) is abelian-by-nite

(see B.A.F. Wehrfritz [280, Lemma 3.5]). The equation

CU (Cx) = CU (A) = H

xS

U/H

DrxS U/CU (Cx),

tion 11.23.

Corollary 11.25. Let F be a locally nite eld of characteristic p, G an F C-

hypercentral group of nite section p-rank, A a monolithic F G-module, and H =

CG (F G (A)). If A is F H-nilpotent, and G/H is abelian-by-nite, then A has nite

F G-composition series.

Proof. We recall that the niteness of the section p-rank implies the niteness of

the 0-rank. Also note that an F C-hypercentral group is locally polycyclic-by-nite.

Let U be a normal abelian subgroup having nite index in G. Put M = F G (A).

By Theorem 5.5,

M= Cx,

xS

a simple F U -submodule for every x S, and therefore U/CU (Cx)) is a periodic

p -group (see L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Corollary 1.21]).

The equation

CU (Cx) = CU (A) = H

xS

U/H

DrxS U/CU (Cx),

which establishes that U/H is periodic. This implies that G/H is likewise periodic.

Now it suces to apply Proposition 11.23.

Corollaries 11.24 and 11.25 at once give

150 Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules

hypercentral group of nite section prank, A a monolithic F G-module, and H =

CG (F G (A)). If A is F H-nilpotent, and dimF (F G (A)) is nite, then A has nite

F G-composition series.

Corollary 11.27. Let G be an F C-hypercentral group, F a eld of characteristic

p, A a monolithic F G-module, and H = CG (F G (A)). Suppose further that G

satises the following conditions:

(1) A is F H-hypercentral.

(2) If p > 0, then G has nite section p-rank.

(3) If p = 0, then G has nite 0-rank.

If G/H is periodic abelian-by-nite, then each nitely generated F G-submodule of

A has nite F G-composition series. In particular, the socular height of A is nite.

Proof. Indeed, by Theorem 11.6, the length of the upper F H-central series of A

is at most . If a A, then a belongs to a term of the upper F H-central series

having a nite number. This means that aF G is F H-nilpotent, and it suces to

apply Proposition 11.23.

p, A a monolithic F G-module, and H = CG (F G (A)). Suppose further that G

satises the following conditions:

(1) A is F H-hypercentral.

(2) dimF (F G (A)) is nite.

(3) If p > 0, then G has a nite section p-rank.

(4) If p = 0, then G has nite 0-rank.

If G/H is periodic, then every nitely generated F G-submodule of A has nite

F G-composition series. In particular, the socular height of A is at most .

Corollary 11.29. Let F be a locally nite eld of characteristic p, G an F C-

hypercentral group of nite section p-rank, A a monolithic F G-module, and H =

CG (F G (A)). If A is F H-hypercentral, and G/H is abelian-by-nite, then every

nitely generated F G-submodule of A has nite F G-composition series. In partic-

ular, the socular height of A is at most .

Corollary 11.30. Let F be a locally nite eld of characteristic p, G an F C-

hypercentral group of nite section p-rank, A a monolithic F G-module, and H =

CG (F G (A)). If A is F H-hypercentral, and dimF (F G (A)) is nite, then every

nitely generated F G-submodule of A has nite F G-composition series. In partic-

ular, the socular height of A is at most .

Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules 151

p, A a monolithic F G-module, and H = CG (F G (A)). Suppose further that G

satises the following conditions:

(1) A is F H-hypercentral.

(2) If p > 0, then G has nite section p-rank.

(3) If p = 0, then G has nite 0-rank.

If G/H is periodic abelian-by-nite, then every term of the upper socular series of

A has nite F G-composition series. In particular, A is an artinian F G-module.

Proof. In fact, by Corollary 11.27, the length of the upper socle series of A is at

most . Let

0 = S0 S1 Sn Sn+1

be the upper socular series of A. Since A is monolithic, S1 is the F G-monolith of

A. We have

S2 /S1 = B /S1 ,

for every h H, and every index , so that S2 (h 1) S1 for every h H.

This means that S2 is F H-nilpotent. By Proposition 11.23, S2 has nite F G-

composition series. Using similar arguments, and applying ordinary induction, we

obtain that Sn has nite F G-composition series for every n N. Now it is not

hard to show that A is an artinian F G-module.

p, A a monolithic F G-module, and H = CG (F G (A)). Suppose further that G

satises the following conditions:

(1) A is F H-hypercentral.

(2) dimF (F G (A)) is nite.

(3) If p > 0, then G has nite section p-rank.

(4) If p = 0, then G has nite 0-rank.

If G/H is periodic, then every term of the upper socular series of A has nite

F G-composition series. In particular, A is an artinian F G-module.

Corollary 11.33. Let F be a locally nite eld of characteristic p, G an F C-

hypercentral group of nite section p-rank, A a monolithic F G-module, and H =

CG (F G (A)). If A is F H-hypercentral, and G/H is abelian-by-nite, then every

term of the upper socular series of A has nite F G-composition series. In partic-

ular, A is an artinian F G-module.

152 Chapter 11. On the countability of artinian modules

hypercentral group of nite section p-rank, A a monolithic F G-module, and H =

CG (F G (A)). If A is F H-hypercentral, and dimF (F G (A)) is nite, then every

term of the upper socular series of A has nite F G-composition series. In partic-

ular, A is an artinian F G-module.

Theorem 11.35. Let G be an F C-hypercentral group, D a Dedekind domain with

innite set Spec(D), A a monolithic DG-module, H = CG (DG (A)), and p the

characteristic of D/AnnD (DG (A)). Suppose further that G satises the following

conditions:

(1) A is DH-hypercentral and D-periodic.

(2) If p > 0, then G has nite section p-rank.

(3) If p = 0, then G has nite 0-rank.

If G/H is periodic and abelian-by-nite, then A satises the following properties:

(i) Each nitely generated DG-submodule of A has nite DG-composition series

(ii) The socular height of A is at most .

(iii) A is an artinian DG-module.

Proof. Since A is monolithic and D-periodic, we have that A is a P -module, where

P =AnnD (DG (A)). Repeating almost word for word the arguments of the proof

of Theorem 11.20, we obtain (i). The statement (ii) is a direct consequence of

(i). Finally, by Corollary 11.31, P,1 (A) is artinian. Therefore, it suces to apply

Proposition 1.8.

Theorem 11.36. Let G be an F C-hypercentral group of nite section rank, D a

Dedekind Z-domain, A a monolithic DG-module, and H = CG (DG (A)). Suppose

further that the following conditions hold:

(a) A is DH-hypercentral.

(b) A is D-periodic.

(c) G/H is abelian-by-nite.

Then A satises the following properties:

(i) Every nitely generated DG-submodule of A has nite DG-composition se-

ries.

(ii) The socular height of A is at most .

(iii) A is an artinian DG-module.

Chapter 12

abelian groups

From now on, in this and other chapters, our goal is the consideration of artinian

modules over a group ring DG, where D is a Dedekind domain, and G is an abelian

group of nite special rank. The rst step here is the study of artinian modules over

periodic groups. B. Hartley and D. McDougall [110] considered artinian modules

over a ring having the form ZG, where G is an abelian Chernikov group. Their

results could be extended to the case of a ring of the form DG, where G is a

periodic abelian group of nite rank, and D is a Dedekind domain. As we shall

see in this investigation, the previously obtained results about the existence of

complements to submodules play a crucial role here.

We start with some general results.

Lemma 12.1 (L.A. Kurdachenko [150]). Let R be a commutative ring. Let A be an

artinian monolithic R-module with monolith M , and put L = AnnR (M ). Then L

annihilates every factor of any ascending composition series of A.

Proof. Assume the contrary. Then there exist two submodules B C of A such

that B/C is simple, and L annihilates all the factors of any ascending series of

C but AnnR (B/C) does not include L. Since B/C is simple, there exists some

b B such that B/C = (b + C)R. Put B1 = bR. Then B1 =R R/AnnR (b).

Since R is commutative, AnnR (b) is a two-sided ideal of R. Hence R/AnnR (b)

is an artinian ring, and then it is noetherian (see R. Sharp [263, Theorem 8.44]).

Therefore B1 has at least a nite composition series. If x L, by the Fitting lemma

(Proposition 1.5), there exists a decomposition B1 = U V , where x induces on

U an automorphism, and V xn = 1 for some n N. It follows that M V , and

so U = 1. Hence, B1 xn = 1. In particular, Bx C, and since this holds for

every x L, L AnnR (B/C), a contradiction.

Corollary 12.2 ([150]). Let A be an artinian monolithic RG-module, where R is a

commutative ring, and G is an abelian group. Suppose that M is the RG-monolith

of A. If H = CG (M ), then A is an RH-hypercentral module.

154 Chapter 12. Periodic abelian groups

all the factors of every ascending composition series of A.

Let A be an R-module, and pick y R. We say that A is a y-module (over

R) if A is an L-module, where L = Ry. In other words, A is a y-module if and

only if every element of A is annihilated by some element of the form y t , where

t N.

A Dedekind domain D is said to be a Dedekind Z-domain if D satises the

following conditions:

(1) Spec (D) is innite.

(2) If 0 = P Spec (D), then the eld D/P is locally nite.

Clearly, Z is a Dedekind Z-domain. Another important example for its ap-

plications in the theory of groups is the group algebra of an innite cyclic group

over a nite eld.

Theorem 12.3 ([150]). Let R be a commutative ring, G an abelian group, and A

an artinian RG-module. If S =Soc RG (A) and H = CG (S), then

(1) A is RH-hypercentral. In particular, A is an (x1)-module, for every x H.

(2) If R is a Dedekind Z-domain, and r0 (G) is nite, then G/H is a periodic

group of nite special rank.

Proof. We have

S = M1 Mn ,

where M1 , . . . , Mn are some simple RG-submodules of A. Choose submodules

B1 , . . . , Bn of A such that, for every 1 j n, every Bj is maximal under

(i) k=j Mk Bj ;

(ii) Mj Bj = 1.

Then every A/Bj is a monolithic RG-module with monolith (Mj + Bj )/Bj . Let

Hj = CG ((Mj + Bj )/Bj ). By Corollary 12.2, A/Bj is RHj -hypercentral. Let

x B1 Bn . Then a(x 1) Bj , for every a Mj . But a(x 1) Mj , so

that a(x 1) = 0, and x CG (Mj ). Thus H = H1 Hn .

Put

E = A/B1 A/Bn .

Clearly, E is an RH-hypercentral module. The mapping

: a (a + B1 , . . . , a + Bn ), a A

is an RG-homomorphism, hence Im is RH-hypercentral. Since

A

=RG Im , and thus A is RH-hypercentral.

Chapter 12. Periodic abelian groups 155

group. It follows that a, x is a nilpotent subgroup for every a A, so a(x 1)s =

0, for some s N. This means that A is an (x 1)-module for every x H.

To nish, we note that if R is a Dedekind Z-domain, and r0 (G) is nite, then

every G/Hj is a locally cyclic periodic group (see L. A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and

I. Ya. Subbotin [157, Theorem 3.2]). By Remaks theorem

G/H

G/H1 G/Hn ,

therefore G/H is a periodic group of nite special rank, as required.

Lemma 12.4 ([150]). Let A be an artinian DG-module, where D is a Dedekind

Z-domain, and G is an abelian group of nite 0-rank. Then A is a D-periodic

module. Moreover, if P AssD (A), and AP is the P -component of A, then the

additive group of Ap is a p-group where p = char(D/P ). In particular, A is also

Z-periodic.

Proof. Since A is artinian, A has an ascending series of DG-submodules

0 = A0 A1 A A+1 A

such that every factor A+1 /A of this series is a simple DG-module, < .

Acoording to L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Corollary 1.16],

AnnD (A+1 /A ) Spec (D), for every < . This means that the additive group

of A is D-periodic.

Put P Ass D (A), and let AP be the P -component of A. Since D/P is a

locally nite eld, the additive group of D/P is a p-group, where p = char (D/P ).

By Corollary 6.17, P/P 2 =D D/P . It follows that the order of each element of

D/P 2 divides p2 . Similarly, we obtain that the order of each element of D/P n

divides pn . If a AP , then there is some n N such that Ann D (a) = P n , and

so aD =D D/P n . In particular, the additive order of a divides pn . Thus AP is a

p-group. Since AP is a DG-submodule, AssD (A) is nite. By Corollary 6.25,

A= AP ,

P

Proposition 12.5 ([150]). Let D be a Dedekind domain, and let G be an abelian

group of nite special rank. If P Spec D(A), let A be an artinian P -module over

DG, and put H = CG (Soc DG (A)). If H is periodic, then G has a subgroup Q of

nite index such that H Q CG (A).

Proof. Put p = char (D/P ). If p = 0, then the additive group of A is torsion-

free. By Theorem 12.3, A is a DH-hypercentral module. Put A1 = DH (A), and

A2 /A1 = DH (A/A1 ). Then H acts trivially on the factors of the series

0 = A0 A1 A2 .

156 Chapter 12. Periodic abelian groups

According to O.H. Kegel and B.A.F. Wehrfritz [134, 1.C.3], H/CH (A2 ) is iso-

morphic to some subgroup of HomZ (A2 /A1 , A1 ). Since A1 is Z-torsion-free,

HomZ (A2 /A1 , A1 ) is Z-torsion-free. As H is periodic, H = CH (A2 ), and hence

A2 = A1 . Then A = A1 , and so H = CH (A).

Suppose now that p > 0. By Lemma 12.4, the additive group of A is a

p-group. For every n N, put

ible p-subgroup, and W is a p -subgroup. Put B1 = DV W (An ), and B2 /B1 =

DV W (A/An ). Then V W acts trivially on the factors of the series

0 = B0 B1 B2 ,

and then V W/CV W (B2 ) can be embedded in HomZ (B2 /B1 , B1 ). Since the order of

any element of B2 divides pn , the order of an element of HomZ (B2 /B1 , B1 ) divides

pn . But V W has no non-identity bounded p-factor-groups, and so CV W (B2 ) =

V W , that is B2 = B1 , and V W CG (An ). Since this holds for any n N,

V W CG (A). Put

SocDG (A) = M1 Ms ,

where M1 , . . . , Ms are simple DG-submodules. The periodic part of every factor

G/CG (Mj ) is a locally cyclic p -subgroup (see, for example, L.A. Kurdachenko, J.

Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Corollary 2.2]). Since

H = CG (M1 ) CG (Ms ),

by Remaks theorem

G/H

G/CG (M 1) G/CG (Ms ).

In particular, G/H is a p -group. This means that H/V W is the nite Sylow p-

subgroup of G/V W . Therefore, there exists some subgroup Q such that G/V W =

H/V W Q/V W . Hence, the index |G : Q| is nite, and H Q = V W CG (A).

If G is a group, and H is a normal subgroup of nite index of G, then an

artinian DH-module A is artinian as a DG-module. Conversely, an artinian DG-

module A is likewise an artinian DH-module by Theorem 5.2. This shows that the

study of artinian modules over a group ring can be carried out in subgroups of nite

index of the group in consideration. In particular, if G is a periodic abelian group

of nite rank, by Proposition 12.5, we may assume that CG (SocDG (A)) = CG (A),

and in this case, G/CG (A) is a p -group, where p =char (D/P ). We will focus

now on this case. The results we state below are slight variations on some results

due to B. Hartley and D. McDougall [110]. Before dealing with them, we need to

establish the following property of the injective envelopes.

Chapter 12. Periodic abelian groups 157

Lemma 12.6 (B. Hartley and D. McDougall [110]). Let G be a periodic central-

by-nite group, D a Dedekind domain, and P Spec(D). Suppose that A is an

artinian P -module over DG, and let E be the DG-injective envelope of A. If

char(D/P ) = p > 0, suppose further that p (G). Then

(1) E is a P -module, and P,1 (E) = P,1 (A).

(2) A is DG-injective if and only if A is D-divisible.

Proof. By Corollary 7.30, P,1 (A) is a direct sum of nitely many simple DG-

submodules. Since E is a maximal essential extension of A, E is also a maximal

essential extension of P,1 (A). In particular, AssD (E) = {P }. According to D.W.

Sharpe and P. Vamos [265, Proposition 2.23], E is a direct sum of injective en-

velopes of direct summands of P,1 (A), and so we may assume that P,1 (A)

is a simple DG-module. If P,1 (A) = P,1 (E), by Corollary 7.30, there exists

a DG-submodule C such that P,1 (E) = P,1 (A) C, a contradiction. Thus

P,1 (E) = P,1 (A).

Let T be the D-periodic part of E. Then AssD (T ) = {P }. By Proposition

7.7, E is D-divisible, and so is T by Lemma 7.18. Moreover, T has a D-complement

in E. Thus T is a DG-monolithic submodule with monolith P,1 (A). By Theorem

7.28, T has a DG-complement in E, and because E is an essential extension of A,

we have a contradiction. Hence, E = T , and, in particular, E is a P -module.

If A is injective, by Proposition 7.7, A is D-divisible. Conversely, if A is D-

divisible, and E is a DG-injective envelope of A, then E is likewise D-divisible.

Since P,1 (A) = P,1 (E), we have E = A, and all the assertions of the result have

been proven.

Lemma 12.7. Let D be a Dedekind domain, and let P Spec(D). Suppose that

A is a P -module over D such that P,n (A) = A for some n N . If B is a

D-submodule of A such that

A/B = (a + B)D,

C such that A = B C.

Proof. Pick y P \ P 2 . By Proposition 6.13, P = Dy + P n . Put

C= a D

elements x D, 1 such that

b= a y k x .

1

158 Chapter 12. Periodic abelian groups

Thus

(a + B)y k x = B

1

B C = 0; that is, A = B C, as required.

Let G be a periodic abelian group, D a Dedekind domain, P Spec (D), and

F = D/P . We recall that the simple F G-modules over periodic abelian group G

were already described by B. Hartley and D. McDougall (see, for example, [157,

Theorem 2.3]). Suppose that {A | } is a complete set of representatives

of the isomorphism types of simple F G-modules. We consider each A as a DG-

module, and dene E to be the DG-injective envelope of A . We write

P, (E ) = P,n (E ).

nN

F = p > 0, by Lemma 12.6, A = P,1 (E ), and E = P, (E ). Therefore

P,n+1 (E )/P,n (E )

= P,1 (E ) = A

the only submodules of E .

Theorem 12.8 ([110]). Let G be a periodic abelian group of nite special rank, D

a Dedekind domain, P Spec(D), A a P -module over DG, and if char(D/P ) =

p > 0, then p (G). Then

(1) A module A is artinian if, and only if

A = A1 An ,

, and r N or r = .

(2) If

A = B1 Bk

is another direct decomposition of A of such kind, then n = k, and there are

an automorphism of the module A, and a permutation Sn such that

Bj = Aj , for every 1 j n.

Proof. By Proposition 1.8, every DG-module P,n (E ) is artinian, for n N or

n = , and a direct sum of nitely many of such modules is artinian by Lemma

1.2.

Conversely, suppose that A is an artinian P -module over DG. Suppose that

A cannot be expressed as a direct sum. Then among the submodules of A that

cannot be expressed in such a way, we choose a minimal one. Replacing A by this,

Chapter 12. Periodic abelian groups 159

but A does not. In particular, A is indecomposable.

Let V be a maximal D-divisible submodule of A. Clearly, V is a DG-sub-

module. By Lemma 12.6, V is DG-injective. Then V has a DG-complement in

A, and then V = A. By Corollary 7.30, P,1 (E ) is a direct sum of nitely many

simple DG-submodules. According to D.W. Sharpe, and P. Vamos [268, Proposi-

tion 2.23], A is a direct sum of the injective envelopes of these simple submodules.

This contradiction shows that V = 1. Pick y P \ P 2 . By [157, Proposition 5.2],

A = Ay. Furthermore, by [157, Proposition 5.3] yields that AP s = Ay s , for every

s N. Note that the chain

A Ay Ay 2 Ay t

breaks after nitely many steps. In other words, there is some m N such that

Ay m = Ay m+1 . According to L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157,

Proposition 5.2], Ay m is D-divisible. It follows that Ay m = 1. We may assume

that Ay m1 = 1. In particular, Ay m1 has a non-zero simple DG-submodule

U . There is an isomorphism of U into some A , and this may be extended to a

homomorphism of A into the injective module P, (E ). We have

(A)y m1 = (Ay m1 ) U = A ,

so that

P,n (A) = A, and P,n1 (A) = A.

It follows that A = P,m (E ). Put W = Ker so that

A/W

= Im = P,m (E )

complement. Since W = A, W is a direct sum of nitely many monolithic sub-

modules of types P,1 (E ). By Corollary 7.29, W has a DG-complement, a con-

tradiction. Assertion (2) follows from Theorem 1.7.

Suppose now that D is a Dedekind Z-domain, G is a periodic abelian group

of nite special rank, and A is an artinian DG-module. By Lemma 12.4, A is

D-periodic. By Corollary 6.25

A= AP ,

P

where AP is the P -component of A, and =Ass D (A) is nite. Thus the general

case reduces to the case of a P -module.

If char(D/P ) = p > 0, put

SocDG (A) = M1 Mn ,

160 Chapter 12. Periodic abelian groups

H = CG (M1 ) CG (Mn )

and every G/CG (Mj ) is a locally cyclic p -group (see, for example, L.A. Kur-

dachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Theorem 2.3]). Suppose that CG (A) =

1. By Proposition 12.5, the Sylow p-subgroup of G is nite or, that is to say,

the Sylow p -subgroup Q of G has nite index. By Theorem 5.2, A is an artinian

DQ-module. In other words, we may reduce this case to the case in which A is an

artinian P -module over DG, where char(D/P ) (G). Note that Theorem 12.8

gives a description of such modules.

Chapter 13

rings. Starting from modules over rings with the form F G, where F is a eld,

we move toward modules over rings with the form RG, where R is a certain

commutative ring. In particular, we move toward modules over rings with the

form ZG. If A is a simple ZG-module, in many cases we have pA = 0 for some

prime p (the reader can nd such cases in L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya.

Subbotin [157, Chapter 1]). Let E be a ZG-injective envelope of A. Inside E

we consider the Z-injective envelope U of A. In connection with the results of the

previous chapter, the following question naturally arises: In which cases is E equal

to U ? This question was already considered by B. Hartley in [107]. This chapter

is devoted to Hartleys results.

Let R be a commutative ring whose underlying additive group is torsion-

free. Suppose that p is a prime, and A is an R-module such that pA = 0. Since

Z1 = Z, the elements of Z 1 are not zero divisors in R; so the Rinjective

envelope E of A is Z-divisible. Let T be the Z-periodic part of E, which is clearly

a divisible p-subgroup. Actually, T is an R-submodule of E. Consider 1 (T ) as

an R/pR-module. Of course, this submodule is an essential extension of A. Let

U and V be (R/pR)-modules such that U V , and let : U 1 (T ) be an

(R/pR)-homomorphism. Think of U and V as R-modules. Since E is R-injective,

can be extended to an R-homomorphism 1 : V E. Since p(Im 1 ) = 0,

Im 1 1 (T ). Thus, 1 is in fact an (R/pR)-homomorphism. This shows that

1 (T ) is (R/pR)-injective, and hence 1 (T ) contains an (R/pR)-injective envelope

B of A. By Proposition 7.2, there exists some (R/pR)-submodule C such that

1 (T ) = B C. But E is an essential extension of A, so that C = 0. Therefore

1 (T ) becomes an (R/pR)-injective envelope of A. Consequently,

Suppose that p is a prime, and A is an R-module such that pA = 0. Following B.

162 Chapter 13. Nearly injective modules

IER (A) of A is a p-group, and 1 (IER (A)) = A. Roughly speaking, this denition

means that A is nearly injective if its R-injective envelope is as small as possible.

In fact, this envelope is a Z-essential extension of A.

Lemma 13.1. Let R be a commutative ring whose underlying additive group is

torsion-free, and suppose that p is a prime, and A is an R-module such that pA =

0. Suppose further that we have a decomposition

A = A1 An

if and only if A1 , . . . , An are nearly injective.

Proof. Indeed, according to D.W. Sharpe and P. Vamos [265, Proposition 2.23]

the injective envelope of a nite direct sum of modules is isomorphic to the direct

sum of the injective envelopes of the summands.

Suppose now that A is a simple nearly injective R-module such that pA = 0,

for a certain prime p. Put E =IER (A). If j N, then the mapping j : a

pj a, a j+1 (E) is an R-homomorphism such that Im j = 1 (E), and Ker j =

j (E). Then j+1 (E)/j (E) = 1 (E), and, in particular, j+1 (E)/j (E) is a

simple R-module. Therefore the family of all R-submodules of E is exactly

and E = jN j (E).

We set up the framework in which we are interested. Let p be a prime,

and let A1 , . . . , An a nite set of simple nearly injective R-modules such that

pA1 = = pAn = 0. If B1 IER (A1 ), . . . , Bn IER (An ) are (not necessarily

proper) R-submodules, then an R-submodule B having the form

B = B1 Bn

result.

Lemma 13.2 (B. Hartley [107]). Let R be a commutative ring whose underlying

additive group is torsion-free, and let U be an R-module. Suppose that B is an

R-submodule of U such that there is a subgroup C of U satisfying U = B C. If

B is an H-submodule, then there is an R-submodule D of U such that U = B D.

Proof. As indicated above, we suppose

B = B1 Bn ,

module such that pAj = 0 (p a prime). We proceed by induction on n.

Chapter 13. Nearly injective modules 163

Suppose that n = 1. Then either there exists some j N such that B = j (E)

or B = E, where E =IER (A), and A is a simple nearly injective R-module. If

B = E, then B is injective, and so B is a direct summand of U (see Proposition

7.2). Suppose that B = j (E), for some j N. Since U = B C, pj U B = 0.

Let D be an R-submodule of U including pj U , and maximal under B D = 0.

If : U U/D is the canonical mapping, then U is an essential extension of

B, and so of A. Thus A = 1 (U ). Since pj (U ) = 0, B is a direct sum of

cyclic groups of order pj , and therefore B is additively a direct summand of U

(see I. Kaplansky [124, Theorem 7]). Since 1 (U ). = 1 (B), U = B . In other

words, U = B D, as required.

If n > 1, a straightforward induction yields the general case. For

such that V B = B1 . Since

U = B1 Bn C = B1 W,

where

W = B2 Bn C,

we have V = B1 (W V ). Applying the case n = 1, there exists an R-submodule

D of V such that V = B1 D, and it readily follows that A = B D.

An abstract description of H-modules is given in the next result.

Theorem 13.3 ([107]). Let R be a commutative ring whose additive group is torsion-

free, and let A be an R-module. Suppose that

A = A1 An ,

extension of A, then:

(1) S is an artinian R-module;

(2) S is an H-module with indecomposable direct summands;

(3) if S = B1 Bn = C1 Cr are two direct decompositions of S, and

all the submodules B1 , . . . , Bn , C1 , . . . , Cr are indecomposable, then n = r

and there exist a permutation Sn and an automorphism of A such that

Cj = Bj for every 1 j n.

Proof. (1) By the denition of an injective envelope, the identity map on A can

be extended to an embedding of S in E =IER (A). By Lemma 13.1, A is nearly

injective, and we have 1 (E) = 1 (A) = 1 (S). By Lemma 1.2, 1 (A) satises

the minimal condition on R-submodules, and, by Corollary 1.9, so does S.

164 Chapter 13. Nearly injective modules

submodule of which is an H-module. Then X is an essential extension of X A,

which has the same form of A. Therefore, we may replace S by X and assume that

every proper submodule of S is an H-module. In this case, S is clearly indecom-

posable. Let D be a maximal divisible subgroup of S, and suppose that D = 0.

Actually, D is an R-submodule, and we claim D = S. Otherwise, by Theorem

7.16, there exists some subgroup L such that S = D L, and then by Lemma

13.2, D has an R-complement, which is impossible. Thus D = S as claimed, and

so S itself is divisible. Then it follows that the identity map on A can be extended

to an embedding

and, since the image is divisible, and contains A, this embedding is in fact an

isomorphism. Thus, the assumption D = 0 produces a contradiction, and so S

has no non-zero divisible subgroups. Since S is artinian, the descending chain

S pS pk S

has to break after nitely many steps, and, since the lower term of it is divisible,

it has to be zero. Therefore, there exists some m > 0 such that pm S = 0. We

choose m as small as possible. Actually m 1, and so pm1 S = 0. By (1),

pm1 S has a minimal R-submodule M , and by the denition of injectivity, the

identity mapping on M extends to an R-homomorphism : S IER (M ). Since

pm1 (S) = (pm1 S) = 0, S = m (IER (M )). Since Ker = S, Ker is an

H-module. Furthermore, pm S = 0, and S/ Ker is a direct sum of cyclic groups

of order pm precisely. Therefore Ker is additively a direct summand of S (see

I. Kaplansky [124, Theorem 7]). By Lemma 13.2, Ker has an R-complement. It

follows that Ker = 0, and so S =R m (IER (M )), a nal contradiction.

(3) Since S is artinian, the submodules B1 , . . . , Bn , C1 , . . . , Cr are monolithic,

and it suces to apply Theorem 1.7.

Theorem 13.3 and Lemma 13.2 together give the next result.

Theorem 13.4 ([107]). Let R be a commutative ring whose additive group is torsion-

free, and suppose that

A = A1 An

is a nearly injective R-module such that pA = 0 for some prime p, and A1 , . . . , An

are simple. Let U be an R-module including an R-submodule S which is an essential

extension of A. If U = S C for some subgroup C, then U = S D for some

R-submodule D.

Suppose that G is a locally nite p -group, and let A be a simple Fp G-module,

which we view as a ZG-module in the obvious way. We now consider the following

question: when is A nearly injective?

Chapter 13. Nearly injective modules 165

Lemma 13.5 ([107]). Suppose that G is a nite group of order n, and let A be a

ZG-module whose additive group is divisible, and has no elements of order dividing

n. Then A is ZG-injective.

Proof. Denote by E the ZG-injective envelope of A. By Theorem 7.16, there exists

some subgroup L such that E = A L. By Corollary 5.11, there exists a ZG-

submodule U such that E = A U . Since E is an essential extension of A, E = A,

and, in particular, A is ZG-injective.

Theorem 13.6 ([107]). Let G be a locally nite p -group, and let A be a simple

Fp G-module. If G/CG (A) is abelian-by-nite, then A is nearly ZG-injective.

Proof. Put E = IEZG(A), and let T be the Z-periodic part of E. By Lemma 9.5

and Lemma 9.4, A is Fp G-injective; the arguments given at the beginning of this

section yield that 1 (T ) = A. We are going to show that T = E by proving

that T itself is injective. Let be a ZG-endomorphism of A so that can be

extended to E since the latter is injective. Since T is a fully invariant subgroup

of E, this extension determines an endomorphism of T . Thus, if D = EndZG (A),

and Y = EndZG (T ), the above restriction determines an epimorphism from Y to

D. By Lemma 9.5, A is nite dimensional over D. In particular, A satises the

minimal condition on Y -submodules. By Theorem 1.7 so does T .

Let be an arbitrary ZG-homomorphism from a right ideal L of ZG into T .

It will suce to show that can be extended to the whole of ZG. In this case, by

Baers criterion (Theorem 7.1), T is ZG-injective; consequently, there must exist

an element v T such that x = vx for all x L. Suppose no such v exists. Given

a nite subgroup H of G, we put

S(H) = {v T | x = vx for all x L ZH}.

By Lemma 13.5, the restriction of on L ZH can be extended to ZH, and so

S(H) = . Let M be the family of all nite subgroups of G. Then our assumption

implies that

S(H) = .

HM

Clearly, the annihilator

AnnT (L ZH) = {x T | x(L ZH) = 0}

is a Y -submodule of T ; since T satises Min-Y , there exists a nite subgroup H of

G such that AnnT (L ZH) is minimal among all these annihilators. Notice that

S(H) = v+AnnT (L ZH), for every v S(H). Since

S(H) = ,

HM

there exists a nite subgroup K of H such that S(K) S(H) S(H). Let F =

K, H. Then F is nite, and

= S(F ) S(K) S(H) S(H).

166 Chapter 13. Nearly injective modules

ZF ) < AnnT (L ZH), a contradiction.

Using these arguments, Theorem 13.4, and the straightforward fact that a

direct sum of nitely many nearly injective modules annihilated by the same prime

is nearly injective (see Lemma 13.1), we obtain

Theorem 13.7 ([107]). Let G be a periodic abelian-by-nite p -group, and let U be a

ZG-module that includes a submodule S. Suppose that S is an essential extension

of a submodule A, which is a direct sum of nitely many simple submodules, and

satises pA = 0. If U = S C for some subgroup C, then there exists a ZG-

submodule D such that U = S D.

For the case of a ring Z, this theorem is a generalization of Corollary 7.29.

On the other hand, it seems natural to ask whether other restrictions on the

size of the ZG-injective envelope E of a simple Fp G-module A might be obtained

for suitable groups G. For example, when can we be sure that E is Z-periodic? This

seems to be a rather dicult question. In the paper [107], B. Hartley constructed

an example of a 2-group G whose commutator subgroup is nite, and a simple

Fp G-module A, where p is an odd prime, such that IEZG (A) is not Z-periodic.

This construction is far from the scope of this book, and therefore we will not give

more details here about it.

Our previous results, and other results that we do not mention here, show

that the theory of artinian modules over periodic abelian-by-nite groups is very

fruitful. The examples of uncountable artinian groups constructed by B. Hartley

[105] show that it is unlikely to expect signicant progress in the theory of artinian

DG-modules over such groups.

Chapter 14

of nite section rank

The description of artinian modules over non-periodic groups is quite dierent from

that of the periodic case. If |G/Gp | p2 , then regarding representation theory, the

problem of description of A is wild (S.A. Kruglyak [140]). We can enlighten this

rough idea with the following analogy. The problem of the description of abelian

torsion-free groups of nite rank is also wild (A.V. Yakovlev [288]), but the

Z-injective envelopes of these modules are known to be direct sums of copies of

the additive group of the rational numbers. Therefore, the following two questions

arise: to describe the injective envelopes of artinian modules, and to describe

artinian modules over a group G such that |G/Gp | p. Both problems were

solved in the paper by L.A. Kurdachenko [150]. The results of this article formed

the base for this chapter. The paper [150] considered the artinian modules over

abelian groups of nite special rank. Here we will consider a generalized situation.

Let R be a ring, and suppose that A is an artinian R-module. Then

SocR (A) = M1 Mn ,

where M1 , . . . , Mn are minimal R-submodules of A. If 1 j n, let Uj be an

R-submodule of A maximal under

Mj Uj = 1 , and M1 Mj1 Mj+1 Mn Uj .

Then A/Uj is a monolithic R-module with R-monolith (Mj + Uj )/Uj . Put U =

U1 Un . Then U SocR (A) = 0, and so U = 0. By Remaks theorem,

A

A/U1 A/Un

and, by Lemma 1.2, the latter is an artinian R-module. This shows that the case

of monolithic artinian R-modules is fundamental for our interests.

Let D be a Dedekind Z-domain, and let G be an abelian group of nite

0-rank. Suppose that A is a monolithic artinian DG-module with DG-monolith

168 Chapter 14. Abelian groups of nite section rank

Subbotin [157, Theorem 1.15]), and D/P is a locally nite eld. Put p =char D/P ,

and H = CG (M ) so that G/H is a periodic locally cyclic p -group (see L.A.

Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Theorem 2.3]). Suppose that G

has nite p-rank, and choose a nitely generated torsion-free subgroup L of H

such that G/L is periodic. Let S/L be the Sylow p-subgroup of G/L. Thus S/L is

a Chernikov subgroup, and, moreover, S H. Let U/L be the Sylow p -subgroup

of G/L. Then H U , and

Put S = U V . As a consequence of the Theorem of Wilson (Chapter 5), the study

of artinian modules over group rings can be reduced to subgroups of nite index,

so that A is an artinian DS-module. In other words, we can further assume that

H = CG (M ) has a nitely generated torsion-free subgroup L such that H/L has

no subgroups of index p.

Further reductions can be derived from the following result.

Lemma 14.1 (L.A. Kurdachenko [144]). Let G be a hypercentral group, and let

H be a normal subgroup of G such that G/H has no subgroups of index p, (p a

prime). Let T be a G-invariant p-subgroup of H. Then every H-invariant subgroup

of T is G-invariant.

Proof. Let L be an H-invariant subgroup of T . We may assume that L = 1.

Since H is hypercentral, L (H) = 1. Note that L (H) T (H) = U .

Clearly, U is a G-invariant subgroup, and CG (U ) H. In particular, G/CG (U )

contains no subgroups of index p. By Lemma 3.10, U (G), and, in particular,

L (H) (G). It suces to apply transnite induction and similar arguments

to obtain that L is G-invariant, as required.

Lemma 14.2. Let D be a Dedekind Z-domain, and let G be an abelian group of

nite section rank. Let A be a monolithic artinian DG-module with monolith M .

Suppose that H = CG (M ) includes a nitely generated torsion-free subgroup L

such that H/L contains no subgroups of index p, where p = char(D/AnnD (M )).

Then G has a subgroup K L such that K/L is a periodic p -group of special

rank 1, and every DK-submodule of A is likewise a DG-submodule. In particular,

the DK-module A is artinian.

Proof. Note that G/H is a periodic p -group of special rank 1 (see L.A. Kur-

dachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Theorem 2.3]). Therefore, we have a

decomposition

G/L = S/L K/L Q/L,

where S/L is the Sylow p-subgroup of G/L, Q H, K/L has nite special rank

1, (K/L) = (G/H), and KH = G. Let P =AnnD (M ). By Lemma 12.4, A is a

Chapter 14. Abelian groups of nite section rank 169

p-group. Since H/L contains no subgroups of index p, S/L is a divisible Chernikov

group. By Corollary 12.2, the DH-module A is DH-hypercentral. In particular,

the natural semidirect product A H is a hypercentral group. Let B be a DK-

submodule of A. Since SQ/L contains no subgroups of index p, every L-invariant

subgroup of A is SQ-invariant. In particular, B is a D(SQ)-submodule of A. Since

KSQ = G, B is a DG-submodule.

This allows us to assume that G has a nitely generated torsion-free subgroup

L CG (M ) such that G/L is a p -group of nite special rank. In particular, we

may reduce the study to the case in which G has nite special rank.

Lemma 14.3 (L.A. Kurdachenko [150]). Let D be a Dedekind Z-domain, and let

G be an abelian group of nite section rank. If A is an artinian DG-module, B a

nitely generated DG-submodule of A, and H = CG (SocDG (A)), then there exists

some n N such that the nth term of the DH-central series of A contains B. In

particular, B is DH-nilpotent.

Proof. By Lemma 12.4, the additive group of A is periodic. Since A is artinian,

AssZ (A) = (A) is nite. There exists a nitely generated subgroup X of H

such that H/X is periodic, and p-divisible for every p (A). Suppose that

b1 , . . . , bk B satisfy

B = b1 DG + + bk DG.

Put

B1 = b1 Z + + bk Z = b1 , . . . , bk .

By Theorem 12.3, A is DH-hypercentral, and so is B1 . In particular, B1 is ZX-

hypercentral. Then the natural semidirect product B1 X is a nitely generated

hypercentral group; hence, it is nilpotent. Its periodic part is nite, and contains

1 -ZX-hypercenter of A for some n1 N.

B1 . It follows that B1 is included in the nth

Then the nth -DX-hypercenter of A contains B2 = B1 D. Since each term of the

upper DX-central series of A is a DG-submodule, it follows that there exists some

n2 N such that the nth 2 -DX-hypercenter of A contains B = B2 DG.

To nish we are going to show that the upper DX-central series, and the

upper DH-central series of A coincide. It suces to prove that A1 = DX (A)

DH (A) or that DH (A) contains every nitely generated DG-submodule C of

A1 . Suppose that the latter is false, that is, C1 = DH (C) = C. Put C2 /C1 =

DH (C/C1 ). Then C2 = C1 by our assumption. Every element of H/CH (C2 ) acts

trivially on the factors of series

0 = C0 C1 C2 .

According to O.H. Kegel and B.A.F. Wehrfritz [134, 1.C.3], H/CH (C2 ) can be

embedded in HomZ (C2 /C1 , C1 ). Since C is nitely generated, the orders of the

elements of C are bounded. Since C A1 the choice of X, implies that H/CH (C2 )

is a periodic p-divisible group for every p (A). This contradiction shows that

DH (A) = DH (A), as required.

170 Chapter 14. Abelian groups of nite section rank

Corollary 14.4 ([150]). If the conditions of Lemma 14.3 hold, then the DH-hyper-

central length of A is at most .

Corollary 14.5. If the conditions of Lemma 14.3 hold, then the DG-socular height

of A is at most .

Proof. Pick b B, and put B = bDG. By Lemma 14.3, B is DH-nilpotent, and

there exists some n N such that B = P,n (B). We claim that B has a nite

composition DG-series, and proceed by induction on n. Suppose that n = 1. Let

0 = B0 B1 Bc = B

DG-submodule of B. Since CG (Bj+1 /Bj ) H, G/CG (Bj+1 /Bj ) is a periodic

p -group. By Corollary 7.30, Bj+1 /Bj is a direct sum of nitely many simple DG-

submodules, and so Bj+1 /Bj has a nite DG-composition series. Since this holds

for every j, B has a nite DG-composition series. Suppose now that n > 1. Put

E = BP . Then E is DH-nilpotent, and E = P,n1 (E). By induction, E has

a nite DG-composition series. This is also true for B/E, hence B has a nite

DG-composition series, as claimed.

Lemma 14.6 ([150]). Let R be a commutative ring, G an abelian group, and A

an RG-module whose additive group is a p-group, for some prime p. If H is a

subgroup of G such that A is RH-hypercentral, and B is an RG-submodule of A,

then H/CH (B) has no non-identity p-divisible subgroups. In particular, if G/H is

a periodic p -group, and G/CG (B) is periodic, then G/CG (B) has no non-identity

divisible p-subgroups.

Proof. Let P/CH (B) be a p-divisible subgroup of H/CH (B). For every n N, put

Bn = P,n (B), C1 = RP (Bn ), and C2 /C1 = RP (Bn /C1 ). Then P/CP (C2 ) acts

trivially on the factors of the series

0 = C0 C1 C2 .

According to O.H. Kegel and B.A.F. Wehrfritz [134, 1.C.3], P/CP (C2 ) can be

embedded in HomZ (C2 /C1 , C1 ). Since the order of each element of C2 divides pn ,

the order of each element of HomZ (C2 /C1 , C1 ) divides pn . But P/CP (C2 ) has no

bounded p-factor-groups so that P = CP (C2 ), and hence C2 = C1 . It follows that

P CG (Bn ). Since this holds for all n N, P CG (B).

Before we continue further considerations, we need to make the following

remark. Let R be a ring, A be an R-module. Put L = AnnR (A). We think of A as

a K-module, where K = R/L. Then we may look at the consideration of injective

envelopes from two points of view. First we consider a K-injective envelope E of

A, and think of E as an R-module such that L = AnnR (E). This seems to be very

clever, because L has no inuence on the structure of A. Alternatively, we could

consider a full injective R-envelope I. In this case AnnR (I) could not include L

Chapter 14. Abelian groups of nite section rank 171

itself, and therefore the structure of I depends on some elements of the ideal L.

This case was explicitly considered above, so that we will look at the rst one.

Actually, this was the way chosen by B. Hartley and D. McDougall (see Chapter

12). Given a Chernikov abelian group G and an artinian ZG-module A, Hartley

and McDougall were able to reduce their study to the case in which the additive

group of A is a p-group, where p is a prime. Then G/CG (A) has a nite Sylow

p-subgroup, and, by the theorem of Wilson, it can be supposed that G/CG (A) is

a p -group; this supposition enables us to consider injective envelopes. Below we

will follow the mentioned approach of Hartley and McDougall.

Theorem 14.7. Let D be a Dedekind Z-domain, and let G be an abelian group of

nite section rank. If A is an artinian DG-module, I = AnnDG (A), Q = DG/I . If

E is a Q -injective envelope of A, then E is an artinian DG-module.

Proof. Suppose that SocDG (A) = M1 Mt , where M1 , . . . , Mt are simple

DG-submodules. According to D.W. Sharpe and P. Vamos [265, Proposition 2.23],

E = E1 Et ,

where each Ej is the DG-injective envelope of Mj . Hence, without loss of gen-

erality, it can be assumed that SocDG (A) = M1 is a simple DG-submodule, i.e.

A is a monolithic module with the monolith M = M1 . Put L = SocDG (M ), and

H = CG (M ). In particular DG/L is a eld. By Lemma 12.4, A is D-periodic and

then A is a P -module, where P = AnnD (M ) Spec(D). Since A is an artinian

DG-module, the upper socular series of A reaches A and every factor of this series

can be decomposed into a direct sum of nitely many simple modules. This and

Corollary 14.5 shows that A has an ascending series of submodules

0 = A0 A1 = M A2 An An+1 A = A,

every factor of which is a simple DG-module. Suppose rst that A has a nite

composition series. Then A is nitely generated, say A = a1 DG + + am DG.

Since each summand aj DG = DG/AnnDG (aj ), A has a nite composition series,

and, in particular, A is noetherian. Since

AnnDG (A) = AnnDG (a1 ) AnnDG (am ),

Remaks theorem gives the embedding

DG/AnnDG (A)

DG/AnnDG (a1 ) DG/AnnDG (am ).

By Lemma 1.1, the factor-ring Q = DG/AnnDG (A) is noetherian. By a result due

to E. Matlis [183], IEQ (A) is likewise an artinian DG-module.

We suppose now that the ascending DG-composition series of A are innite.

By Lemma 12.1, L annihilates every factor of any ascending composition series of

A.

It follows that Ln AnnDG (An ), for each n N. It turns out that AnnDG (A) =

n

nN L . Let

R = lim {DG/Ln | n N}.

172 Chapter 14. Abelian groups of nite section rank

R. According to R. Sharp [264,

Theorem 3.2], R is a noetherian local ring, and A is an artinian R-module. Further,

IER (A) is again an artinian R-module (E. Matlis [183]). We claim that IER (A)

is in fact a Q-injective module. For, suppose that V is a Q-module such that

IER (A) V . Put V1 = L Q R. Then V1 contains IER (A) Q R =IER (A). Since

IER (A) is R-injective, there exists an R-submodule U such that V1 = IER (A) U .

But IER (A) V V1 , and so V = IER (A) (U L), and hence U L is

a Q-submodule. Thus IER (A) is a direct summand of every Q-module including

IER (A). By Proposition 7.2, this means that IER (A) is an injective Q-module, and

our claim has been proven. It follows that E = IEQ (A) IER (A). Since IER (A) is

an R-essential extension of M , IER (A) is an artinian monolithic R-module with

the monolith M . By Lemma 12.1, L = AnnR (M ) annihilates every factor of an

ascending composition series of IER (A). Obviously,

L =

lim {L/Ln | n N},

cending composition series of IER (A). Given x H = CG (M ), x 1 L L .

In particular, IER (A) is an F y1 -hypercentral module. Let p = char F . Then the

additive group of IER (A) is a p-group. Since G has nite section rank, H has a

nitely generated subgroup X such that H/X is a periodic p-divisible group.

Let

X = x1 xn

for some n N. If m N, we put Bm = P,m (E) so that E = mN Bm . Look at

B1 as an F G-module, where F = D/P . We may think of B1 as an F y1 -module,

where y1 is an innite cyclic group, and y1 acts on B1 by ay1 = ax1 , a B1 . Since

IER (A) is an (x1 1)-module, B1 = mN S,m (B1 ), where S = (y1 1)F y1 .

Put

C1 = B1 , and C2 = S,1 (B1 ) = B1 CE (x1 , x2 ).

In this case we think of C2 as an F y2 -module, where y2 is an innite cyclic

group, and y2 acts on C2 by ay2 = ax2 , a C2 . Since IER (A) is an (x2 1)-

module, C2 = mN U,m (C2 ), where U = (y2 1)F y2 . Proceeding in this way,

we put

and

Cn = B1 CE (x1 , . . . , xn ).

Since CG (Cn ) X, and G/H is a p -group (see L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and

I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Theorem 2.3]), G/CG (Cn ) is a periodic p -group by Lemma

14.6. By Corollary 7.30, Cn is a semisimple F G-module, and so, by Corollary 4.3,

there exists some F G-submodule W such that Cn = M W . Since E is an essential

extension of M , W = 0, and so Cn = M , ando so Cn1 = mN V,m (Cn1 ),

Chapter 14. Abelian groups of nite section rank 173

Iterating the argument, we obtain that B1 is an artinian F G-module. Since E =

mN Bm , it suces to apply Proposition 1.8 to obtain that E is an artinian

DG-module in this case.

Lemma 14.8. Let F be a locally nite eld of characteristic p, and let G be an

abelian group of nite special rank. Suppose that A is a monolithic artinian F G-

module with monolith M such that CG (A) = 1, and put H = CG (M ). Suppose

further that H has an innite cyclic subgroup g such that G/ g is a periodic

p -group. If E is the F G-injective envelope of A, then E has an ascending chain

of submodules

M = M0 M1 Mk Mk = E

kN

such that

Mk+1 /Mk

= M and Mk+1 (g 1) = Mk

for every k N.

Proof. We claim that E = E(g 1). For, suppose the contrary, that is, E is not

(g1)-divisible. By Theorem 14.7, E is an artinian F G-module, and so there exists

some m N such that B = E(g 1)m = E(g 1)m+1 . In other words, B is (g 1)-

divisible. Assume that B = 0. Since E is artinian, E(g 1)m1/B has a non-zero

simple F G-submodule, lets say (aF G+B)/B. Since a(g 1) B = B(g 1), there

exists some b B such that a(g1) = b(g1). It follows that (ab)(g1) = 0, that

is, a b CE (g). Hence G/CG ((a b)F G) is a periodic p -group. By Corollary

7.30, (a b)F G is a semisimple F G-module. Since E is a monolithic F G-module,

M (a b)F G. By the choice of a we have a b B, and so a b M . By

Corollary 4.3, there exists an F G-submodule W such that (a b)F G = M W ,

and, since E is an essential extension of M , W = 0, a contradiction. Hence

B = E(g 1)m = 0. In this case g t CG (A) = 1, where t = pm1 , and

we come to another contradiction, proving our claim. It follows that the mapping

: e e(g 1), e E, is an epimorphism. Put

M1 = M 1 , Mn+1 = Mn 1 , and C = Mn , n N.

nN

above, we would nd another contradiction. Hence E = nN Mn , as required.

Lemma 14.9. Let F be a locally nite eld of characteristic p, and let G be an

abelian group of nite special rank. Suppose that A is a monolithic artinian F G-

module with monolith M such that CG (A) = 1, and put H = CG (M ). Suppose

further that H has a torsion-free nitely generated subgroup

174 Chapter 14. Abelian groups of nite section rank

is a non-empty subset of S, then CE (DrsS\S1 gs ) is (gt 1)-divisible for every

element t S1 .

Proof. We proceed by induction on s1 = |S1 |. Suppose rst that s1 = 1, that is,

S1 = {t} , for some t S. Put

module, and so there exists some m N such that B = C(gt 1)m = C(gt 1)m+1 .

As in the proof of Lemma 14.8, B = 0. Let

Theorem 14.7, E1 is artinian, and, by Lemma 14.8, E1 = E1 (gt 1). We now think

of E1 as an F G-module such that DriS\S1 gi CG (E1 ). Suppose we are given

a monomorphism : C E1 , and put U = E E1 and V = {a a | a C}.

Obviously, V is an F G-submodule of U , and V E = 0 = V E1 . Therefore,

(E + V )/V

= E, and (E1 + V )/V

= E1 ,

(E1 + V )/V . Put

C1 /V = CU/V (DriS\S1 gi ).

Since (E1 + V )/V C1 /V ,

Since E is an F G-submodule of U , a(gr 1) V E = 0, for every r S. Thus

and hence

C1 /V = (E1 + V )/V

= E1 /(E1 V )

= E1 .

We have already noted that E1 = E1 (gt 1). Let W/V be an F G-submodule of

U/V , and pick some V = w + V W/V . Then w + V = (a1 + V ) + (a2 + V ), for

suitable a1 E and a2 E1 . If a2 = 0, then w + V (E + V )/V . Suppose that

a2 = 0. Since E1 is an essential extension of C, a2 F G C = 0, and so there

exists some x F G such that 0 = a2 x C. Then there exists some a3 C such

that a2 x = a3 . But a3 a3 V whence a3 + V = a3 + V = a2 x + V . Thus,

Chapter 14. Abelian groups of nite section rank 175

Thus, (W/V ) ((E + V )/V ) = 0, and hence U/V is an essential extension of

(E + V )/V

= E. Since E is F G-injective, every essential extension of E is equal to

E. Then (E +V )/V = U/V and E = U/V . It follows that C is (gt 1)-divisible, as

required. The general result can be deduced by applying induction, and proceeding

in the same way.

We are now in a position to describe the injective envelopes.

Lemma 14.10. Let F be a locally nite eld of characteristic p, and let G be an

abelian group of nite special rank. Suppose that A is a monolithic artinian F G-

module with monolith M such that CG (A) = 1, and put H = CG (M ). Suppose

further that H has a torsion-free nitely generated subgroup L = g1 gn

such that G/L is a periodic p -group. If E is the F G-injective envelope of A, then

E has a nite series of submodules

E = E0 E1 En1 En = M

(1) E1 = CE (g1 ), E2 = CE (g1 , g2 ), . . . , En1 = CE (g1 , . . . , gn1 ).

(2) Any term Ej has an ascending series of submodules

Ej+1 = Mj+1,0 Mj+1,1 Mj+1,k Mj+1,k = Ej

kN

such that

Mj+1,k+1 /Mj+1,k

= Ej+1 , and Mj+1,k+1 (gj+1 1) = Mj+1,k

for every k N.

Proof. By Lemma 14.9, En1 = En1 (xn 1). Thus the mapping 1 : a

a(xn 1), a En1 is an epimorphism. Put

1 , Mn,k+1 = Mn,k 1 , k N.

Clearly,

Ker 1 = En1 AnnE (xn 1) = CE (x1 , . . . , xn ).

Therefore G/CG (Ker 1 ) is a periodic p -group. By Corollary 7.30, there exists an

F G-submodule U such that Ker 1 = M U . Since E is an essential extension

of A, U = 0, and so Ker 1 = M . Thus Mn,1 (xn 1) = Mn,0 = M , and

Mn,1 /Mn,0 = M . Since En1 / Ker 1 = En1 , we proceed in the same way to

get M

n,k+1 (xn 1) = Mn,k , and Mn,k+1 /Mn,k = M , for every k N. Dene

V = kN Mn,k so that V (xn 1) = V . Suppose that V = En1 . Proceeding

in the same way as in the proof of Lemma 14.8, we see that there exists some

F G-submodule W such that En1 = V W , and, since M V , we conclude that

W = 0, and so En1 = kN Mn,k . Consider the submodule En2 . By Lemma

176 Chapter 14. Abelian groups of nite section rank

14.9, En2 = En2 (xn1 1). As above, the mapping 2 : a a(xn1 1), a

En2 is an epimorphism. Note that

= CE (x1 , . . . , xn1 ) = En1 .

Put

Mn1,0 = En1 , Mn1,k+1 = Mn1,k 1

2 , k N.

Dene U = kN Mn1,k ,, and suppose that U = En2 . By Theorem 14.7, E is an

artinian F G-module, and so En2 /U has a non-zero simple F G-submodule, lets

say (aF G + U )/U . By Corollary 12.2, a(xn1 1) U , and, by construction, U =

U (xn1 1). Therefore, there exists some u U such that a(xn1 1) = u(xn1

1). It follows that (a u)(xn1 1) = 0, that is, a u Ker 2 = En1 U .

Thus a U , which contradicts the choice of a. Then U = En2 . By construction,

we also have that Mn1,k+1 (xn1 1) = Mn1,k , and Mn1,k+1 /Mn1,k = En1 ,

for every k N. Applying similar arguments to E1 , . . . , En2 , we construct the

submodules Mj,k , 1 j n 3, and k N in an analogous way.

Theorem 14.11. Let D be a Dedekind Z-domain, and let G be an abelian group

of nite section rank. Suppose that A is a monolithic artinian DG-module with

monolith M , and let P = AnnD (M ). If E is a DG-injective envelope of A, then:

(1) E is an artinian P -module over DG.

(2) P,1 (E) is the F G-injective envelope of P,1 (A), where F = D/P .

(3) E is the D-divisible envelope of P,1 (E).

Proof. (1) follows from the proof of Lemma 14.8.

(2) We claim that P,1 (E) is F G-injective. To show this, put L =AnnDG (A),

T =AnnF G (A), R = DG/L, and Q = F G/T = DG/S, where S is the preimage

of T in DG under the canonical map. Clearly S L. Let B, and C be a pair of

Q-modules such that B C, and let : B P,1 (E) be a Q-homomorphism.

We may think of B, and C as DG-modules such that AnnDG (B) AnnDG (C) S.

Then can be extended to a DG-homomorphism : C E. Since (Im )P =

0, Im P,1 (E), and so is in fact an F G-homomorphism, which shows

our claim. Hence P,1 (E) has an F G-injective envelope U of P,1 (A). Then there

exists some F G-submodule V such that P,1 (E) = U V , and it follows that

U = 0 since E is an essential extension of A. Therefore, P,1 (E) is an F G-

injective envelope of P,1 (A).

(3) By Proposition 7.5, E is D-divisible so that E is a D-divisible envelope

of P,1 (E).

Corollary 14.12. Let D be a Dedekind Z-domain, and let G be an abelian group

of nite section rank. Suppose that A is a monolithic artinian DG-module with

monolith M , and put P = AnnD (M ). Then A is DG-injective if and only if A is

D-divisible, and P,1 (A) is F G-injective, where F = D/P .

Chapter 14. Abelian groups of nite section rank 177

Proof. By Theorem 14.11, the conditions are necessary. Conversely, assume that

A is D-divisible, and P,1 (A) is F G-injective. Let E be the DG-injective envelope

of A. Since P,1 (A) is F G-injective, there exists some F G-submodule B such that

P,1 (E) = P,1 (E) B. It follows that B = 0 since E is an essential extension

of A. Hence P,1 (E) = P,1 (A). Since E and A are D-divisible, E = A, and we

are done.

The description of the injective envelope of a monolithic DG-module can be

obtained in a similar way to that of the case of a eld. We simply state here that

result without a proof.

Theorem 14.13. Let D be a Dedekind Z-domain, and let G be an abelian group

of nite special rank. Suppose that A is a monolithic artinian DG-module with

monolith M such that CG (A) = 1, and put H = CG (M ). Let P = AnnD (A),

and let p be the characteristic of the eld D/P . Suppose further that H has a

torsion-free nitely generated subgroup L = g1 gn such that G/L is a

periodic p -group. If E is the DG-injective envelope of A, then E has a nite series

of submodules

E = E0 E1 En1 En = M

satisfying the following properties:

(1) E1 = CE (g1 ), E2 = CE (g1 , g2 ), . . . , En1 = CE (g1 , . . . , gn1 ), and En is

the DQ-injective envelope of SocDG (A), where Q = G/CG (SocDG (A)).

(2) Any term Ej has an ascending series of submodules

Ej+1 = Mj+1,0 Mj+1,1 Mj+1,k Mj+1,k = Ej

kN

such that

Mj+1,k+1 /Mj+1,k

= Ej+1 , and Mj+1,k+1 (gj+1 1) = Mj+1,k

for every k N.

Let A be an artinian P -module over DG, where P Spec(D), and suppose

that p =char (D/P ). As we mentioned above, the problem of the description of

A can be wild if |G/Gp | p2 . If |G/Gp | p, the corresponding description is

contained in L.A. Kurdachenko [150]. Note that some of the results of this chapter

can be translated to artinian modules over a ring with the form F G, where char

F = 0 (see L.A. Kurdachenko [148]).

Chapter 15

modules over group rings

As we have already mentioned, one of the most important aspects of the study of

artinian modules is to obtain information about their injective envelopes. In par-

ticular, the following question is very important: when is an injective envelope of

an artinian module likewise artinian? The presence of this property would allow

us to obtain the desired description in the best possible way. In this chapter, we

will obtain some classes of group rings RG having the property that the injective

envelope of every artinian RG-module also is artinian. Actually, the injective enve-

lope of an artinian module is equal to the injective envelope of its socle. Moreover,

injective envelopes work well with nite direct sums, that is,

injective envelope of a simple module. For commutative rings an important result

was obtained by E. Matlis [183], who proved that if R is a noetherian commutative

ring, the injective envelope of each artinian R-module is likewise artinian. The

group rings that appear to be closer to noetherian commutative rings are group

rings of the form RG, in which R is noetherian, and G is a nitely generated

nilpotent group. In fact, R.L. Snider [269] proved that if G is a nitely generated

nilpotent group, then the injective ZG-envelope of a simple module is artinian.

In this chapter, we consider a more general situation: the case of a group ring

having the form DG, where G is a nitely generated nilpotent group, and D is

a Dedekind domain. The reader will also be able to nd proofs that are dierent

from Sniders.

Lemma 15.1 (P. Hall [96]). Let G be a nitely generated nilpotent group. If (G)

is nite, then G is nite.

Proof. Let

1 = C0 C1 Cn = G

180 Chapter 15. The injective envelopes of simple modules

be the upper central series of G, and suppose that |C1 | = m. We show by induction

on n that the subgroups C2 , . . . , Cn are all nite. Suppose that G = g1 , . . . , gk .

Given g G, the mapping g : x [x, g], x C2 is a homomorphism such that

Ker g = CG (g) C2 , and Im g = [G, g] (G). Therefore, |C2 / Ker g | m.

Since

(CG (g1 ) C2 ) (CG (gk ) C2 ) = (G),

|C2 /(G)| mk by Remaks theorem. Thus C2 is nite.

Suppose that n > 2, and that we have already proved that Cn1 is nite.

Since (G/Cn2 ) = Cn1 /Cn2 , repeating the arguments given in the above para-

graph, we obtain that G/Cn2 is nite. Hence G is nite, as required.

Proposition 15.2 ([96]). Let A be a simple F G-module, where F is a locally nite

eld, and G is a nitely generated nilpotent group. Then dimF (A) is nite.

Proof. By L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Corollary 1.21],

(G/CG (A)) is periodic. Since a nitely generated nilpotent group satises Max,

it follows that (G/CG (A)) is nite. By Lemma 15.1, G/CG (A) is nite. Therefore

dimF (A) is nite.

As the following result shows, in the case of nitely generated abelian-by-

nite groups the restrictions on the eld could be removed.

Proposition 15.3 ([96]). Let A be a simple F G-module, where F is an arbitrary

eld, and G is a nitely generated abelian-by-nite group. Then dimF (A) is nite.

Proof. We suppose rst that G is abelian. We have A = aF G, for each 0 = a A,

so that A

= F G/L, where L =AnnF G (a). Since A is simple, L is a maximal ideal

of F G. Put G = g1 , . . . , gn . We look at F G as a homomorphic image of the

polynomial ring F [X1 , . . . , X2n ] in 2n variables with coecients in F , where the

homomorphism is the extension of the correspondence

Xj aj , 1 j n, and Xj a1

j , n + 1 j 2n.

F [X1 , . . . , X2n ]. In particular, S = 0, and hence the eld F [X1 , . . . , X2n ]/S is

a nitely generated algebraic extension of F , that is, nite dimensional over F .

Thus dimF (A) is nite.

Suppose now that G has a normal abelian subgroup U of nite index. By

Theorem 5.5, A contains a simple F U -submodule B, and there exists a nite subset

S such that A = gS Bg. By Lemma 5.4, each Bg is a simple F U -submodule.

So, dimF (Bg) is nite by the result shown in the above paragraph. Since S is

nite, dimF (A) is nite.

However, we have

Lemma 15.4 ([96]). Let F be a eld, and let G be a group. Suppose that G has a

normal subgroup H such that there exists a simple F H-module B with dimF (B)

innite. Then there exists a simple F G-module A such that dimF (A) is innite.

Chapter 15. The injective envelopes of simple modules 181

a transversal to H in G. Since H is a normal subgroup of G,

P = Qg = Qg

gS gS

there is a maximal

right ideal P1 of F G such that P P1 . Since F G = gS F Hg, P1 does not

include F H. Now F H P1 contains F H P = Q, and F H P1 is a right ideal

of F H. Then F H P1 = Q since Q is a maximal right ideal of F H. Hence,

(F H + P1 )/P1

= F H/(F H P1 ) = F H/Q,

Since P1 is a maximal right ideal of F G, the F G-module A = F G/P1 is simple,

as required.

Proposition 15.5 ([96]). Suppose that F is a non locally nite eld, and let G be a

polycyclic group which has no abelian subgroups of nite index. Then there exists

a simple F G-module A such that dimF (A) is innite.

Proof. The group G has a nite series

1 = G0 G1 Gn = G

H = Gn1 so that G = H, y for some y G. We claim that we may assume

that H is abelian-by-nite. For, otherwise, by the induction hypothesis, there

exists a simple F H-module B such that dimF (B) is innite, and it suces to

apply Lemma 15.4. Suppose then that H has a normal abelian subgroup U of

nite index. In this case G/H has to be innite. Put m = |H/U |. Then H m is a

characteristic subgroup of H, and so H m is G-invariant. Since H/H m is a nitely

generated periodic soluble group, it is nite. On the other hand, H m U , so that

H m is abelian. Since H m is nitely generated, the periodic part of H m is nite,

and so there exists some t N such that H mt is torsion-free, and once more,

H/H mt is nite. In other words, without loss of generality, we may suppose that

U is G-invariant and torsion-free. Since H/U is nite, G/CG (H/U ) is nite. Put

k = |CG (H/U )|, and dene z = y k and L = U, z. Then L is a normal subgroup

of G, and L/U is innite. We claim that U = CL (U ). For, otherwise CL (U ) is

a normal abelian subgroup of L having nite index; so, since G/L is nite, G is

abelian-by-nite, a contradiction, which shows our claim: CL (U ) = U .

Suppose that

U = u1 ur ,

and for each 1 s r, put

182 Chapter 15. The injective envelopes of simple modules

Suppose, if possible, that NL (Us ) = U for each 1 s r. Then there exists some

q N such that

z q NL (U1 ) NL (Ur ).

Take an index 1 j r. Then

Thus, there exists some 1 s r such that NL (Us ) = U . For this value s, we

write u = us and V = Us , so that U = V, u and U/V is innite cyclic.

Since F is not locally nite, the multiplicative group U (F ) = F \ 0 contains

an element having innite order. If j Z, we dene the mapping j : U F

in this way:

for any w U , we put wj = a(j,w) , where a(j, w) is an integer such that

z j wz j ua(j,w) V .

This denition gives immediately that a(j, ww1 ) = a(j, w) + a(j, w1 ), and hence,

(ww1 )j = (wj )(w1 j ) for all w, w1 U . In other words, j is a homomorphism

of U in U (F ). Suppose that j = i for some j < i. Since has innite order in

U (F ), a(j, w) = a(i, w) for all w U . Thus [w, z ij ] V for all w U , and hence,

z ij NL (V ), which is impossible by the construction of V . Thus, we have just

shown that j = i if j = i.

Now let A be a vector space over F with a basis {aj | j Z}, and dene the

action of L on A by

aj z = aj+1 , and aj w = aj (wj ) for any w U , j Z.

It is easy to see that this action makes A into an F L-module. Since j = i for

all j = i, the F U -submodules of A are only the direct sum of the one-dimensional

subspaces aj F . Hence, if B is a non-zero F L-submodule of A, B must contain

some aj . Then B contains ai = aj z ij for all i, that is B = A. Hence A is a simple

F L-module such that dimF (A) is innite, and it suces to apply Lemma 15.4.

In connection with Propositions 15.2, 15.3 and 15.5, the following question

naturally arises: Let F be a eld. Determine groups G for which every simple F G-

module has nite dimension over F . The following interesting papers should be

mentioned in connection with this problem: B. Hartley [108], R.L. Snider [270],

B.A.F. Wehrfritz [281, 282, 283].

Lemma 15.6. Let D be a Dedekind domain, and let G be a polycyclic-by-nite

group. Suppose that A is a nitely generated monolithic DG-module with monolith

M . If AnnD (M ) = P = 0, then AnnD (A) = P n , for some n N.

Proof. Since M is a simple DG-submodule of A, P Spec(D). Let T be the D-

periodic part of A. Since A is monolithic, T is equal to the P -component of A.

But DG is a noetherian ring (see D.S. Passman [217, Theorem 10.2.7]), A is

Chapter 15. The injective envelopes of simple modules 183

P,n (A) = P,n+m (A) for each m N. This means that T P n = 0, and it follows

that there exists a D-submodule C such that A = T C (see I. Kaplansky [123]).

Thus AP n C, and AP n T = 0. Since M T , this means that A = T .

Lemma 15.7. Let F be a locally nite eld, and let G be a nitely generated nilpo-

tent group. If A is a nitely generated monolithic F G-module, then G/CG (A) is

nite, and hence, dimF (A) is nite.

Proof. Let M be the F G-monolith of A. There is no loss if we assume that

CG (A) = 1. According to L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157,

Corollary 1.21], (G/CG (M )) is periodic. It follows that (G/CG (M )) is nite,

and, by Lemma 15.1, so is G/CG (M ). We claim that (G) is periodic. Otherwise,

there exists some z (G) CG (M ) of innite order since G/CG (M ) is nite.

Put J = F z so that J is a principal ideal domain, and we can think of A as

a JG-module. By the choice of z, AnnJ (M ) = (z 1)J. By Lemma 15.6, there

exists some n N such that A(z 1)n = 0. For every k N we have

where C1k , C2k ,. . . are the binomial coecients. Let p = char F , and choose s N

such that t = ps n. If a A, then 0 = a(z 1)t = az t + (1)t a, and so

az t = (1)t+1 a. If p = 2, then a = a, and hence, az t = a. If p > 2, then again

az t = a. In any case, z t CG (A) = 1, a contradiction. Hence, (G) is periodic.

Then it follows that (G) is nite, and it suces to apply Lemma 15.1 to conclude

that G is nite, as required.

Proposition 15.8. Let D be a Dedekind Z-domain, G a locally (polycyclic-by-nite)

group of nite 0-rank. Suppose that A is a nitely generated DG-module such that

CG (A) = 1. If the set of all maximal DG-submodules of A is nite, then A is

D-periodic, and (G) is periodic.

Proof. Suppose that

A = a1 DG + + an DG.

According to L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Theorem 1.15],

A is D-periodic, and, then AnnD (aj ) = 0 for every index 1 j n. Since D is

an integral domain,

prime ideals, and k1 , . . . , kt N. We proceed by induction on k(L) = k1 + + kt .

If k(L) = 1, then L is a maximal ideal of D, so D/L is a locally nite eld. By L.A.

Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Corollary 1.21], (G) is periodic.

Suppose that k(L) > 1, and we have already proved our assertion for mod-

ules B such that k(AnnD (B)) < k(L). Put Z = (G), and B = AP1 . Then

184 Chapter 15. The injective envelopes of simple modules

AnnD (B) = P1k1 1 Ptkt , so that k(AnnD (B)) < k(L). Moreover, AnnD (A/B) =

P1 , so that k(AnnD (A/B)) < k(L). Applying induction, (G/CG (B)), and

(G/CG (A/B)) are periodic, and so are Z/(Z CG (B)), and Z/(Z CG (A/B)).

If U = CG (B) CG (A/B) Z, then, by Remaks theorem, Z/U is periodic. Put

We have just constructed a descending chain of submodules

Given any factor Aj /Aj+1 of this series, we put Pm =AnnD (Aj /Aj+1 ) (m = m(j)).

Then we may consider Aj /Aj+1 as an Fm G-module, where Fm = D/Pm . Since

Fm is a locally nite eld, the additive group of Aj /Aj+1 is an elementary abelian

pm -group, where pm =char Fm . Hence every factor of the above series {Aj | 0

j k(L)} is elementary abelian, and it readily follows that the additive group of A

is periodic. Actually, this group is bounded, that is sA = 0, where s = pk11 pkt t .

Pick z U , and a A. Then there exists some b B such that az = a + b. If

n N , then az n = a + nb, and so, in particular, az s = a + sb = a. This means

that U is periodic. Then Z is periodic, because Z/U is periodic.

Corollary 15.9. Let D be a Dedekind Z-domain, and let G be a nitely gen-

erated nilpotent group. Suppose that A is a nitely generated monolithic DG-

module with the DG-monolith M . Then AnnD (A) = P n for some n N, where

P = AnnD (DG (A)) Spec(D), and G/CG (A) is nite. In particular, A has nite

D-composition series.

Proof. There is no loss if we suppose that CG (A) = 1. According to L.A. Kur-

dachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Corollary 1.16], P =AnnD (M )

Spec(D). By Lemma 15.6, AnnD (A) = P n , for some n N. Put Aj = P,j (A), for

j N. Pick y P \ P 2 . The mapping : a ay, a A2 is a DG-endomorphism

of A2 and so Ker and Im are DG-submodules. Clearly, Im = A2 y A1 and

Ker = {a A2 | ay = 0} A1 . By Proposition 6.13, P = yD + P 2 , and so

Ker = {a A2 | aP = 0} = A1 . Hence, we may deduce A1 = A2 /A1 . By

Lemma 15.7, dimF (A1 ) is nite so that dimF (A2 /A1 ) is likewise nite. It follows

that A2 has nite D-composition series. Since An = A, we may apply induction to

obtain that A has nite D-composition series. Then A has nite DG-composition

series. By Proposition 15.8, (G) is periodic, and hence nite. It suces to apply

Lemma 15.1 to obtain that G is nite, as required.

Corollary 15.10. Let D be a Dedekind Z-domain, and let G be a nitely generated

nilpotent group. Suppose that A is a monolithic DG-module with the DG-monolith

M . Then A satises the following conditions:

(1) A is a P -module, where P = AnnD (M ) Spec(D).

Chapter 15. The injective envelopes of simple modules 185

(3) The socular height of A is at most , the rst innite ordinal.

Proof. According to L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Corollary

1.16], P = AnnD (M ) Spec(D). Let T be the D-periodic part of A. Since A is

monolithic, T is equal to the P -component of A. Suppose that B is a nitely

generated DG-submodule of A. By Corollary 15.9, B is D-periodic. It follows that

T = A, and thus A is a P -module. Since B has nite composition DG-series, it

suces to apply Lemma 4.9.

Lemma 15.11. Let D be a Dedekind Z-domain, and let G be a nitely generated

nilpotent group. Suppose that A is a monolithic DG-module with DG-monolith M ,

and put H = CG (M ). Let

0 = A0 A1 = M A2 An An = A

nN

n N.

Proof. Suppose that there exists some m N such that CG (Am /Am1 ) does not

include H. Let b An \ An1 , and put B = bDG, and C = B An1 . Then

G/CG (B/C) does not include H. By Corollary 15.9, B has nite DG-composition

series. By Theorem 10.21, B has the Z DK-decomposition, that is, B = U Z,

where Z = DH (B) is the upper hypercenter of B, and U = DH (B) is the unique

maximal hypereccentric DG-submodule of B. Since H is a normal subgroup of G,

U , and Z are DG-submodules of B. By the choice of H, we have U = 0. On

the other hand, H = CG (M ), so that M Z, and hence, U = 0 since A is

monolithic, a contradiction.

Lemma 15.12. Let F be a locally nite eld, and let G be a nite nilpotent group.

If A is a monolithic F G-module, then A is an artinian F G-module.

Proof. Let M be the F G-monolith of A, and put H = CG (M ). Then G/H is a

p -group, where p =charF (see, for example, L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya.

Subbotin [157, Theorem 3.1]). By Corollary 15.10, A has an ascending series of

F G-submodules

0 = A0 A1 = M A2 An An = A

nN

proceed by induction on |H|. If H = 1, by Corollary 5.15, A = M , and so A is a

simple F G-module. Suppose now that H = 1, and pick 1 = z H (G). Since

A is F H-hypercentral, A is likewise F z-hypercentral; furthermore, the length of

an upper F z-central series of A is at most . Let

0 = C0 C1 C2 Cn Cn = C

nN

186 Chapter 15. The injective envelopes of simple modules

submodule of A. The F G-submodule C1 = AnnA (z 1) is monolithic, and z

H CG (C1 ). In particular, |H CG (C1 )| < |H|. By induction, C1 is an artinian

F G-module. Hence, by Proposition 1.8, the F G-module A is artinian.

Lemma 15.13. Let F be a locally nite eld, and let G be a nitely generated nilpo-

tent group. If A is a monolithic F G-module, then A is an artinian F G-module.

Proof. Let M be the F G-monolith of A, and put H = CG (M ). Then G/H is a p -

group, where p =char F (see L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157,

Theorem 3.1]). By Corollary 15.10, A has an ascending series of F G-submodules

0 = A0 A1 = M A2 An An = A

nN

proceed by induction on r0 (H). If r0 (H) = 0, then H is nite, and our assertion

follows from Lemma 15.12. Suppose that r0 (H) > 0. By Lemma 15.1, there exists

some z H (G) having innite order. Since A is F H-hypercentral, A is likewise

F z-hypercentral; furthermore, the length of an upper F z-central series of A

is at most . Let

0 = C0 C1 C2 Cn Cn = C

nN

submodule of A. The F G-submodule C1 = AnnA (z 1) is monolithic, and z

H CG (C1 ). In particular, r0 (H CG (C1 )) < r0 (H). By induction, C1 is an

artinian F G-module, and so is A by Proposition 1.8.

Theorem 15.14. Let D be a Dedekind Z-domain, and let G be a nitely generated

nilpotent group. If A is a monolithic DG-module, then A is an artinian DG-

module.

Proof. If M is the DG-monolith of A, according to L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal

and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Corollary 1.16], P = AnnD (M ) Spec(D). By Corollary

15.10, A is a P -module. Put B = P,1 (A), and look at B as an F G-module, where

F = D/P is a locally nite eld. By Lemma 15.13, B is an artinian F G-module,

and so A is an artinian DG-module by Proposition 1.8.

Corollary 15.15. Let D be a Dedekind Z-domain, and let G be a nitely generated

nilpotent-by-nite group. If A is a monolithic DG-module, then A is an artinian

DG-module.

Proof. Let M be the DG-monolith of A, and let H be a nilpotent normal subgroup

of G having nite index. Then H is nitely generated (see, for example, [234,

Theorem 1.41]). By Theorem 5.5, there exist

a simple DH-submodule B of M ,

and a nite subset S of G such that M = gS Bg. Let U be a DH-submodule

Chapter 15. The injective envelopes of simple modules 187

with DH-monolith (B + U )/U . Since H is a nitely generated nilpotent subgroup,

by Theorem 15.14,

A/U is an artinian DH-module. Let T be a transversal to H

in G. Put V = xT U x so that V is a DG-submodule. If V = 0, then M V ,

and so B V . On the other hand, V U , and U B = 0. This contradiction

shows that V = 0. By Remaks theorem,

A

A1 = A/U x.

xT

= A/U is an artinian DH-module.

By Lemma 1.2, A1 and A are artinian DH-modules. Thus, A is an artinian DG-

module, as required.

ated nilpotent-by-nite group. If M is a simple DG-module, then IEDG (M ) is an

artinian DG-module.

Corollary 15.17. Let D be a Dedekind Z-domain, and let G be a nitely generated

nilpotent-by-nite group. If A is an artinian DG-module, then IEDG (A) is an

artinian DG-module.

As we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, in the case D = Z, these

two last results were shown by R.L. Snider [269] and extended to polycyclic-by-

nite groups by I.M. Musson [195], who proved the following facts.

Theorem 15.18. The following results hold:

(1) Let G be a polycyclic-by-nite group, and suppose that A is a nitely generated

ZG-module such that |G/CG (A)| is nite, and pA = 0 for some prime p

(in particular, this happens if A is simple). Then IEZG (A) is an artinian

ZG-module.

(2) Let F be a eld of characteristic p > 0, and let G be a polycyclic-by-nite

group. If A is a nite dimensional F G-module (that is, dimF (A) is nite),

then IEF G (A) is an artinian F G-module.

(3) Let F be a non-locally nite eld, and let G be a polycyclic-by-nite group.

Then the injective envelope of every simple F G-module is artinian if, and

only if G is abelian-by-nite.

In connection with some parts of the above result, S. Donkin [58] proved:

Theorem 15.19. The following results hold:

(1) Let F be a eld, and let G be a polycyclic-by-nite group. Suppose that A is a

locally nite dimensional F G-module (that is, dimF (aF G) is nite for every

a A). Then every essential extension of A is locally nite dimensional.

188 Chapter 15. The injective envelopes of simple modules

If A is a nite dimensional F G-module, then every essential extension of A

is artinian, and EndF G (IEF G (A)) is a noetherian ring.

The proofs of these results depend on applications from both the theory of

polycyclic group rings and the theory of Hopf algebras, and we omit them here.

To nish, it is worth mentioning the following generalization of a result ob-

tained by I.M. Musson [199].

Theorem 15.20. Let F be a eld of characteristic 0, and let G be a soluble-by-

nite torsion-free group of nite special rank. If A is a nite dimensional F G-

module, then every essential extension of A is artinian, and EndF G (IEF G (A)) is

a noetherian ring.

Chapter 16

Quasinite modules

As we have seen in previous chapters, there are not too many cases in which

artinian modules can be satisfactorily described, although many problems require

the investigation of some specic artinian modules. We have not dealt with this

question in this book in full. In this chapter, however, we consider one of the

most important types of artinian modules, namely, the quasinite modules. These

modules appear in the following way. Suppose that A is an artinian DG-module,

and let U be the family of all innite submodules of A. Choose a minimal element

M of U. Then either M is a minimal (innite), and hence, a simple submodule

of A or M is innite and not simple, but every proper submodule of M is nite.

D.I. Zaitsev introduced this type of modules in connection with the study of the

complementability of normal subgroups [296]. These modules also appeared in

other group-theoretical researches, for example, in the study of groups with the

weak maximal or minimal conditions for normal subgroups (L.A. Kurdachenko

[145, 147], D.I. Zaitsev, L.A. Kurdachenko and A.V. Tushev [312]). In [299], D.I.

Zaitsev initiated the investigation of modules over integral group rings in which

all proper submodules are nite. Besides these modules, there are many types of

Dedekind domains for which the unique nite module is the zero module. Therefore

the condition of being a nite submodule is a reasonable change to the condition

of being a nitely generated submodule. In other words, we come to a module A

over a group ring DG with the property:

every proper DG-submodule of A is nitely generated as a D-submodule.

In this setting, the two following situations appear:

(1) A has a proper DG-submodule B such that A/B is a simple DG-module;

(2) every proper DG-submodule of A is nitely generated as a D-submodule,

and A is the union of its proper DG-submodules.

The rst case can be reduced to the case of nitely generated D-modules and

simple DG-modules. Thus, the second case remains more interesting. To study it,

we consider the following concept. Let R be a ring, and let G be a group. An

190 Chapter 16. Quasinite modules

conditions:

(1) A is not nitely generated as a D-module.

(2) If B is a proper RG-submodule of A, then B is nitely generated as a D-

submodule.

(3) A is the union of its proper DG-submodules.

The case in which R = F is a nite eld was considered by D.I. Zaitsev

[299] while the case in which R = F is an arbitrary eld was considered by L.A.

Kurdachenko and I.Ya. Subbotin in [172]; the case in which R = D is a Dedekind

domain was considered in the paper L.A. Kurdachenko [152]. In this chapter, we

collect the basic results of these papers.

If R = Z and G = 1, then a Pr ufer p-group gives us an example of a

quasinite module. Let F be a eld, G = x be an innite cyclic group D = F x.

Then a Pr ufer P -module is an example of a quasinite F G-module for every

maximal ideal P of D. As we will see later, the Pr ufer P -modules play a very

important role in the structure of quasinite modules.

Lemma 16.1. Let A be a quasinite RG-group, where R is a ring, and G is a group.

Then A cannot be decomposed as a direct sum of two proper RG-submodules. In

particular, SocR (A) is a proper submodule of A.

Proof. This lemma is obvious.

Corollary 16.2. Let D be a Dedekind domain, G a group, and A a quasinite

DG-module. Then SocDG (A) is a proper submodule of A.

Lemma 16.3 (L.A. Kurdachenko [152]). Let A be a quasinite RG-module, where

R is an integral domain, and G is a group. Then either A is R-divisible or there

exists some 0 = x R such that Ax = 0.

Proof. If Ax = A for every element 0 = x R, then A is R-divisible. Therefore

suppose that there exists some 0 = x R such that Ax = A. The mapping

: a ax, a A is an RG-endomorphism of A such that Im = Ax and

Ker =AnnA (x). We claim that Ker = A. For, otherwise Ker is proper, and

so it is nitely generated as an R-module. Since Im = Ax = A, Im is likewise

a nitely generated R-module. Since

A/ Ker

= Im ,

that Ax = 0, as required.

Further, we need to establish a result on the structure of nitely generated

modules over Dedekind domains. Before doing so, we need to establish the unique-

ness of the direct decompositions there involved.

Chapter 16. Quasinite modules 191

that A is a P -module over D. Given two direct decompositions of A as direct sum

of cyclic submodules,

A= a D = b D,

b = a , for every .

Proof. For every n N, we put

n = { | P n = AnnD (b }.

We have

AP n1 = ( a P n1 ) ( a P n1 )

n \

and

AP n1 = ( b P n1 ) ( b P n1 ),

n \

Cn = ( a P n1 ) Cn+1 = ( b P n1 ) Cn+1 .

n n

Lemma 16.5. Let R be an integral domain, and suppose that A is a nitely gener-

ated R-module. If A is R-periodic, then AnnR (A) = 0.

Proof. Let M be a nite subset of A such that A = M R. Obviously,

AnnR (a) AnnR (a) AnnR (A).

aM aM

Since R has no zero-divisors, aM AnnR (a) = 0. Hence, AnnR (a) = 0, as

required.

Proposition 16.6. Let D be a Dedekind domain, and suppose that A is a nitely

generated periodic D-module. Then:

(1) A is a direct sum of nitely many cyclic submodules.

(2) If A = a D = b D, where the sets and are nite, and for

s

every and we have AnnD (a D) = Pk , and AnnD (b D) = P

for certain maximal ideals P and P of D, then there exist an automorphism

of A, and a bijection : such that b = a , for every .

192 Chapter 16. Quasinite modules

Proof. By Lemma 16.5, AnnD (A) = 0. Then A is a direct sum of a nitely many

cyclic submodules (D.W. Sharpe and P. Vamos [265, Theorem 6.14]), which gives

(1). The assertion (2) follows from Corollary 6.25 and Theorem 16.4.

put T = tD (A). By Lemma 1.1, A is a noetherian D-module, and, in particular, T

is nitely generated. As the nitely generated factor-module A/T is D-torsion-free,

our next step is the consideration of nitely generated torsion-free modules.

: L1 HomR (L, R) such that a(x) = xa, for every x L1 and a L.

a L. Obviously,

(a + b)x = x(a + b) = xa + xb = ax + bx ,

and

(ca)x = x(ca) = c(xa) = c(ax )

every x L1 . Since

ax = 0 for each a A. Since R has no zero-divisors, Lx = 0 implies x = 0.

Thus, is a monomorphism.

Finally, given HomR (L, R), let 0 = a, b L. Then

so that (a)a1 = (b)b1 . It follows that (a)a1 is constant when a runs through

L\0. Put (a)a1 = x. Thus, a = xa provided 0 = a L. Since 0 = 0 = x0,

= x . Furthermore, a R, i.e. ax R, for every a A. Therefore, x L1 ,

which shows that = (x ). Consequently, is a Z-isomorphism.

all of its submodules are projective. It is obvious that submodules of hereditary

modules are hereditary. A ring R is said to be hereditary if all of its right ideals

are projective modules.

R-module L is projective if and only if L is an invertible ideal. In particular, R is

a heredity ring if and only if every non-zero ideal of R is invertible.

Chapter 16. Quasinite modules 193

x1 , . . . , xm L1 such that

1 = a1 x1 + + am xm .

Let C be a free R-module with basis {c1 , . . . , cm }. There is an R-homomorphism

: C L such that cj = aj , for every 1 j m (see D.S. Passman [219,

Thoerem 2.4]). Dene : L C by

a = c1 (ax1 ) + + cm (axm )

for each a L. Since R is commutative, is an R-homomorphism. Further, if

a L we have

a() = (a) = (c1 ax1 + + cm axm )

= (c1 )ax1 + + (cm )axm

= a1 ax1 + + am axm = a(a1 x1 + + am xm ) = a 1 = a,

and so a = L . By Lemma 7.15, C = Im Ker , and L = Im . It follows

that L is a projective R-module (D.S. Passman [219, Thoerem 2.8]).

Conversely, suppose that L is a projective R-module. Then there exists a free

R-module C1 such that C1 = L A, for some R-submodule A (see D. S. Passman

[219, Theorem 2.8]). Let {c | } be a free basis of C1 . If a L, then

a= c (a),

Since

a+b= c (a + b)

(a + b) = (a) + (b),

for every . Similarly, if d R,

(da) = d (a),

for every . Hence, the mapping a (a) is an R-homomorphism for every

. By Lemma 16.7, for each a L, there are elements y L1 such that

(a) = y a, for every . In other words

a= c (y a).

194 Chapter 16. Quasinite modules

{1 , . . . , k }. In particular, (b) = 0, for every \ b . This means that

y b = 0, for every \ b , and therefore y = 0, for every \ b . Hence,

b= c (y b).

b = b = ( c (y b)) = b (y b).

fractions), we obtain, then

1= b y .

Thus, R = LL1 .

Lemma 16.9. Let A be a nitely generated D-module, where D is a Dedekind

domain. Suppose that there exists some a A such that AnnD (a) = 0. Then A

has a D-submodule B such that a B and that satises the following conditions:

(1) There exists some D-submodule C such that A = B C.

(2) There exists an ideal L of D such that C

=D L.

Proof. We dene a mapping : D A by x = ax, for every x D. Obvi-

ously, is a D-homomorphism, and, since Ker = AnnD (a) = 0, is in fact a

monomorphism. Let F be the eld of fractions of D. Since F is D-divisible, F is

an injective D-module by Theorem 7.9. Therefore, if : D F is the canonical

embedding, then there exists a D-homomorphism : A F such that = .

Then

1 = 1 = 1() = (1) = a

and so is a non-zero homomorphism.

Moreover, A is a fractional ideal of D. It follows that there is an ideal L of

D such that A =D L. Since D is a Dedekind domain, the ideal L is invertible,

and so L is a projective D-module by Theorem 7.9. It follows that A = B C,

where B = Ker and C =D L. Since a = 0, we have a B, and we are done.

Corollary 16.10. Let A be a nitely generated D-module, where D is a Dedekind

domain. If A is D-torsion-free, then

A = C1 Cm ,

generated D-torsion-free D-module is projective.

Chapter 16. Quasinite modules 195

E= aD.

aM

M = {a1 , . . . , am }. By Lemma 16.9, A = C1 B1 , where a1 B1 , and C1 is

D-isomorphic to some ideal of D. Since A/B1 is D-torsion-free, a1 D B1 = 0. If

M1 is a maximal D-free subset of B1 , then M1 {a1 } is a maximal D-free subset

of A. Since D is an integral domain, |M1 | = m 1, so that M1 = {b1 , . . . , bm1 }.

Applying Lemma 16.9 to B1 , we obtain a decomposition B1 = C2 B2 , where C2

is D-isomorphic to some ideal of D, and b1 B2 . Since A/B2 is D-torsion-free,

(a1 Db1 D)B2 = 0. Proceeding in the same way, we nally get a decomposition

A = C1 Cm E1 ,

r0 (A), we have that E1 = 0; hence,

A = C1 Cm ,

as required.

Corollary 16.11. Let A be a nitely generated D-torsion-free D-module, where D

is a Dedekind domain. Then there exists a non-zero ideal L of D such that, if

m = r0 (A),

A=D D D L.

m1

of fractions of D.

Proof. This follows at once from Corollary 16.10 and D.S. Passman [219, Theorem

7.7].

Corollary 16.12. Let A be a nitely generated D-module, where D is a Dedekind

domain. Then A = T C, where T = tD (A), and C is a nitely generated D-

torsion-free submodule.

Proof. This follows at once from Corollary 16.10 and the standard properties of

projective modules.

We are now in a position to prove the basis structure theorem of nitely

generated modules over Dedekind domains.

Theorem 16.13. Let A be a nitely generated D-module, where D is a Dedekind

domain. Then the following assertions hold:

(1) A = T C, where T = tD (A) is the D-periodic part of A and C is a nitely

generated D-torsion-free submodule.

196 Chapter 16. Quasinite modules

(3) If T = B1 Bt where every Bj is a primary cyclic submodule, then

k = t, and there are a permutation Sk , and an automorphism of T

such that Bj = Aj , for every 1 j k.

(4) If m = r0 (C), then there exists a non-zero ideal L of D such that

C

=D D D L.

m1

eld of fractions of D.

Proof. Apply Corollary 16.12, Proposition 16.6, and Corollary 16.11.

Now, we may continue the study of quasinite modules.

Lemma 16.14 ([152]). Let A be a quasinite DG-module, where D is a Dedekind

domain and G is a group. If A is D-periodic, then there exists some P Spec(D)

such that A is a P -module, and either AP = 0 or

A = C1 Cn ,

where C1 , . . . , Cn are Pr

ufer P -modules.

Proof. Since A is D-periodic,

A= AP ,

P

exists some P Spec(D) such that A = AP . Consider A1 = P,1 (A). If A = A1 ,

then AP = 0. Otherwise A1 is nitely generated over D. In particular, dimD/P A1

is nite and L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Lemma 5.6] yields

that A is D-artinian. By Lemma 16.3, A is D-divisible and L.A. Kurdachenko, J.

Otal and I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Theorem 5.7] shows that A is a direct sum of nitely

many Pr ufer P -modules.

Lemma 16.15 ([152]). Suppose that D is a Dedekind domain that is not a eld.

Let G be a group, and let A be a quasinite DG-module. Then we have:

(1) If D is not a local ring, then A is D -periodic.

(2) If D is a local ring, and A is not D-periodic, then A is D-torsion-free and

divisible. Moreover, if F is the eld of fractions for D, then A as an F G-

module is simple, and dimF A is nite.

Proof. Put T = tD (A). Suppose rst that T = 0. By Lemma 16.3, either Ax =

0 for some 0 = x D or A is D-divisible. In the rst case A = T . In the

second one, A is D-divisible so that T is also D-divisible by Lemma 7.18. Also,

Chapter 16. Quasinite modules 197

Suppose now that T = 0. By (QF 3), A has a proper DG-submodule B, which

a fortiori is nitely generated over D. In fact, B can be chosen such that B has

minimal D-rank. Let C be a D-pure envelope of B so that C is a D-divisible

DG-submodule of A. By Theorem 7.25, C can not be nitely generated as D-

submodule so that C = A. Since A/B is D-periodic and D-divisible, by Theorem

7.25

A/B = AP /B,

P Spec(D)

cannot be a P -module for some P Spec(D), and we obtain a contradiction with

Lemma 16.14.

Let now D be a local ring. Since A is D-divisible and D-torsion-free, we can

consider A as an F G-module. Since A is a pure envelope of a nitely generated

D-submodule, dimF A is nite.

Finally, let U be a non-zero F G-submodule of A. Then B U is a non-zero

DG-submodule of B. By the choice of B we have r0 (B) = r0 (B U ). This means

that a pure envelope of B U coincides with the pure envelope of B, that is, with

A. In other words, A is a simple F G-module.

The structure of simple F G-modules A of nite dimension can be studied

in a satisfactory way. Remark that the most interesting cases appear when D is

a eld, and when D is a not a eld but A is D-periodic. Let D be a Dedekind

domain. If P Spec(D), and n N, we denote by n : D/P n D/P n+1 the

canonical epimorphism, and we put

D(P ) =

lim {D/P n , n | n N}.

domain. If P Spec(D), and A is a Pr ufer P -module, then the ring of endo-

morphisms of A is isomorphic to D(P ). Moreover, D(P ) is a principal ideal

domain, and the set of all non-zero ideals of D(P ) is {D(P )P n | n N}.

Proof. Let y P \ P 2 , and consider the mapping a ay, a A. For n N, put

An = P,n (A) so that An+1 y = An . Since A1 is simple, there exists some 0 = a1

such that A1 = a1 D and AnnD (a1 ) = P . Since A2 y = A1 , there exists some a2

such that a1 = a2 y. Thus, a2 A1 , and therefore a2 D = A2 and AnnD (a2 ) = P 2 .

Similarly, we choose elements {an | n N} such that

A= an D, An = an D an+1 D = An+1 ,

nN

In particular, an A

= D/P n , for every n N.

198 Chapter 16. Quasinite modules

there exists some n D such that an = an n . If n D and an n = an n ,

then an (n n ) = 0, that is n n AnnD (an ) = P n . In particular, n + P n =

n + P n , for every n N. Dene a mapping

: EndD (A) D/DP n

nN

gives n + P n = n+1 + P n . It follows that D(P ). Let EndD (A), and

suppose that = (n + P n )nN . One easily obtains that

an ( + ) = an (n + n ), and an () = an (n n ).

It follows that

( + ) = + , and () =

by an = an n , for every n N. It is easy to see that is an endomorphism of

A, and = (n + P n )nN . Hence, Im = D(P ). Obviously, Ker = 0, and

so it follows that

EndD (A) = Im = D(P ).

Suppose that (n + P n )nN U (D(P )). Then there is (n + P n )nN

D(P ) such that

Conversely, suppose we are given some (n +P n )nN D(P ) such that 1

P . Since P is a maximal ideal of D, P + 1 D = D. We have n + P m = m + P m ,

for every pair m n, and then n P for every n N. Again P + n D = D. By

Lemma 6.7, n D + P n = D. Hence, there exist some n D, and n P n such

that n n + n = 1. Therefore,

1 + P n = n n + n + P n

= n n + P n = (n + P n )(n + P n ).

and so (n + P n )nN D(P ). Hence,

Chapter 16. Quasinite modules 199

some t N such that 1 , . . . , t P but t+1 P . Note that D(P )P t =

D(P )y t . Indeed, let (n + P n )nN D(P ), x P t . By Proposition 6.13,

P t = Dy t + P t+m , for every m N, and then there exist some zt,m D, and

wt,m P t+m that x = y t zt,m + wt,m . Then

((n + P n )nN )x = ((n + P n )x)nN

= (n x + P n )nN = (n (y t zt,m + wt,m ) + P n )nN

= (0, . . . , 0, t+1 (y t zt,1 + wt,1 ) + P t+1 , . . . , t+m (y t zt,m + wt,m ) + P t+m , . . .)

= (0, . . . , 0, t+1 y t zt,1 + P t+1 , . . . , t+m y t zt,m + P t+m , . . .)

because wt,m P t+m , for every m N. Since D(P )P t = D(P )y t ,

(n + P n )nN = ((n + P n )nN )y t ,

where (n + P n )nN U (D(P )). Since the D-module D(P ) is torsion-free (see

D.G. Northcott [207, 9.10, Proposition 14]), the expression

(n + P n )nN = ((n + P n )nN )y t ,

where (n + P n )nN U (D(P )), is unique. If (n + P n )nN is another non-zero

element of D(P ), again

(n + P n )nN = ((n + P n )nN )y m ,

where (n + P n )nN U (D(P )). Thus,

(n + P n )nN (n + P n )nN = ((n + P n )nN )(n + P n )nN y t+m = 0.

Consequently, D(P ) is an integral domain.

Finally, let I be a non-zero ideal of D(P ), and pick 0 = (n + P n )nN I.

Then

(n + P n )nN = ((n + P n )nN )y t ,

where (n + P n )nN U (D(P )). It follows that D(P )y t I. Note that

D(P )y t = D(P )P t = lim {D/P t+m | m N}

= D/P t . By Proposition 6.13, the set of all ideals of D/P t

is

{D/P t , P/P t , . . . , P t1 /P t , 0},

hence, I/D(P )P t is isomorphic to P tk /P t for some k N. Therefore I =

D(P )P tk = D(P )y tk . This means that D(P ) is a principal ideal domain,

and the set of all non-zero ideals of D(P ) is equal to

{D(P )P n | n N},

and all has been proved.

200 Chapter 16. Quasinite modules

group, and A a quasinite DG-module. If A is D-periodic, then G/CG (A) can be

embedded in GLn (D(P )) where n = dimD/P P,1 (A), and {P } = AssD (A).

Proof. By Lemma 16.14,

A = C1 Cn ,

ufer P -modules. It suces to apply Proposition 16.16.

where C1 , . . . , Cn are Pr

Proposition 16.18 ([152]). Let D be a Dedekind domain, G a group, H a nor-

mal subgroup of G of nite index, {g1 , . . . , gt } a transversal to H in G, and A a

quasinite DG-module such that CG (A) = 1. If A is D-periodic, then A has a

DH-submodule B satisfying the following properties:

(i) Bgj is a quasinite DH-submodule for each 1 j t.

(ii) A = Bg1 + + Bgt .

1 1

(iii) H

H /(g 1 CH (B )g 1 ) H /(g t CH (B )g t ).

Proof. Let M be the set of DH-submodules E of A that are not nitely generated

as D-submodules. If U is a proper DG-submodule, then U is nitely generated

over D. Since U is D-periodic, by Theorem 16.13, U has a nite D-composition

series so that U certainly has a nite DG-composition series. It follows that A is an

artinian DG-module. By Theorem 5.2, A is an artinian DH-module as well. Hence,

M has a minimal element B. By the choice of B, every proper DH-submodule of

B is nitely generated over D. We claim that B is a quasinite DH-submodule.

Otherwise, B has a proper DH-submodule C such that B/C is a simple DH-

module. Put

C1 = CDG = Cg1 + + Cgt .

Thus, C1 is nitely generated as a D-submodule. Since A is a quasinite DG-

module, A has an ascending series of proper DG-submodules

C1 C2 Cn

such that

A= Cn .

nN

It follows that

B= (B Cn ).

nN

Since B/C is a simple DH-module, either (B/C) (Cn /C) = B/C or this inter-

section is zero. Since B is not nitely generated over D, the same is true for B/C.

Since each Cn is nitely generated as a D-submodule, (B/C) (Cn /C) = 0,

that is B Cn = C, which gives B = C, a contradiction. This contradiction

shows our claim. For every 1 i t, each mapping a agi , a A is a D-

isomorphism that applies isomorphically the DH-submodules among themselves.

Chapter 16. Quasinite modules 201

a DG-submodule, which is not nitely generated over D,

A = Bg1 + + Bgt .

Lemma 16.19 ([152]). Let D be a Dedekind domain that is not a eld, G a locally

soluble group, and A a quasinite DG-module such that CG (A) = 1. If A is

D-periodic, then G is abelian-by-nite.

Proof. By Corollary 16.17, AssD (A) = {P }, where P Spec(D), and

A = C1 Cn ,

where C1 , . . . , Cn are Pr

of fraction for R, and let R 0 denote the R-module K/R. Put A = HomR (A, R0 ).

Then A is a free R-module, and

r0 (A ) = n (B. Hartley [106, Lemma 1.2]).

By [106, Lemma 2.1] B = (A ) R K is a simple KG-module. By Zassenhauss

theorem (see, for example, B.A.F. Wehrfritz [280, Theorem 3.7]) G is soluble, and

Maltsevs theorem (see, for example, B.A.F. Wehrfritz [280, Lemma 3.5]), G is

abelian-by-nite.

Lemma 16.20 ([152]). Let D be a Dedekind domain that is not a eld, suppose that

G is a group having an abelian normal subgroup U of nite index, and let A be

a quasinite DG-module with CG (A) = 1. If A is D-periodic, then the periodic

part T of U has nite special rank.

Proof. By Corollary 16.17, AssD (A) = {P }, where P Spec(D), and

A = C1 Cn ,

where C1 , . . . , Cn are Pr

includes a quasinite DU -submodule B satisfying the conditions (i)-(iii). Let

R = D(P ), K be the eld of fractions for R, and let R0 denote the R-module

K/R. Put B* = HomR (B, R0 ). According to B. Hartley [106, Lemma 2.1], C =

(B*) R K is a simple KU -module, dimK C = r0 (B) = n. Then the periodic part

of U/CU (B) is locally cyclic (see, for example, L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal and

I.Ya. Subbotin [157, Theorem 2.3]). By Proposition 16.18,

U

U/(g11 CU (B)g1 ) U/(gt1 CU (B)gt ),

special rank.

202 Chapter 16. Quasinite modules

such that CG (A) = 1. If 1 = x (G), then A = A(x 1).

Proof. Since the mapping : a a(x 1), a A is an RG-endomorphism of

A, Im = A(x 1), and Ker = CA (x) are RG-submodules. Since x CG (A),

CA (x) = A. It follows that CA (x) is nitely generated over R. Since

A(x 1)

= A/CA (x),

A(x 1) cannot be nitely generated over R. This means that A = A(x 1), as

required.

Corollary 16.22 ([152]). Let D be a Dedekind domain of characteristic p > 0, G

a group, and A a quasinite DG-module such that CG (A) = 1. Then G has no

non-identity normal nite p-subgroups.

Proof. Suppose the contrary, and let P a non-identity normal nite p-subgroup

of G. Let S be a minimal G-invariant subgroup of P . Then S is abelian. If H =

CG (S), then |G : H| is nite, and S (H). By Proposition 16.18, A has a

quasinite DH-submodule B satisfying the conditions (1)(3) of that statement.

We claim that CH (B) does not include S. For, otherwise S CH (B), so S =

g 1 Sg g 1 CH (B)g = CH (Bg) for every g G, and, by above (2), S CG (A) =

1, a contradiction that shows our claim. Pick x S \CH (B) of prime order. Since

char D = p, the additive group of B is an elementary abelian p-subgroup, and

it follows that the natural semidirect product B x is a nilpotent p-group. In

particular, [B, x] = B(x 1) = B. By Lemma 16.21, B(x 1) = B, and, then we

have just found a nal contradiction that proves the result.

Theorem 16.23 ([152]). Let D be a Dedekind domain that is not a eld, G a locally

soluble group, and A a quasinite DG-module such that CG (A) = 1. Suppose that

A is D-periodic, then the following assertions hold:

(1) AssD (A) = {P }, where P Spec(D).

(2) A = C1 Cn , where C1 , . . . , Cn are Pr

ufer P -modules.

(3) G has an abelian normal subgroup U of nite index.

(4) The periodic part of U has nite special rank.

(5) If char D = p > 0, then Op (G) = 1.

Proof. (1) and (2) follow from Lemma 16.14, (3) from Lemma 16.19 and (4) from

Lemma 16.20. Suppose that Op (G) = 1. By (3) and (4), Op (G) has nite special

rank, hence, Op (G) has a non-identity nite G-invariant subgroup. But this is a

contradiction to Corollary 16.22.

Suppose that A is a quasinite DG-module. As we mentioned above, the

study of the structure of A falls into two cases:

Chapter 16. Quasinite modules 203

(2) there exists some P Spec(D) such that AnnD (A) = P .

Note that we already dealt with case (1) in Theorem 16.23. Therefore, we

focus on the case (2), that is we consider a quasinite DG-module A such that

AnnD (A) = P is a maximal ideal. If F = D/P is the corresponding residue eld,

A can be naturally made into an F G-module; so we need to study quasinite

F G-modules, where F is a eld.

Lemma 16.24 (L.A. Kurdachenko and I.Ya. Subbotin [172]). Let A be a quasinite

F G-module, where F is a eld, and G is a group. Then SocF G (A) is a non-zero

proper submodule of A.

Proof. Since A is not simple, A has a non-zero proper F G-submodule B. Then

dimF B is nite, and therefore B has a non-zero simple F G-submodule S. It follows

that SocF G (A) = 0. It suces to apply Corollary 16.2.

such that CG (A) = 1. If H is a non-identity nite normal subgroup of G, then

SocF H (A) = A.

Proof. Suppose the contrary, that is, B =SocF H (A) = A. Since H is normal, B

is an F G-submodule. It follows that dimF B is nite. Then there exists a vector

F -subspace C such that

A = B C.

Dene

C0 = Ch.

hH

Since

A/Ch = Ah/Ch

= A/C,

dimF (A/Ch) = dimF (A/C) = dimF B is nite. It follows that C0 has nite

codimension, and, in particular, C0 = 0. Pick 0 = c1 C0 , and put C1 = c1 F H.

Since H is nite, dimF C1 is nite. Therefore C1 has a non-zero simple F H-

submodule C2 . We have C2 SocF H (A) = B, and, on other hand, C2 C0 and

C0 B = 0, a contradiction.

module such that CG (A) = 1. If H is a non-identity nite normal subgroup of

G, then CA (H) = 0, and A(F H) = A.

Proof. By Lemma 16.25,

A= Cn ,

nN

204 Chapter 16. Quasinite modules

of Cn , either Cn (F H) = Cn or Cn (F H) = 0. Therefore

A = CA (H) A(F H).

Corollary 16.27 ([172]). Let F be a eld, G a group, and A a quasinite F G-

module such that CG (A) = 1. If H is a non-identity nite normal subgroup of

G, and B is a non-zero proper F G-submodule of A, then CH (B) = 1.

Corollary 16.28 ([172]). Let F be a eld, G a group, and A a quasinite F G-

module such that CG (A) = 1. Suppose that H is a non-identity normal subgroup

of G that has an ascending series of G-invariant subgroups

1 = H0 H1 H H+1 H = H

1.

Proof. We proceed by induction on . If = 1, then it suces to apply Corollary

16.27. Let > 1, and suppose we have H CH (B) = 1, for every ordinal < .

Put C = H CH (B). If is a limit ordinal, then

H = H ,

<

so that

C = (C H ) = C = 1 .

< <

Suppose now that is not a limit. Put L = H1 , and assume that C = 1.

Then L C = 1, and so

= C /(L C )

C = (L + C )/L H /L.

C = 1. By induction, matching = , we obtain CH (B) = 1, as required.

Let G be a group. A normal subgroup H of G is said to be the hypernite

radical of G if it satises the following conditions:

(1) H possesses an ascending series of G-invariant subgroups

1 = H0 H1 H H+1 H = H,

(2) G/H has no non-identity normal nite subgroups.

Chapter 16. Quasinite modules 205

Corollary 16.29 ([172]). Let F be a eld, G a group, and A a quasinite DG-

module such that CG (A) = 1. Then HF (G) is an abelian-by-nite subgroup of

nite special rank. Moreover, if char F = p > 0, then Op (HF (G)) = 1.

Proof. Put H = HF (G). Let B be a proper non-zero F G-submodule of A. By

Corollary 16.28, CH (B) = 1 so that we can think of H as a subgroup of

GL(n, F ), where n = dimF B. By a result due to Kargapolov (see B.A.F. Wehrfritz

[280, Corollary 9.31]), H is soluble-by-nite. By Maltsevs theorem (see B.A.F.

Wehrfritz [280, Theorem 3.6]) H has a normal subgroup S of nite index such

that g 1 Sg T (n, F1 ), where F1 is a nite eld extension of F . Put

U = (g 1 Sg) U T (n, F1 ), V = gU g 1 ,

p-subgroup. Suppose that U = 1. Then Op (H) = 1. By the denition of H, this

means that H has a nite non-identity G-invariant p-subgroup in contradiction

with Corollary 16.22. If char F = 0, then U T (n, F1 ) is a torsion-free nilpotent

subgroup, and hence, U = 1 in this case. Further,

= U (F1 ) U (F1 )

n

Since the periodic subgroups of U (F1 ) are locally cyclic (see G. Karpilovsky [131,

Proposition 4.4.1]), then S is an abelian subgroup of nite special rank.

nite F G-module such that CG (A) = 1. Then the periodic part T of G is an

abelian-by-nite p -subgroup of nite special rank, where p = char F .

Proof. Indeed, in a hypercentral group, the periodic part is known to be equal to

the hypernite radical.

of A. In particular, dimF S = s is nite. If CG (S) = 1, then we think of G as a

subgroup of GLs (F ) (in fact, it is a completely reducible subgroup of GLs (F )).

Lemma 16.31 ([152]). Let F be a eld, G a locally soluble group, and A a quasinite

F G-module such that CG (A) = 1. If CG (SocF H (A)) = 1, then G is abelian-by-

nite.

Proof. As we mentioned above, G is a completely reducible subgroup of GLs (F ),

where s = dimF SocF G (A)). Again, by Zassenhauss theorem (see B.A.F. Wehrfritz

[280, Theorem 3.7]), G is soluble, and, by Maltsevs theorem (see B.A.F. Wehrfritz

[280, Lemma 3.5]), G is abelian-by-nite.

206 Chapter 16. Quasinite modules

F G-module such that CG (A) = 1. Given 1 = x G, we consider A as a D(x)-

module, where D(x) = F tx is the group algebra of an innite cyclic group tx

over F whose action is induced by atx = ax, for every a A. Then there exists

some x G such that AnnD(x) (A) = 0.

Proof. We recall that D(x) is a principal ideal domain. By Lemma 16.15, A is

a D(x)-periodic module, and, by Lemma 16.14, either AnnD(x) (A) = 0 or A is

D(x)-divisible. Suppose that AnnD(x) (A) = 0 for every x G. Put

0 = au S1 . We write

u = a1 x1 + + am xm ,

where a1 , . . . , am F , and x1 , . . . , xm G. By our assumption, there exists P1

Spec(D(x1 )) such that AP1 = 0. Put F1 = D(x1 ))/P1 , and think of A as an F1 G-

module. Since A has a non-zero annihilator in D(x1 ), A has a non-zero annihilator

P2 in F1 t2 , where t2 = tx2 . By Lemma 16.14, P2 Spec(F1 t2 ), which means

that the F x1 , x2 -module S2 is semisimple, and homogeneous. Using the same

arguments, after nitely many steps we obtain that the F x1 , . . . , xm -module

S2 is semisimple and homogeneous. But in this case aF x1 , . . . , xm is a simple

submodule so that aF x1 , . . . , xm S1 = 0, which contradicts the choice of a.

This contradiction proves the result.

Theorem 16.33 ([152]). Let F be a eld, G a locally soluble group, and A a quasi-

nite F G-module such that CG (A) = 1. Put S =SocF G (A). If CG (S) = 1, then

the following assertions hold:

(1) G has an abelian normal subgroup U of nite index.

(2) The periodic part of U has nite special rank

(3) If char F = p > 0, then Op (G) = 1.

(4) U contains an element x of innite order, and A has a quasinite F U -

submodule B such that AssF

x (B) = {P }, for some P Spec(F x), and

B = C1 Cn ,

where C1 , . . . , Cn are Pr

ufer P -modules.

(5) A = B Bg1 Bgt , where {1, g1 , . . . , gt } is a transversal to U in G.

Proof. The assertion (1) follows from Lemma 16.31, while (2) and (3) follow from

Corollary 16.29. Let B be a quasinite F U -submodule satisfying the conditions

(1)-(3) of Proposition 16.18. By Lemma 16.32, U \ CU (B) contains an element

Chapter 16. Quasinite modules 207

x (B) = 0. Clearly |x| is innite. By Lemma 16.14, B is a

P -module, for some P Spec(F x), and

B = C1 Cn ,

where C1 , . . . , Cn are Pr

ufer P-modules. Finally, (5) follows from Proposition

16.18.

Lemma 16.34 ([152]). Let F be a eld, G a hypercentral group, and A a quasinite

F G-module such that CG (A) = 1. If CG (SocF G (A)) = 1, then CG (SocF G (A))

(G) contains an element x of innite order such that A is F x-periodic, and

AssF

x (A) = {(x 1)F x}.

Proof. Put S1 = SocF G (A), and Z = CG (S1 ) (G). Then Z = 1, and, by

Corollary 16.27, Z is torsion-free. Pick 1 = x Z. Then the mapping : a

a(x 1), a A is an F G-endomorphism of A, and so Ker = CA (x), and

Im = A(x 1) are F G-submodules. Put S2 /S1 = SocF G (A/S1 ). By Lemma

16.3, S2 /S1 is a proper F G-submodule, and it follows that

Ej

= Ej / Ker = Ej /S1 ,

Similarly, Sn+1 (x 1) Sn , for every n N. Since dimF ( nN Sn ) is innite, we

deduce

Sn = A.

nN

x (B) = {(x 1)F x}.

Theorem 16.35 ([152]). Let F be a eld, G a hypercentral group, and A a quasinite

F G-module such that CG (A) = 1. Put S =SocF G (A). If CG (S) = 1, then the

following assertions hold:

(1) G is abelian-by-nite.

(2) The periodic part T of a group G is a p -group of nite special rank where

p = char F .

(3) T (G) is locally cyclic.

(4) CG (S) (G) contains an element x of innite order such that A is F x-

periodic, and AssF

x (A) = {P } where P = (x 1)F x.

208 Chapter 16. Quasinite modules

ufer P -modules.

Proof. By Lemma 16.34, CG (S) (G) contains an element x of innite order

such that A is F x-periodic, and AssF

x (B) = {P }, where P = (x 1)F x. If

D = F x, then D is a principal ideal domain, and it suces to apply Theorem

16.23.

We note that this result can be extended to F C-hypercentral groups.

To nish, we are dealing with results of D.I. Zaitsev that concern quasinite

F G-modules, that are carried out when F is a nite eld. In this case, it is possible

to obtain more information concerning the periodic subgroups of the group G

considered.

Lemma 16.36 (D.I. Zaitsev [299]). Let F be a nite eld, G a group, and A a

quasinite F G-module such that CG (A) = 1. If (G) is innite, then G has a

nitely generated subgroup H such that A is a quasinite F H-module.

Proof. Let T be the periodic part of Z = (G), and suppose that B is a proper

F G-submodule of A. Since F is nite, B is likewise nite. By Corollary 16.28,

CT (B) = 1. If follows that T is nite, and hence, (G) contains an element x of

innite order. Think of A as a DG-module, where D = F x. By Lemma 16.15

and Lemma 16.14,

A = A1 An ,

where A1 , . . . , An are Pr for some P Spec(F x), 1 j n. Put

ufer P -modules

Cm = P,m (A), m N. Then A = mN Cm . Besides, Cm is nite for any m.

Let G be the family of all nitely generated subgroups, containing the element

x. Since A is an artinian F x-module, then A is an artinian F K-module for every

subgroup K G. Therefore A includes a quasinite F K-submodule A(K). Clearly,

C1 A(K) = 0. If B is an F -subspace of A, then put

Since C1 is nite, there is a nite F -subspace B1 such that G(B1 ) is a local system

for G. Since A is a P -module, C2 A(K) = B1 , K G(B1 ). There is a nite F -

subspace B2 such that G(B2 ) is a local system for G. Proceeding in this way, we

construct a strictly ascending chain of F -subspaces

G1 G2 Gj

such

B = jN Bj , and b B, g G. Then b Bj for some i N. Since Gj is a local

system for G, g K for some subgroup K Gj . Since A(K) is an F K-submodule,

Chapter 16. Quasinite modules 209

an F G - submodule. Since B is innite, then B = A. Thus, C1 Bj for some j

N. If K G j , then

= C1 (Cj A(K)) = C1 Bj = C1 .

so that the equation P,1 (A) = P,1 (A(K)) implies A(K) = A. Thus, we may

choose every subgroup from the family G1 as a candidate for H .

Theorem 16.37 ([299]). Let F be a nite eld, G a group, and A a quasinite F G-

module such that CG (A) = 1. If (G) is innite, then the following assertions

hold:

(1) If S is a periodic normal subgroup of G, then S is nite.

(2) If S is a periodic subgroup of G, then S has a bounded nilpotent p-subgroup

of nite index, where p = char F .

Proof. As in the previous result, we deduce that there exists some x (G) of

innite order such that

A = C1 Cn ,

ufer P -modules for some P Spec(F x). Together

where C1 , . . . , Cn are Pr

with Proposition 16.16 this implies that G is isomorphic with some subgroups of

GLn (D(P )). Since D(P ) is a principal ideal domain, there exists the eld of

fractions K for D(P ), i.e. G can be embedded in GL(n, K). By Schurs theorem

(see, for example, B.A.F. Wehrfritz [280, Theorem 9.1]) every periodic subgroup

of G is locally nite.

Let S be a periodic normal subgroup of G, and dene H = S x. Since

A is an artinian F x-module, A is an artinian F H-module, and so A has a

quasinite F H-submodule B. Suppose that xt CH (B) for some t = 0. Then

B CA (xt ), and, in particular, CA (xt ) is innite. Note that CA (xt ) is an F G-

submodule, because xt (G). This means that A = CA (xt ), and then xt

CG (A) = 1. Since |x| is innite, this is a contradiction that shows x CH (B) =

1. Thus, CH (B) S. Since CH (B) is normal in H, H = H/CH (B) is innite.

By Lemma 16.36, there exists a nitely generated subgroup Q such that x Q,

and B is a quasinite F (Q )-module, where Q = QCH (B)/CH (B). Thus, Q/ x

is a nitely generated locally nite group, and so it is nite. Thus, Q = x U ,

where U = Q S is nite. Obviously,

B1 = CB (x) = 0 .

210 Chapter 16. Quasinite modules

Corollary 16.27 to the quasinite F (Q )-module B, and its submodule B1 to

obtain

U CH (B1 ) = U CQ (B1 ) = 1 .

In other words,

so that CU (B1 ) CH (B). Since this remains true for every nite subgroup V U ,

CU (B1 ) CH (B). Since B1 is a nite F H-submodule, S/CS (B1 ) is nite, and

the inclusion CH (B) S, gives further that S/CH (B) is nite as well. By the

niteness of P,1 (A), and P,1 (B), there are elements g1 , . . . , gt such that

Thus,

E = Bg1 + + Bgt

is an F x-divisible P -module since so is P , and we have P,1 (E) = P,1 (A).

Since A is an F x-divisible P -module, E = A. Since S is a normal subgroup of

G, |S : CH (B)| = |S : CH (Bgj )| for every 1 j n. It follows that

is nite. Since

CH (Bg1 ) CH(Bgt ) CG (A) = 1 ,

S is nite.

Now let S be a periodic subgroup of G. Again we put H = S x. Let B1 be

a quasinite F H-submodule of A, B2 /B1 a quasinite F H-submodule of A/B1 ,

and so on. Proceeding as above, we show that the series

0 = B0 B1 B2 Bn .

must be nite, that is there exists some n N such that Bn = A. For every

1 j n, we dene Hj = CH (Bj /Bj1 ). As above, we nd that Hj S. By (1),

every periodic normal subgroup of H/Hj is nite. In particular, S/Hj is nite.

Dene

S 0 = H1 Hn

so that S/S0 is nite, and moreover S0 acts trivially on all factors of the series

0 = B0 B1 Bn = A.

It suces to apply, for example, O.H. Kegel and B.A.F. Wehrfritz [134, Theorem

1.C.1], to get that S0 is a bounded nilpotent p-subgroup, as required.

Chapter 17

locally nilpotent residual

G splits over N if there exists a subgroup H of G such that G = N H (that is,

G = N H, and N H = 1). Such an H is said to be a complement to N in G. If

all complements to N are conjugate, then it is said that G conjugately splits over

N ; the results involving this are known in general as splitting theorems.

In the theory of nite soluble groups, splitting theorems play a very signicant

role. We mention here the result of W. Gasch utz [83] and E. Schenkman [253],

asserting that if the nilpotent residual L of the nite group G is abelian, then

G conjugately splits over L, is one of the most important achievements in this

direction. Here it is decisive that the niteness of G implies the existence of the

Z-decomposition in L, that is, L = Z E, where Z = ZG (L), and E = IE ZG (L).

By the choice of L, we have L = IE ZG (L), and, in particular, L = [L, G], and

L (G) = 1. The latter two conditions are the most common restrictions

involved in almost all splitting theorems.

Since the condition Min-G appears as an extension of the niteness, we are

naturally drawn to the following situation: the locally nilpotent residual L of the

group G is abelian and is an artinian ZG-module. The theorems about splitting

of a group over its abelian generalized nilpotent radical are very useful in many

dierent investigations. Among these results we choose a theorem proven by D.J.S.

Robinson [246]. In [246] the authors proof is based on homological methods. In

this chapter we decided to give a group theoretical proof of this theorem. The

following proof is based on the ideas and results of D.I. Zaitsev [304, 307, 308] and

M.J. Tomkinson [275]. This fact aptly illustrates the eectiveness of the artinian

condition.

Let G be a group. Suppose that H1 , . . . , Hn are normal subgroups of G and

put

H = H1 Hn .

212 Chapter 17. Splitting over the locally nilpotent residual

morphism

: G

G/H1 G/Hn .

In particular, G/H is isomorphic to some subgroup of G/H1 G/Hn . If

Im = G/H1 G/Hn , we will write

having nite index and T = {g1 , . . . , gn } a transversal to H in G. Suppose that A

is a ZG-module and B is a proper ZH-submodule of A. For each set J of subsets

of T , form

B(J ) = ( Bg)

SJ gS

Then

B0 = B(J0 )g

gG

is a ZG-submodule of A and

A/B0 = A/B(J0 )g,

gS

Proof. Clearly, we may write

A/(B(J0 )g1 B(J0 )gm1 ) = A/B(J0 )g

gM

for some subset M of T . If B(J0 )gm B(J0 )g1 B(J0 )gm1 , then

A/(B(J0 )g1 B(J0 )gm1 ) = A/B(J0 )g.

gM

Chapter 17. Splitting over the locally nilpotent residual 213

and so

A/B0 = A/B(J0 )g,

gS

where S = M {gm }.

Lemma 17.2 ([275]). Let G be a group, H a non-identity normal subgroup of G

and A a non-zero ZG-module. Assume further that the following conditions hold:

(i) HCG (A)/CG (A) F C (G/CG (A)).

(ii) A is an artinian ZG-module.

(iii) A = A(ZH).

Then G has a normal subgroup K and A has a proper ZG-submodule Q satisfying

the following conditions:

(1) K/CK (A/Q) is nitely generated.

(2) K/CK (A/Q) F C(G/CK (A/Q)) HCK (A/Q)/CK (A/Q).

(3) A/Q = (A/Q)(ZK).

Moreover, if H is locally soluble, then K/CK (A/Q) is the normal closure of a

single element of G/CK (A/Q), and is either a nite elementary abelian p-group

for some prime p or a free abelian group of nite 0-rank. Further, if H is locally

nilpotent, we can choose K so that K/CK (A/Q) (HCK (A/Q)/CK (A/Q)).

Proof. Since A is an artinian ZG-module, it suces to deduce the general case

from the case when the result holds for every proper ZG-submodule of A; that

is, we may assume that the latter is true. There is no loss if we assume that

CG (A) = 1. By Lemma 3.15, H F C(G) = 1. Pick 1 = x H F C(G), and

G

put F = x . Then F is a nitely generated subgroup; that is, F = x1 , . . . , xn .

If A = A(ZF ), then it suces to choose K = F and B = 0.

Therefore, we may suppose that A1 = A(ZF ) = A. Since CG (A) = 1,

A1 = 0. Put U = CG (F ) so that G/F is nite. By Theorem 5.2, A is an artinian

ZU -module. Let V = H U = CH (F ).

Suppose rst that A1 (ZV ) = A1 . Let : A A/A1 (ZV ) be the canon-

ical epimorphism. Since V CG (A1 ), A(y 1) A(ZF ) A1 for ev-

ery y F . Thus, V CG (A(y 1)). From the isomorphism A(y 1) =ZV

A/CA (y) we obtain the inclusion V CG (A/CA (y)) for every yF , and

therefore, V CG (A/CA (F )).

If we suppose that CA (F ) = A, then A(ZF ) A1 (ZV ), and so A1 =

A(ZF ) = A1 (ZV ) contrary to our assumption. Hence, the factor-module A =

A/CA (F )) is non-zero. The equation A = A(ZH) implies that A = A(ZV ),

214 Chapter 17. Splitting over the locally nilpotent residual

this case, we may choose K = H.

Suppose now that A1 (ZV ) = A1 . Since A1 is a proper ZG-submodule, by

our initial assumption, G has a normal subgroup L, and A1 has a proper ZG-

submodule C such that A1 /C = (A1 /C)(ZL), and L/CL (A1 /C) is a nitely

generated subgroup of F C(G/CL (A1 /C)) (V CL (A1 /C)/CL (A1 /C)). Let

A1 = A(ZF ) = D1 + + Dn .

A1 = D1 + + Dn .

A1 = Dk + + Dn .

A1 /(Dk+1 + + Dn )

=ZU Dk /(Dk (Dk+1 + + Dn ).

Since A1 = A1 (ZL),

= Dk /(Dk (Dk+1 + + Dn ).

Using the isomorphism

Dk = A(xk 1)

=ZU A/CA (xk )

we see that A has a proper ZU -submodule B such that Dk

=ZU A/B, and so

(A/B)(ZL) = A/B. Now we form the ZG-submodule B0 as we did in Lemma

17.1. Then

B0 = B(J0 )g, B(J0 ) B, and

gG

A/B0 = A/B(J0 )g,

gS

A(ZL) + B = A, and so A(ZL) + Bg = A for every g G. From B(J0 )g

Bg, (A/B(J0 )g)ZL) = A/B(J0 )g, and, since A/B0 is the direct sum of certain

Chapter 17. Splitting over the locally nilpotent residual 215

modules A/B(J0 )g, we have A/B0 = (A/B0 )(ZL). Put Q = B0 so that A/Q =

(A/Q)(ZL).

Let : A A/Q be the canonical epimorphism. Since CK (A1 ) acts triv-

ially on A1 , so does it on Dk . From the isomorphism Dk

=ZU A/B we see that

CK (A1 ) acts trivially on A/B. It follows that CK (A1 ) acts trivially on every

A/B(J0 )g, and so on A = A/B0 .

Since CL (A) = CL (A/B0 ) CL (A1 ), and L/CL (A1 ) is a nitely gener-

ated subgroup of F C(G/CL (A1 ))(V CL (A1 )/CL (A1 )), we see that L/CL (A)

is a nitely generated subgroup of F C(G/CL (A))(V CL (A)/CL (A)). The sub-

group L has a nite series of G-invariant subgroups

CL (A) = L0 L1 Ls = L

such that Lj+1 /Lj is the normal closure of a single element, and is either a nite

abelian group or a free abelian group of nite 0-rank, 1 j s 1. If H is locally

nilpotent, we will choose a series like this in such a way that every factor Lj+1 /Lj

is H-central. Choose m minimal such that A/Q = (A/Q)(ZLm ). Let

: A/Q (A/Q)/(A/Q)(ZLm )

Lm . If R/CR (A) is innite, then there exists an integer t such that K/CR (A) =

(R/CR (A))t is free abelian. If A = (A)(ZK), then we are done. If A =

(A)(ZK), then we consider (A)/(A)(ZK). We have

CR ((A)/(A)(ZK)) K,

the following case: G has a normal subgroup L, and A has a proper ZG-submodule

Q satisfying that L/CL (A/Q) is a nite abelian group, and A/Q = (A/Q)(ZL).

In this case, L has a nite series of G-invariant subgroups

CL (A) = L0 L1 Lr = L

such that Lj+1 /Lj is the normal closure of a single element, and is an elemen-

tary abelian group, 1 j r 1. Choosing an minimal such that A/Q =

(A/Q)(ZL
) we can dene (A/Q)/(A/Q)(ZL
) to be the required ZG-image of

A, and put K = L
.

Lemma 17.3. Let G be a locally nilpotent group, and let A be a ZG-module. Suppose

that for every nite subset M of A, and every nitely generated subgroup K of G

we have that every K-chief factor of M ZK is K-central. Then CA (K) = 0.

Proof. Let R be a ZG-chief series of A, and consider an arbitrary factor C of

this series. Then C is a simple ZG-module, and so it follows that either C is

216 Chapter 17. Splitting over the locally nilpotent residual

the natural semidirect product L = C K. If B = M ZK, then D = B K

is nitely generated soluble. Let H be an arbitrary normal subgroup of D of

nite index. Since every D-chief factor of BH/H is central in D, and D/BH is

nilpotent, D/H is nilpotent. By a result due to D.J.S. Robinson (see [235, Theorem

10.51]), D is likewise nilpotent. Elementary properties of nilpotent groups give that

B (D) = 1. It follows that CA (K) = 0.

Lemma 17.4. Let G be a group, H a normal subgroup of G, and A a ZG-module.

Assume that the following conditions hold:

(i) The natural semidirect product A H is locally nilpotent.

(ii) HCG (A)/CG (A) F C (G/CG (A)).

(iii) H is locally nilpotent.

Then every chief ZG-factor of A is H-central.

Proof. We suppose the contrary; that is, there exists a ZG-chief factor W of A

such that W is H-eccentric. Let

: A A/CG (W )

G

1 = x (H) F C(G), and put Q = xv . Then Q is a nitely generated

abelian subgroup. By the choice of Q, the index |G : CG (Q)| is nite. Put

X = CG (Q). Then Q (G). By Theorem 5.5,

W = W1 Wm

(i), it is not hard to see that CW1 (Q), . . . , CWm (Q) = 1. Since every CWj (Q)

is a Z(X)-submodule of Wj , CWj (Q) = Wj . This holds for every 1 j m, so

that we conclude that either CW (Q) = W or Q CG (W ), a contradiction. This

contradiction shows that H CG (W ), as required.

Lemma 17.5. Let G be a group, H and L normal subgroups of G, and A a ZG-

module. Suppose that H L, and A has a ZL-submodule B such that the natural

semidirect product B H is a locally nilpotent

group. Then for every nite subset

X of G the natural semidirect product ( xX Bx) H is locally nilpotent.

Proof. Since L is normal in G, Bx is a ZG-submodule of G. Let F be an arbi-

trary nitely generated subgroup of H. Put K = F x | x, x1 X , so that K

is likewise nitely generated. Let M be an arbitrary nite subset of B, and put

D = M ZK. Since B H is locally nilpotent, D has a nite upper ZK-central

series

0 = D0 D1 Dk = D.

Chapter 17. Splitting over the locally nilpotent residual 217

0 = D0 x D1 x Dk x = Dx

1 j k, we have

is an upper ZK-central

series of D + Dx. Proceeding

by induction on |X|, we

obtain that ( xX
Dx) is ZK-nilpotent. Then ( xX Dx) is ZF -nilpotent, and

it follows that ( xX Bx) H is locally nilpotent.

Lemma 17.6. Let G be a group, H a normal subgroup of G, and A a ZG-module.

Assume that the following conditions hold:

(i) A has an artinian ZG-submodule B.

(ii) Every chief ZG-factor of B is H-eccentric.

(iii) The natural semidirect product (A/B) H is a locally nilpotent group.

(iv) H F C (G).

(v) CG (A) = 1.

Then A includes a ZG-submodule C such that A = B C.

Proof. Suppose the contrary; that is, every ZG-submodule X such that A = B +X

satises that B X = 0. Choose in A a ZG-submodule M maximal under

B M = 0. Replacing M by A/M , we may assume that M = 0. This means

that every non-zero ZG-submodule of A has a non-zero intersection with B. Put

M = {U | U is a ZG-submodule such that B does not include U },

S = {U B | U M}.

Clearly, S = . Since B is an artinian ZG-module, S has a minimal element L.

Let D be a ZG-submodule of A such that D B = L. For every non-zero ZG-

submodule E of D such that E M we have B E = 0. By the choice of D,

it follows that E B = D B. If we suppose that E = (E B) + V for some

proper non-zero ZG-submodule V of E with the property V M, then, from the

inclusion V B D B, we obtain V B = D B; that is, V = E.

Clearly, there is no loss if we assume that CG (D) = 1. Suppose that

CH (L) = 1. By Lemma 3.15, CH (L) (H) F C(G) = 1. Pick 1 = x

G

CH (L) (H) F C(G), and put Q = x . Then Q is a nitely generated sub-

group. By the choice of Q, the index |G : CG (Q)| is nite. Put X = CG (Q). Then

218 Chapter 17. Splitting over the locally nilpotent residual

of x, we have L Ker , so that D(x 1) =ZX D/ Ker . The inclusion H X

implies that the natural semidirect product (D/ Ker ) H is a locally nilpotent

group. Then the natural semidirect product D(x 1) H is likewise a locally

nilpotent

group. Let T be a transversal to X in G. Since T is nite, by Lemma

17.5, ( tT D(x 1)t) H is locally nilpotent. Note that tT D(x 1)t is a

ZG-submodule of D. By Lemma 17.4, every ZG-chief factor of tT D(x 1)t is

H-central. By (ii),

tT

By our assumption this means that 0 = tT D(x1)t, in particular, D(x1) =

0, and x CG (D) = 1. Thus, CH (L) = 1.

By Lemma 3.15, (H) F C(G) = 1. Pick 1 = y (H) F C(G), and

G

put Y = y . Then Y is a nitely generated abelian subgroup; that is, Y =

g1 , . . . , g2 . By the choice of Q, the index |G : CG (Y )| is nite. Put R = CG (Y ).

Since the natural semidirect product (D/L) H is a locally nilpotent group,

every ZY -chief factor of an arbitrary nitely generated ZY -submodule of (D/L)

is Y -central. By Lemma 17.3, P/L = CD/L (Y ) = 0. We note that P is a ZG-

submodule, because Y is a normal subgroup of G. The mapping

: a a(g1 1), a P,

image of D/L, the natural semidirect product P (g1 1)/L(g1 1) H is a locally

nilpotent group (note also that H R). By Lemma 17.4, every ZR-chief factor

of P (g1 1)/L(g1 1) is H-central. On the other hand, P (g1 1) L B

by the choice of g1 . Since the index |G : R| is nite, it is not hard to see that

every ZR-chief factor of B is H-eccentric. In particular, every ZR-chief factor of

P (g1 1), hence, of P (g1 1)/L(g1 1), is H-eccentric. This contradiction shows

the equality P (g1 1) = L(g1 1). In other words,

P = CP (g1 ) + L.

Applying similar arguments to the ZR-submodule S = CP (g1 ), we obtain the

equality S = CS (g2 ) + (S L), which implies that

P = CP (g1 , g2 ) + L.

Proceeding in this way, after nitely many steps, we obtain

P = CP (Y ) + L.

But in a beginning of the proof we have already demonstrated that in this case,

P = CP (Y ). Since L P , CH (L) = 1, a contradiction. This nal contradiction

proves the required result.

Chapter 17. Splitting over the locally nilpotent residual 219

Assume that the following conditions hold:

(i) A is abelian, and A B CH (A).

(ii) H/B F C (G/B).

(iii) H/A is locally nilpotent.

(iv) A is an artinian ZG-module.

(v) Every chief ZG-factor of A is H-eccentric.

Then G has a G-invariant subgroup L such that B = A L. Moreover, if S is a

subgroup of G such that G = AS, then L S.

Proof. Since A (B), B is locally nilpotent. Choose in H an arbitrary nitely

generated subgroup K, and put D = A K, and E = B K. Then

K/D = K/(A K)

= KA/A

is nitely generated nilpotent. Let U/V be a ZK-chief factor of D [E, E]. The

factor-group K/V is nitely generated abelian-by-nilpotent. By a result due to

P. Hall (see [235, Theorem 9.51]), K/V is residually nite. It follows that K

has a normal subgroup F of nite index such that F U = V . Consider now

the nite group K/F . Since (K/F )/(DF/F ) is locally nilpotent, DF/F contains

the nilpotent residual R/F of K/F . In particular, R/F is abelian. We have above

noticed that in this case, K/F = R/F S/F , for some nilpotent subgroup S/F (W.

Gasch utz [83], E. Schenkman [253]). Since R/F DF/F , and DF/F (EF/F ),

EF/F = R/F (S/F EF/F ).

Clearly, (S/F EF/F ) is a normal subgroup of K/F . The inclusion U [E, E]

implies that U F/F (S/F EF/F ). In particular, [R/F, U F/F ] = 1. Since

U F/F is a chief factor of K/F , the equation K/F = (R/F )(S/F ) implies that

U F/F is a chief factor of S/F . From the nilpotency of S/F , we obtain that U F/F

is central in S/F ; hence, in K/F . Therefore,

[K, U ] F U = V.

It follows that every ZK-chief factor of D [E, E] is K-central.

Let W be a ZG-chief factor of A [B, B], and suppose that W is not H-

central. Let

: A A/CG (W )

be the canonical epimorphism. By Lemma 3.15, HF C(G) = 1. Pick 1 = x

H F C(G), and put Q = xvG . Then Q is a nitely generated subgroup;

that is, Q = x1 v, . . . , xn v. By the choice of Q, the index |G : CG (Q)| is

nite. Put X = CG (Q). By Theorem 5.5,

W = W1 Wm

220 Chapter 17. Splitting over the locally nilpotent residual

by the above paragraph, every Z(Q)-chief factor of Wj is Q-central, 1 j m.

By Lemma 17.3, CWj (Q) = 1. But CWj (Q) is a Z(X)-submodule of Wj , and

therefore, CWj (Q) = Wj . This holds for 1 j m, and so CW (Q) = W ; that

is, Q CG (W ), a contradiction. This contradiction shows that H CG (W );

hence, it establishes that every ZG-chief factor of A [B, B] is H-central. If we

suppose now that A [B, B] = 1, then we obtain a contradiction with condition

(v).

Consider now the factor-group G/[B, B]. Its normal subgroup B/[B, B] is

abelian. Since H/A[B, B] is locally nilpotent, by Lemma 17.6, B has a G-invariant

subgroup L [B, B] such that

B/[B, B] = (A[B, B]/[B, B]) L/[B, B].

This and A [B, B] = 1 give that B = A L.

Let S be a subgroup of G such that G = AS. Since A B, B = A(S B).

The subgroup B is normal in G, so that S B is normal in S. The inclusion

B CH (A), and the equation G = AS imply that S B is normal in G. Since

B/(B S) = A(B S)/(B S) = A/(A S)

every G-chief factor of B/(B S) is H-eccentric. On the other hand, we have seen

above that every G-chief factor of L is H-central. Since L B, it follows that

L(B S)/(B S) = 1; that is, L B S.

Lemma 17.8 ([275]). Let G be a group, A a ZG-module. Suppose that (G) contains

an element g such that A is not Z g-nilpotent. Then A has a ZG-submodule B

such that (A/B)(g 1) = A/B, and CA (g) B.

Proof. There is a descending chain of ZG-submodules

A A(g 1) A(g 1)2 A(g 1)n .

Since A is artinian, there exists some m such that

A(g 1)m1 = A(g 1)m = A(g 1)m+1 = .

If j N, put Aj = A(g 1)j . Then

Am1 (g 1) = Am = Am (g 1).

It follows that Am1 CA (g) + Am , and therefore,

(Am1 + CA (g))/CA (g) = (Am + CA (g))/CA (g).

Since g (G), CA (g) is a ZG-submodule of A. Proceeding by ordinary induction,

after nitely many steps we nd a ZG-submodule B such that CA (g) B, and

A = B + Am . Thus,

(A/B)(g 1) = ((B + Am )/B)(g 1) = ((B + Am (g 1))/B

= ((B + Am )/B) = A/B,

as required.

Chapter 17. Splitting over the locally nilpotent residual 221

Lemma 17.9. Let G be a group, and let A be a ZG-module. Suppose that (G)

contains an element g such that A = A(g 1). Let E be any extension of A by G.

If B is a ZG-submodule of A, and CA (g) B, then E/B splits over A/B.

Proof. Let y E such that g = yA. In this proof, we will denote A multiplicatively;

in particular, instead of A(y 1) we will write [A, y]. Let x be an arbitrary element

of E. We have y x = ay for some a A. Since A = [A, y], A = [A, y 1 ], and so

there exists some b A such that a = [b, y 1 ]. We have

y x = ay = [b, y 1 ]y = b1 yby 1 y = y b .

Therefore, xb1 CE (y), and x ACE (y). Since CE (y)A = CA (y) = CA (g), we

see that CE (y)/CA (y) is a complement to A/CA (y) in E/CA (y). But B CA (y);

so it is clear, that BCE (y)/B is a complement to A/B in E/B.

Lemma 17.10 ([275]). Let G be a group, and let A be a normal subgroup of G.

Suppose that there exist G-invariant subgroups A1 , . . . , An of A such that

A1 An = 1 , and A = A/A1 A/An .

Then we have:

(1) If every factor A/Aj has a complement Sj /Aj in G/Aj , then A has a com-

plement S in G.

(2) If S and R are complements to A in G such that SAj is conjugate to RAj

for every 1 j n, then S and R are conjugate in G.

Proof. Put A1 At1 = B, and assume, inductively, that A/B has a com-

plement C/B in G/B. Consider C St . Certainly C St A = B At . Also,

(C St )A = (C St )BAt = (C St B)At

= (C St A)At = CAt = CBAt = CA = G.

Therefore, (C St )/(At B) is a complement of A/(A1 At ) in G/(A1

At ). Assume now inductively that SB and RB are conjugate. Replacing R

by an appropriate conjugate we may assume that SB = RB. There is an element

a A such that S a At = RAt . Since A = BAt we may assume that a B, and so

S a B = RB. Now

R(B At ) = R((R A)At B) = R(RAt B) = RAt RB.

So

(RAt B) = S a At SB = S a (At B);

hence R/(A1 At ) is conjugate to S/(A1 At ).

Lemma 17.11 ([275]). Let G be a group, and let A be a ZG-module. Suppose that

(G) contains an element g such that A = A(g 1). Let E be a split extension of

A by G. If K is another complement to A in E, and B is a ZG-submodule of A

such that CA (g) B, then GB and KB are conjugate in E.

222 Chapter 17. Splitting over the locally nilpotent residual

Proof. It is clear that A g G = g, and A g K = ag for some element

a A. Thus, K CE (ag), and CE (ag) = KCA (g). Also CE (g) = GCA (g).

Since A = [A, g], A = [A, g 1 ], and so a = [b, g 1 ] for some element b A,

and we have ag = [b, g 1 ]g = g b . It follows that

as required.

Theorem 17.12 (D.J.S. Robinson [246]). Let G be a group, H a subgroup of G,

and A a ZG-module. Suppose that the following conditions hold:

(i) A is an artinian ZG-module.

(ii) H is a normal subgroup of G.

(iii) H is locally nilpotent.

(iv) HCG (A)/CG (A) F C (G/CG (A)).

(v) CA (H) = 1.

Then every extension E of A by G splits over A, and all complements of A in

such an extension are conjugate.

Proof. We note that the condition (iv) implies that HCG (A)/CG (A) is hyper-

central. Repeating word by word the proof of Theorem 10.21, we obtain that A

has the Z-ZH-decomposition; that is,

A = ZH (A) ZH (A).

Condition (v) implies that ZH (A) = 0. Hence, every non-zero ZG-factor of A is

H-eccentric. In particular A = A(ZH). Since we consider A not only as a module

but as a normal subgroup of a group E, we will can write A multiplicatively. In

particular, instead of A(ZH) we will write [A, H].

Existence of complements

Suppose the contrary; that is, for every subgroup X such that G = AX,

A X = 0. Note that A X is a G-invariant subgroup of A. Let M be the set

of subgroups X such that G = AX, and put S = {X A | X M}. Clearly,

S = . Since A is an artinian ZG-module, S has a minimal element M . Let Y be a

subgroup of A such that A Y = M . If we suppose that Y = (A Y )Y1 for some

subgroup Y1 of Y , then G = AY1 , and therefore, 1 = A Y1 A Y , so, by the

choice of Y , A Y1 = A Y . This means that Y = Y1 . In other words, for every

proper subgroup Y1 of Y we have G = AY1 . Without loss of generality, we obtain

that E = Y , and A = M . By Lemma 17.2, G has a normal subgroup K, and A

has a proper G-invariant subgroup Q such that the following conditions hold:

(i) The factor-group (K/Q)/CK/Q (A/Q) is the normal closure of a single ele-

ment of (G/Q)/CK/Q (A/Q).

Chapter 17. Splitting over the locally nilpotent residual 223

(ii) (K/Q)/CK/Q (A/Q) is either a nite elementary abelian p-group for some

prime p or a free abelian group of nite 0-rank.

(iii) (K/Q)/CK/Q (A/Q) lies in the intersection of F C((G/Q)/CK/Q (A/Q)), and

((H/Q)CK/Q (A/Q)/CK/Q (A/Q)).

(iv) A/Q = [A/Q, K/Q].

Replacing E by E/Q, we may assume that Q = 1. By Lemma 17.7,

CK (A) = A B for some E-invariant subgroup B. We may replace E by E/B to

assume B = 1. Thus, CK (A) = A. Put

E

K = x = x1 , . . . , xn .

ZK-nilpotent. But in this case, A = [A, K]. Therefore, there exists some index j

such that A is not Z xj -nilpotent. Let U/A = CE/A (K/A). By Lemma 17.8, A

has a U -invariant subgroup B such that

B0 = B(J )g , B(J0 ) B CA (g),

gG

B(J0 )g B g CA (g g ) = CA (g).

complement L/B0 to A/B0 in U/B0 .

Since B(J0 ) B, we have [A/B(J0 ), x] = A/B. Denote by C/B(J0 ) the

centralizer of x in A/B(J0 ). Then C/B(J0 ) = A/B(J0 ). Note that the centralizer

of xg in A/B(J0 )g is C g /B(J0 )g , so that C g /B0 CA/ B0 (xg ). Let

C0 = Cg.

gG

Let L/B0 and L1 /B0 be two complements to A/B0 in U/B0 . By Lemma 17.11,

L/C g and L1 /C g are conjugate in U . It now follows from Lemma 17.10 that

LC0 and L1 C0 are conjugate in U . Application of the Frattini argument gives

224 Chapter 17. Splitting over the locally nilpotent residual

E = NE (LC0 ), i.e. LC0 is normal in E. Hence,

[A, LC0 ] A LC0 = (A L)C0 = C0 = A,

contrary to [A, K] = A.

This completes the proof that E splits over A.

Conjugacy of complements

Let P1 and P2 be two complements to A in E. Let C be the set of all E-invariant

subgroups W of A such that W P1 and W P2 are conjugate. Clearly, A C, so that

C = . Since A is an artinian ZG-module, C has a minimal element M . Suppose

that M = 1. Then BP1 and BP2 are not conjugate for every proper G-invariant

subgroup B of M . Without loss of generality we may assume that M P1 = M P2 ,

A = M , and E = M P1 , so that we have AP1 = AP2 = E, and BP1 and BP2 are

not conjugate for every proper E-invariant subgroup B of A. By Lemma 17.2, E

has a normal subgroup K, and A has a proper E-invariant subgroup Q satisfying

the following conditions:

(i) The factor-group (K/Q)/CK/Q (A/Q) is the normal closure of a single ele-

ment of (G/Q)/CK/Q (A/Q).

(ii) (K/Q)/CK/Q (A/Q) is either a nite elementary abelian p-group for some

prime p or a free abelian group of nite 0-rank.

(iii) (K/Q)/CK/Q (A/Q) lies in

F C((G/Q)/CK/Q (A/Q)) ((H/Q)CK/Q (A/Q)/CK/Q (A/Q)).

We may replace E by E/Q to assume Q = 1. By Lemma 17.7,

CK (A) = A B

for some E-invariant subgroup B. Replacing E by the factor-group E/B, we may

assume B = 1. Then CK (A) = A. Put

E

K = x = x1 , . . . , xn .

Proceeding as we did in the existence part of this proof, we can choose a U -

invariant subgroup B such that

CA (g) B, and [A/B, gB] = A/B.

Again let U/A = CE/A (K/A). We form the E-invariant subgroup B0 as in Lemma

17.1. Then

B0 = B(J0 )g , B(J0 ) B CA (g),

gG

Chapter 17. Splitting over the locally nilpotent residual 225

B(J0 )g B g CA (g g ) = CA (g).

17.10, (U P1 )B0 is conjugate to (U P2 )B0 in U . But

Therefore,

NE (U Pj B0 ) = Pj NA (U Pj )B0 ), j {1, 2}.

However, NA (U Pj )B0 ) = CA/B0 (U ). The inclusion H U implies that A has

a non-zero H-central ZG-section. We have already said above that every non-

zero ZG-factor of A is H-eccentric. It follows that NA (U Pj )B0 ) = B0 , and so

NE (U Pj B0 ) = Pj B0 . Therefore, P1 B0 and P2 B0 are conjugate. This contradic-

tion completes the proof of the theorem.

Bibliography

[1] J. Alc

azar, J. Otal, Sylow subgroups of groups with Chernikov conjugacy

classes. J. Algebra 110 (1987), 507513.

[2] F. Anderson, K. Fuller, Rings and categories of modules. Springer, 1974.

[3] M.F. Atiyah, I.G. MacDonald, Introduction to commutative algebra.

Addison-Wesley, 1969.

[4] R. Baer, Finiteness properties of groups. Duke Math. J. 15 (1948), 1021

1032.

[5] R. Baer, Groups with descending chain condition for normal subgroups.

Duke Math. J. 16 (1949), 122.

[6] R. Baer, Au osbare Gruppen mit Maximalbedingung. Math. Ann. 129

(1955), 139173.

[7] R. Baer, Polyminimaxgruppen. Math. Ann. 175 (1968), 143.

[8] R. Baer, Durch Formationen bestimmte Zerlegungen von Normalteilern

endlicher Gruppen. J. Algebra 20 (1972), 3856.

[9] R. Baer, H. Heineken, Radical groups of nite abelian subgroup rank. Illinois

J. Math. 16 (1972), 533580.

[10] S.D. Berman, The group algebras of countable abelian p-groups. Pub. Math.

14 (1967), 365405.

[11] S.D. Berman, A.G. Podgorny, On the representations of a group of type

p over one class of the elds. Ukrain. Math. J. 29 (1977), 632637.

[12] S.D. Berman, N.I. Vishnyakova, On the representations of a group of type

p over a eld of characteristic p. Proc. Moskow Math. Soc. 29 (1973),

87100.

[13] S.D. Berman, N.I. Vishnyakova, Locally cyclic modules over a valuation

rings. Representation theory, group rings and coding theory, Contem-

porary Math. Amer. Math. Soc. 1989, 85103.

[14] N. Bourbaki, Algebre (Polynomes et fractions rationelles; Corps commu-

tatifs). Hermann, 1959.

228 Bibliography

mann, 1961.

[16] N. Bourbaki, Algebre commutative (Graduations, ltrations et topologies;

Ideaux premier associes et decomposition primaire). Hermann, 1961.

[17] N. Bourbaki, Algebre (Algebre lineaire). Hermann, 1962.

[18] N. Bourbaki, Algebre commutative (Entiers, valuations). Hermann, 1964.

[19] N. Bourbaki, Algebre (Groupes et corps ordonnes; Modules sur les anneaux

principaux). Hermann, 1964.

[20] N. Bourbaki, Algebre commutative (Diviseurs). Hermann, 1965.

[21] Z.I. Borevich, A.R. Shafarevich, Number theory. Academic Press, 1966.

[22] A. A. Bovdi, The multiplicative group of an integral group rings. University

Of Uzhgorod, 1987.

[23] A. A. Bovdi, Group rings. University of Uzhgorod, 1988.

[24] D.C. Brewster, J.C. Lennox, Subnormality and quasinormality in soluble

minimax groups. J. Algebra 48 (1977), 368381.

[25] C.J.B. Brookes, Ideals in group rings of soluble groups of nite rank. Math.

Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 97 (1985), 2749.

[26] C.J.B. Brookes, Abelian subgroups and Engel elements of soluble groups.

J. London Math. Soc. 32 (1985), 467472.

[27] C.J.B. Brookes, Engel elements of soluble groups. Bull. London Math. Soc.

16 (1986),, 710.

[28] C.J.B. Brookes, Modules over polycyclic groups. Proc. London Math. Soc.

57 (1988), 88108.

[29] C.J.B. Brookes, J.R.J. Groves, Modules over nilpotent group rings. J. Lon-

don Math. Soc. 52 (1995), 467481.

[30] K.A. Brown, The structure of modules over polycyclic groups. Math. Proc.

Cambridge Phil. Soc. 89 (1981), 257283.

[31] K.A. Brown, The Nullstellensatz for certain group rings. J. London Math.

Soc. 26 (1982), 425434.

[32] S.U. Chase, Direct products of modules. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 97 (1960),

437473

[33] V.S. Charin, A remark on the minimal condition for subgroups. Doklady

AN SSSR 66 (1949), 575576.

[34] V.S. Charin, On the minimal condition for normal subgroups in locally

soluble groups. Mat.Sbornik 33 (1953), 2736.

Bibliography 229

groups. Ukrain. Math. J. 5 (1953), 363369.

[36] V.S. Charin, On the automorphism groups of nilpotent groups. Ukrain.

Math. J. 6 (1954), 295304.

[37] V.S. Charin, On locally soluble groups of nite rank. Mat. Sb. 41 (1957),

3748.

[38] C.S. Charin, On soluble groups of type A4. Mat. Sb. 52 (1960), 895914.

[39] V.S. Charin, On soluble groups of type A3. Mat. Sb. 54 (1961), 489499.

[40] V.S. Charin, D.I. Zaitsev, On groups with niteness conditions and other

restrictions on subgroups. Ukrain. Math. J. 40 (1988), 277287.

[41] A.W. Chatters, C.R. Hajarnavis, Rings with chain condition. Pitman,

1980.

[42] S.N. Chernikov, The niteness conditions in general group theory. Uspekhi

Mat. nauk 14 (1959), 4596.

[43] S.N. Chernikov, The groups with prescribed properties of systems of sub-

groups. Nauka Moskow, 1980.

[44] G.H. Cli, S.K. Sehgal, Group rings whose units form an F C-group. Math.

Z. 161 (1978), 163168.

[45] A.H. Cliord, Representations induced in an invariant subgroups. Annals

Math. 38 (1937), 533550.

[46] J. Cornick, P.H. Kropholler, Homological niteness conditions for modules

over group algebras. J. London Math. Soc. 58 (1998), 4962.

[47] C.W. Curtis, I. Reiner, Representation theory of nite groups and associa-

tive algebras. John Wiley, 1962.

[48] C.W. Curtis, I. Reiner, Methods of representation theory, Vol 1. John Wi-

ley, 1981.

[49] C.W. Curtis, I. Reiner, Methods of representation theory, Vol 2. John Wi-

ley, 1981.

[50] G. Cutolo, L.A. Kurdachenko, Weak chain conditions for non-almost nor-

mal subgroups. London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes Series 211 (1995), 120

130.

[51] R. Dedekind, Uber die Theorie der ganzen algebraischen Zahlen. Supple-

ment XI to Dirichlets Vorlesungen uber Zahlentheorie, 2nd ed., 1871.

[52] M.R. Dixon, Sylow theory, formations and Fitting classes in locally nite

groups. World Scientic, 1994.

230 Bibliography

nite rank. J. Algebra 182 (1996), 756769.

[54] M.R. Dixon, M.J. Evans, H. Smith, Locally (soluble-by-nite) groups with

all proper insoluble subgroups of nite rank. Arch. Math. 68 (1997), 100

109.

[55] M.R. Dixon, L.A. Kurdachenko, N.V. Polyakov, Locally generalized radical

groups satisfying certain rank conditions. To appear.

[56] K. Doerk, T. Hawkes, Finite soluble groups. Walter de Gruyter, 1992.

[57] S. Donkin, Polycyclic groups, Lie algebras and algebraic groups. J. reine

angew. Math. 326 (1981), 104123.

[58] S. Donkin, Locally nite representations of polycyclic-by-nite groups.

Proc. London Math. Soc 44 (1982), 333348.

[59] Z.Y. Duan, The structure of noetherian modules over hypernite groups.

Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 112 (1992), 2128.

[60] Z.Y. Duan, Extensions of abelian-by-hyper(cyclic or nite) groups. Comm.

Algebra 20 (1992), 23052321.

[61] Z.Y. Duan, The decomposition of noetherian modules over hypernite

groups. Ricerche Mat. 44 (1995), 6589.

[62] Z.Y. Duan, The F-decomposition of artinian modules over hypernite

groups. Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc. 38 (1995), 117120.

[63] Z.Y. Duan, Modules over hypernite groups. Rings, groups and algebras,

Marcel Dekker, 1996, 5161.

[64] Z.Y. Duan, M.J. Tomkinson, The decomposition of minimax modules over

hypernite groups. Arch. Math. 81 (1993), 340343.

[65] Z.Y. Duan, L.A. Kurdachenko, I.Ya. Subbotin, Artinian modules over hy-

pernite groups. South. Asian Bull. Math. 22 (1998), 273286

[66] C. Faith, Algebra: Rings, Modules and Categories I. Springer, 1973.

[67] C. Faith, Algebra: Rings, Modules and Categories II. Springer, 1976.

[68] D.R. Farkas, Noetherian group rings: an exercise in creating folklore and

induction. Noetherian rings and their applications, Amer.Math. Soc.,

Math. Surveys and monographs 24 (1987), 89118.

[69] D.R. Farkas, R.L. Snider, Group algebras whose simple modules are injec-

tive. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 194 (1974), 241248.

[70] I. Fleischner, Modules of nite rank over Pr

ufer rings. Annals of Math. 65

(1957), 250254.

Bibliography 231

[71] E. Formanek, R.L. Snider, Primitive group rings. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.

36 (1972), 357360.

[72] S. Franciosi, F. de Giovanni, On maximal subgroups of minimax groups.

Atti. Accad. Naz. Lincei. Mat. Applic. 9 (1995), 2327.

[73] S. Franciosi, F. de Giovanni, L.A. Kurdachenko, The Schur property and

groups with uniform conjugace classes. J. Algebra 174 (1995), 823847.

[74] S. Franciosi, F. de Giovanni, L.A. Kurdachenko, On groups with many

almost normal subgroups. Annali Mat. 169 (1995), 3565.

[75] S. Franciosi, F. de Giovanni, L.A. Kurdachenko, Groups whose proper quo-

tients are F C-groups. J. Algebra 186 (1996), 544577.

[76] S. Franciosi, F. de Giovanni, M.J. Tomkinson, Groups with polycyclic-by-

nite conjugacy classes. Boll. Unione Mat. Italiana 4B (1990), 3555.

[77] S. Franciosi, F. de Giovanni, M.J. Tomkinson, Groups with Chernikov con-

jugacy classes. J. Austral. Math. Soc.(series A) 50 (1991), 114.

[78] L. Fuchs, Innite abelian groups, Vol. 1. Academic Press, 1970.

[79] L. Fuchs, Innite abelian groups, Vol. 2. Academic Press, 1973.

[80] L. Fuchs, S.B. Lee, Primary decompositions over domains. Glasgow Math.

J. 38 (1996), 321326

[81] L. Fuchs, L. Salce, Modules over valuation domains. Marcel Dekker, 1985.

[82] A.D. Gardiner, B. Hartley, M.J. Tomkinson, Saturated formations and Sy-

low structure in locally nite groups. J. Algebra 17 (1971), 177211.

[83] W. Gasch

utz, Zur Erweiterungstheorie der endlichen Gruppen. J. Reine

Angew. Math. 190 (1952), 93107.

[84] R. Gilmer, Multiplicative ideal theory. Marcel Dekker, 1972.

[85] J.S. Golan, T. Head, Modules and structure of rings. Marcel Dekker, 1991.

[86] M. Gonz

alez, J. Otal, P. Halls covering group and embedding of countable

CC-groups. Comm. Algebra 18 (1990), 34053412.

[87] M. Gonz alez, J. Otal, Embedding theorems for residually Chernikov CC-

groups. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 123 (1995), 23832332.

[88] M. Gonzalez, J. Otal, The extension of results due to Gorchakov and

Tomkinson from F C-groups to CC-groups. J. Algebra 185 (1996), 314

328.

[89] M. Gonz

alez, J. Otal, J.M. Pe

na, CC-groups with periodic central factors.

Manuscripta Math. 69 (1990), 93103.

232 Bibliography

[90] Yu.M. Gorchakov, The groups with nite classes of conjugacy elements.

Nauka Moskow, 1978.

[91] D. Gorenstein, Finite groups. Harper Row, 1968.

[92] R.I. Grigorchuk, Burnsides problem on periodic groups. Funktsional Analis

i prilozh. 14 (1980), 5354.

[93] R.I. Grigorchuk, Solved and unsolved problems around one group. Geo-

metric, Combinatorial and Dynamical Aspects . Progress in Mathematics

Series Vol. 248, Birh

auser, pp. 117218.

[94] K.W. Gruenberg, Ring theoretic methods and niteness conditions in in-

nite soluble group theory. Lecture Notes Math. 319 (1974), 7584.

[95] P. Hall, Finiteness conditions for soluble groups. Proc. London Math. Soc.

4 (1954), 419436.

[96] P. Hall, On the niteness of certain soluble groups. Proc. London Math.

Soc. 9 (1959), 595632.

[97] P. Hall, Nilpotent groups. Queen Mary College Mathematics Notes, 1969.

[98] P. Hall, The Frattini subgroup of nitely generated groups. Proc. London

Math. Soc. 11 (1961), 327352.

[99] P. Hall, B. Hartley, The stability group of a series of subgroups. Proc.

London Math. Soc. 16 (1966), 139.

[100] B. Hartley, A note on the normalizer conditions. Proc. Cambridge Phil.

Soc. 74 (1973), 1115.

[101] B. Hartley, A class of modules over locally nite groups I. J. Austral. Math.

Soc.(series A) 16 (1973), 431442.

[102] B. Hartley, A class of modules over locally nite groups II . J. Austral.

Math. Soc.(series A) 19 (1975), 437469.

[103] B. Hartley, A class of modules over locally nite groups III. Bull. Austral.

Math. Soc. 14 (1976), 95110.

[104] B. Hartley, Splitting over the locally nilpotent residual of locally nite

groups. Quart. Journal Math. 27 (1976), 395400.

[105] B. Hartley, Uncountable artinian modules and uncountable soluble groups

satisfying Min-n. Proc. London Math. Soc. 35 (1977), 5575.

[106] B. Hartley, A dual approach to Chernikov modules. Math. Proc. Cambridge

Phil. Soc. 82 (1977), 215239.

[107] B. Hartley, Injective modules over group rings. Quart. Journal Math. 28

(1977), 129.

Bibliography 233

[108] B. Hartley, Locally nite groups whose irreducible modules are nite di-

mensional. Rocky Mountain Math. J. 13 (1983), 255263.

[109] B. Hartley, T.O. Hawkes, Rings, modules and linear algebra. Chapman &

Hall, 1974.

[110] B. Hartley, D. McDougal, Injective modules and soluble groups satisfying

the minimal condition for normal subgroups. Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 4

(1971), 113135.

[111] B. Hartley, M.J. Tomkinson, Splitting over nilpotent and hypercentral resid-

uals. Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 78 (1975), 215226.

[112] H. Heineken, I.J. Mohamed, Groups with normalizer condition. Math. An-

nalen 198 (1972), 178187.

[113] I.N. Herstein, Conjugates in division rings. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 7

(1956), 10211022.

[114] T.W. Hungerford, Algebra, 2nd edition. Springer, 1996

[115] B. Huppert, Endliche Gruppen I. Springer, 1967.

[116] B. Huppert, N. Blackburn, Finite groups II. Springer, 1982.

[117] B. Huppert, N. Blackburn, Finite groups III. Springer, 1982.

[118] A.V. Jategaonkar, Integral group rings of polycyclic-by-nite groups. J.

pure applied Algebra 4 (1974), 337343.

[119] A.V. Jategaonkar, Certain injectives are artinian. Lecture Notes Math.

545 (1976), 128139.

[120] A.V. Jategaonkar, Localization in noetherian rings. Cambridge University

Press, 1986.

[121] I. Kaplansky, Modules over Dedekind and valuation rings. Trans.Amer.

Math. Soc. 72 (1952), 327340.

[122] I. Kaplansky, Projective modules. Annals Math. 68 (1958), 372377.

[123] I. Kaplansky, The splitting of modules over integral domains. Arch. Math.

13 (1962), 341343

[124] I. Kaplansky, Innite abelian groups. Univ. Michigan Press, 1969.

[125] I. Kaplansky, Topics in commutative ring theory. Univ. Chicago Notes

from Dept. Math., 1974.

[126] M. Karbe, Unendliche Gruppen mit schwachen Kettenbedingungen f

ur

endlich erzeugte Untergruppen. Arch. Math. 45 (1985), 97110.

[127] M. Karbe, L.A. Kurdachenko, Just innite modules over locally soluble

groups. Arch. Math. 51 (1988), 401411.

234 Bibliography

[128] M.I. Kargapolov, On soluble groups of nite rank. Algebra i logika 1 (1962),

3744.

[129] M.I. Kargapolov, Yu. I. Merzlyakov, Foundations of the theory of groups.

Springer, 1979.

[130] G. Karpilovsky, Commutative group algebras. Marcel Dekker, 1983.

[131] G. Karpilovsky, Field theory. Marcel Dekker, 1988.

[132] L.S. Kazarin, L.A. Kurdachenko, The niteness conditions and the factor-

izations in innite groups. Russian Math. Surveys 47 (1992), 81126.

[133] L.S. Kazarin, L.A. Kurdachenko, I.Ya. Subbotin, On groups saturated

with abelian subgroups. International Journal Algebra and Computation

8 (1998), 443466.

[134] O.H. Kegel, B.A.F. Wehrfritz, Locally nite groups. North Holland, 1973.

[135] Sh.S. Kemhadze, On stable groups of automorphisms. Doklady AN USSR

158 (1964), 510512.

[136] A. Kertesz, Lectures on artinian rings. Akademiai Kiado, 1987.

[137] L.G. Kovacs, M.F. Newman, Direct complementation in group with opera-

tors. Arch. Math. 13 (1963), 427433.

[138] P.H. Kropholler, On nitely generated soluble groups with no large wreath

product section. Proc. London Math. Soc. 49 (1984), 155169.

[139] P.H. Kropholler, P.A. Linnel, J.A. Moody, Applications of a new K-

theoretic theorem to soluble group rings. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 104

(1988), 675684.

[140] S.A. Kruglyak, On representations of groups (p, p) over a eld of charac-

teristic p. Doklady AN SSSR 153 (1963), 12531256.

[141] L.A. Kurdachenko, The groups satisfying the weak minimal and maximal

conditions for normal subgroups. Sibir. Math. J. 20 (1979), 10681075.

[142] L.A. Kurdachenko, The groups satisfying the weak minimal and maximal

conditions for subnormal subgroups. Math. Notes 29 (1981), 1930.

[143] L.A. Kurdachenko, On some embeddings conditions of F C-groups in the

direct product of nite groups and torsion-free abelian groups. Math. USSR

Sbornik 42 (1982), 499514.

[144] L.A. Kurdachenko, Locally nilpotent groups with the weak minimal condi-

tion for normal subgroups. Sibir. Math. J. 25 (1984), 589594.

[145] L.A. Kurdachenko, Locally nilpotent groups with the weak minimal and

maximal comditions for normal subgroups. Doklady AN Ukrain. SSR, 8

(1985), 912.

Bibliography 235

[146] L.A. Kurdachenko, The locally nilpotent groups with condition Min-oo-n.

Ukrain. Math. J. 42 (1990), 303307.

[147] L.A. Kurdachenko, On some classes of groups with the weak minimal and

maximal conditions for normal subgroups. Ukrain. Math. J. 42 (1990),

10501056,

[148] L.A. Kurdachenko, Artinian modules over groups of nite rank and some

niteness conditions. Innite groups and adjoining algebraic structures,

Naukova Dumka Kiev, 1993, 144159.

[149] L.A. Kurdachenko, On groups with minimax conjugacy classes. Innite

groups and adjoining algebraic structures, Naukova Dumka Kiev, 1993,

160177.

[150] L.A. Kurdachenko, Artinian modules over groups of nite rank and the

weak minimal condition for normal subgroups. Ricerche Mat. 44 (1995),

303335.

[151] L.A. Kurdachenko, On normal closures of elements in generalized F C-

groups. Innite groups 1994 (Ravello 1994). Walter de Gruyter, 1996,

141151.

[152] L.A. Kurdachenko, Modules over the group rings with some niteness con-

ditions. Ukrain. Math. J. 54 (2002), 931940.

[153] L.A. Kurdachenko, V.E. Goretsky, On groups with the weak minimal and

maximal conditions for non-normal subgroups. Ukrain. Math. J. 41 (1989),

17051709.

[154] L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal, Some noetherian modules and non-monolithic

just non-CC-groups. J. Group Th. 2 (1999), 5364.

[155] L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal, Simple modules over CC-groups and mono-

lithic just non-CC-groups. Boll. Unione Mat. Italiana 8 (2001), 381390.

[156] L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal, Frattini properties of groups with minimax

conjugacy classes. Quaderni di Matematica 8 (2001), 221237.

[157] L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal, I.Ya. Subbotin, Groups with prescribed quotient

groups and associated module theory. World Sci. Publ., 2002.

[158] L.A. Kurdachenko, J. Otal, I.Ya. Subbotin, Baer like decomposition of

modules. Illinois Journal Math. 47 (2003), 329343.

[159] L.A. Kurdachenko, B.V. Petrenko, I.Ya. Subbotin, On generalized hyper-

centers in artinian modules. Comm. Algebra 25 (1997), 10231046.

[160] L.A. Kurdachenko, B.V. Petrenko, I.Ya. Subbotin, Direct decompositions

in artinian modules over F C-hypercentral groups. Matematica contempo-

ranea 14 (1998), 8999.

236 Bibliography

of a theorem of B. H. Neumann. Matematica contemporanea 21 (2001),

131145.

[162] L.A. Kurdachenko, V.V. Pylaev, On groups with the minimax factor-

groups. Ukrain. Math. J. 42 (1990), 550553.

[163] L.A. Kurdachenko, V.V. Pylaev, V.E. Goretsky, The groups with the same

systems of minimax factor-groups. Doklady AN USSR 3A (1988), 1720.

[164] L.A. Kurdachenko, N.N. Semko, I.Ya. Subbotin, Artinian modules over

F C-hypercentral groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

of Ukraine, 2005, no 2, 2932.

[165] L.A. Kurdachenko, H. Smith, Groups with the maximal condition on non-

subnormal subgroups. Boll. Unione Mat. Italiana 10B (1996), 441460.

[166] L.A. Kurdachenko, H. Smith, Groups with the weak minimal condition for

non-subnormal subgroups. Annali Mat. 173 (1997), 299312

[167] L.A. Kurdachenko, H. Smith, The nilpotency of some groups with all sub-

groups subnormal. Pub. Matematiques 42 (1998), 411421.

[168] L.A. Kurdachenko, H. Smith, Groups with the weak maximal condition for

non-subnormal subgroups. Ricerche Math. 47 (1998), 2949.

[169] L.A. Kurdachenko, I.Ya. Subbotin, Groups with restrictions for cocentral-

izers of elements. Comm. Algebra 24 (1996), 11731187.

[170] L.A. Kurdachenko, I.Ya. Subbotin, Groups whose proper quotients are hy-

percentral. J. Austral. Math. Soc., series A 65 (1998), 224237.

[171] L.A. Kurdachenko, I.Ya. Subbotin, Groups with many periodic factor-

groups. Comm. Algebra 28 (2000), 15931602.

[172] L.A. Kurdachenko, I.Ya. Subbotin, On minimal artinian modules and min-

imal artinian linear groups. International Journal of Mathematics and

mathematical Sciences 27 (2001), 704714.

[173] L.A. Kurdachenko, I.Ya. Subbotin, On some innite dimensional linear

groups. South. Asian Bulletin of Math. 26 (2002), 773787

[174] L.A. Kurdachenko, I.Ya. Subbotin, On some types of Noetherian modules.

J. Algebra and Its Applications 3 (2004), 169179.

[175] L.A. Kurdachenko, A.V. Tushev, D.I. Zaitsev, Noetherian modules over

nilpotent groups of nite rank. Arch. Math. 56 (1991), 433436.

[176] A.G. Kurosh, The theory of groups. NAUKA Moskow, 1967.

[177] A.G. Kurosh, Lectures on general algebra. NAUKA Moskow, 1973.

[178] T.Y. Lam, A rst course in noncommutative rings. Springer, 1991.

Bibliography 237

[180] M.D. Larsen, P.J. McCarthy, Multiplicative theory of ideals. Academic

Press, 1971.

[181] A.I. Maltsev, On groups of nite rank. Mat. Sbornik 22 (1948), 351352.

[182] A.I. Maltsev, On certain classes of innite soluble groups. Mat. Sbornik

28 (1951), 567588. English translation: Amer. Math. Soc. Translations 2

(1956), 121.

[183] E. Matlis, Injective modules over noetherian rings. Pacic J. Math. 8

(1958), 511528.

[184] E. Matlis, Injective modules over Pr

ufer rings. Nagoya Math. J. 15 (1959),

5769.

[185] E. Matlis, Divisible modules. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 11(1960), 385391.

[186] E. Matlis, Cotorsion modules. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 49 (1964).

[187] E. Matlis, Torsion-free modules. The University Chicago Press, 1972.

[188] E. Matlis, Generalizations of divisible abelian groups to the theory of mod-

ules. Symp. Mat.Ist. Naz. Alta Mat. 23 (1979), 241250

[189] D.J. McCaughan, Subnormality in soluble minimax groups. J. Austral.

Math. Soc.(series A) 17 (1974), 113128.

[190] J.C. McConnel, J.C. Robson, Noncommutative noetherian rings. John Wi-

ley, 1987.

[191] D. McDougall, Soluble minimax groups with the subnormal intersection

property. Math. Z. 114 (1970), 241244.

[192] D. McDougall, Soluble groups with the minimum condition for normal sub-

groups. Math. Z. 118 (1970), 157167.

[193] G.O. Michler, O.E. Villamayor, On rings whose simple modules are infec-

tive. J. Algebra 25 (1973), 185201.

[194] I. Musson, Injective modules for group algebras of locally nite groups.

Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 84 (1978), 247262.

[195] I. Musson, Injective modules for group rings of polycyclic groups. Quart.

J. Math. 31 (1980), 429466.

[196] I. Musson, Irreducible modules for polycyclic group algebras. Canad.

J.Math. 33 (1981), 901914.

[197] I. Musson, Some examples of modules over noetherian rings. Glasgow

Math. J. 23 (1982), 913.

238 Bibliography

(1983), 4352.

[199] I. Musson, On the structure of certain injective modules over group algebras

of soluble groups of nite rank. J. Algebra 85 (1983), 5175.

[200] I. Musson, Injective modules, localization and completion in group algebras.

J. pure applied Algebra 57 (1989), 265279.

[201] W. Narkiewicz, Elementary and analithic theory of algebraic numbers.

Springer, 1989.

[202] M.L. Newell, On soluble Min-by-Max groups. Math. Annalen 186 (1970),

282286.

[203] M.L. Newell, A subgroup characterization of soluble Min-by-Max groups.

Arch. Math. 21 (1970), 128131.

[204] M.L. Newell, Supplement in abelian-by-nilpotent groups. J. London Math.

Soc. 11 (1975), 7480.

[205] M.L. Newell, Some splitting theorem for innite supersoluble groups. Math.

Z. 144 (1975), 265275.

[206] D.G. Northcott, Ideal theory. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1960.

[207] D.G. Northcott, Lessons on rings, modules and multiplicities. Cambridge

Univ. Press, 1968.

[208] A.Yu. Olshanskii, Geometry of dening relations in groups. Kluwer, 1991.

[209] J. Otal, J.M. Pe

na, Minimal non-CC-groups. Comm. Algebra 16 (1988),

12311242.

[210] J. Otal, J.M. Pena, Groups in which every proper subgroups is Chernikov-

by-nilpotent or nilpotent-by-Chernikov. Arch. Math. 51 (1988), 193197.

[211] J. Otal, J.M. Pe na, Groups with minimal condition related to niteness

properties of conjugate classes. Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ.Padova 81 (1989),

7984.

[212] J. Otal, J.M. Pe

na, Characterizations of the conjugacy of Sylow p-subgroups

of CC-groups. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 106 (1989), 605610.

[213] J. Otal, J.M. Pe

na, Sylow theory of CC-groups: a survey. London Math.

Soc. Lecture Notes Ser. 160 (1991), 400407.

[214] J. Otal, J.M. Pe

na, M.J. Tomkinson, Locally inner automorphisms of CC-

groups. J. Algebra 141 (1991), 382398.

[215] D.S. Passman, Group rings satisfying a polynomial identity II. Pacic J.

Math. 39 (1971), 425438.

Bibliography 239

[217] D.S. Passman, The algebraic structure of group rings. John Wiley, 1977.

[218] D.S. Passman, Group rings of polycyclic groups. Group theory: essays for

Philip Hall, Academic Press, 1984, 207256.

[219] D.S. Passman, A course in ring theory. Wadsworh & Brooks, 1991.

[220] R.S. Pierce, Associative Algebras. Springer, 1982.

[221] B.I. Plotkin, Automorphism groups of the algebraic systems. Nauka

Moskow, 1966.

[222] C. Polcino-Milies, Group rings whose units form an F C-groups. Arch.

Math. 30 (1978), 380384; corrigendum: Arch. Math. 31 (1978), 528.

[223] C. Polcino-Milies, Units in group rings: A short survey. London Math. Soc.

Lecture Notes Ser. 71 (1982), 281297.

[224] C. Polcino-Milies, S.K. Sehgal, F C-elements in a group ring. Comm. Al-

gebra 9 (1981), 12851293.

[225] Ya.D. Polovicky, Groups with extremal classes of conjugate elements. Sibir.

Math. J. 5 (1964), 891895.

[226] R. Remak, Uber minimale invariante Untergruppen in der Theorie der

endlichen Gruppen. J. reine angew. Math. 192 (1930), 116.

[227] D.J.S. Robinson, Groups in which normality is a transitive relation. Proc.

Cambridge Philos. Soc. 60 (1964), 2138.

[228] D.J.S. Robinson, On nitely generated soluble groups. Proc. London Math.

Soc. 18 (1965), 508516.

[229] D.J.S. Robinson, On soluble minimax groups. Math. Z. 101 (1967), 1340.

[230] D.J.S. Robinson, Innite soluble and nilpotent groups. Queen Mary College

Mathematics Notes, 1968.

[231] D.J.S. Robinson, Residual properties of some classes of innite soluble

groups. Proc. London Math. Soc. 18 (1968), 495520.

[232] D.J.S. Robinson, A note on groups of nite rank. Compositio Math. 31

(1969), 240246.

[233] D.J.S. Robinson, A theorem of nitely generated hyperabelian groups. In-

vent. Math. 10 (1970), 3843.

[234] D.J.S. Robinson, Finiteness conditions and generalized soluble groups, part

1. Springer, 1972.

[235] D.J.S. Robinson, Finiteness conditions and generalized soluble groups, part

2. Springer, 1972.

240 Bibliography

Stroud. J. Algebra 32 (1974), 234239.

[237] D.J.S. Robinson, Splitting theorems for innite groups. Sympos. Mat. Ist.

Naz. alta Mat. 17 (1975), 441470.

[238] D.J.S. Robinson, On the cohomology of soluble groups of nite rank. J.

pure applied Algebra 6 (1975), 155164.

[239] D.J.S. Robinson, A new treatment of soluble groups with niteness condi-

tions on their abelian subgroups. Bull. London Math. Soc. 8 (1976), 113

129.

[240] D.J.S. Robinson, The vanishing of certain homology and cohomology group.

J. pure applied Algebra 7 (1976), 145167.

[241] D.J.S. Robinson, On the homology of hypercentral groups. Arch. Math. 32

(1979), 223226.

[242] D.J.S. Robinson, A course in the theory of groups. Springer, 1982.

[243] D.J.S. Robinson, Applications of cohomology to the theory of groups. Lon-

don Math. Soc. Lecture Notes Ser. 71 (1982), 4680.

[244] D.J.S. Robinson, Finiteness, solubility and nilpotence. Group theory: es-

says for Philip Hall, Academic Press, 1984, 159206.

[245] D.J.S. Robinson, Soluble products of nilpotent groups. J. Algebra 98 (1986),

183196.

[246] D.J.S. Robinson, Cohomology of locally nilpotent groups. J. pure applied

Algebra 48 (1987), 281300.

[247] D.J.S. Robinson, Homology and cohomology of locally supersoluble groups.

Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 102 (1987), 233250.

[248] J.E. Roseblade, Group rings of polycyclic groups. J. pure applied Algebra

3 (1973), 307328.

[249] J.E. Roseblade, Polycyclic group rings and the Nullstellesatz. Lecture

Notes Math. 319 (1973), 156167.

[250] J.E. Roseblade, Application of the ArtinRees lemma to group rings. Sym-

pos. Mat. 17 (1976), 471478.

[251] J.E. Roseblade, Prime ideals in group rings of polycyclic groups. Proc.

London Math. Soc. 36 (1978), 385447; Corrigendum: Proc. London Math.

Soc. 39 (1979), 216218.

[252] J.E. Roseblade, Five lectures on group rings. London Math. Soc. Lecture

Notes Ser. 121 (1985), 93109.

Bibliography 241

[253] E. Schenkman, The splitting of certain solvable groups. Proc. Amer. Math.

Soc. 6 (1935), 286290.

[254] O.F.G. Schilling, The theory of valuations. Amer Math. Soc. Math. Surveys

Vol. 4, 1950.

[255] D. Segal, Polycyclic groups. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983.

[256] D. Segal, On the group rings of abelian minimax groups. J. Algebra 237

(2001), 6494.

[257] D. Segal, On modules of nite upper rank. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 353

(2001), 391410.

[258] S.K. Sehgal, Topics in group rings. Marcel Dekker, 1978.

[259] S.K. Sehgal, Units in integral group rings; a survey. Proc. First. Sympo-

sium in Algebra and Number Theory, Worls Sci. Publ., 1990, 255268.

[260] S.K. Sehgal, H.J. Zassenhaus, Group rings whose units form an F C-group.

Math. Z. 153 (1977), 2935.

[261] S.K. Sehgal, H.J. Zassenhaus, On the supercenter of a group and its ring

theoretic generalizations. Lecture Notes. Math. 882 (1981), 117144.

[262] H.H.G. Seneviratne, On permutable subgroups of soluble minimax groups.

Arch. Math. 44 (1985), 481484.

[263] R. Sharp, Steps in commutative algebra. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990.

[264] R. Sharp, Artinian modules over commutative rings. Math. Proc. Cam-

bridge Phil. Soc. 111 (1992), 2533.

[265] D.W. Sharpe, P. Vamos, Injective modules. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1972.

[266] H. Smith, Groups with few non-nilpotent subgroups. Glasgow Math.J. 39

(1997), 141151.

[267] R.L. Snider, Group algebras whose simple modules are nite dimensional

over their commutative rings. Comm. Algebra 2 (1974), 1525.

[268] R.L. Snider, Primitive ideal in group rings of polycyclic groups. Proc.

Amer. Math. Soc. 51 (1976), 810.

[269] R.L. Snider, Injective hulls of simple modules over group rings. Ring the-

ory, Proc. Ohio conf., 1976, 223226.

[270] R.L. Snider, Solvable groups whose irreducible modules are nite dimen-

sional. Comm. Algebra 10 (1982), 14771485.

[271] M.J. Tomkinson, Splitting theorems in abelian-by-hypercentral groups. J.

Austral. Math.Soc.(series A) 25 (1978), 7191.

[272] M.J. Tomkinson, F C-groups. Pitman, 1984.

242 Bibliography

(1991), 10381042

[274] M.J. Tomkinson, F C-groups: recent progress. Innite groups 1994 (Rav-

ello 1994), Walter de Gruyter, 1996, 271285.

[275] M.J. Tomkinson, A splitting theorem for abelian-by-F C-hypercentral

groups. Glasgow Math. J. 42 (2000), 5565.

[276] A.V. Tushev, On the primitivity of group algebras of certain classes of

soluble groups of nite rank. Sbornik Math. 186 (1994), 447463.

[277] A.V. Tushev, Spectra of conjugated ideals in group algebras of abelian

groups of nite rank and control theorems. Glasgow Math. J. 38 (1996),

309320.

[278] O.E. Villamayor, On weak dimension of algebras. Pacic J. Math. 9 (1959),

941951.

[279] J.M. Wedderburn, On hypercomplex numbers. Proc. London Math. Soc. 6

(1908), 77118.

[280] B.A.F. Wehrfritz, Innite linear groups. Springer, 1973.

[281] B.A.F. Wehrfritz, Groups whose irreducible representations have nite de-

gree. Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil.Soc. 90 (1981), 411421.

[282] B.A.F. Wehrfritz, Groups whose irreducible representations have nite de-

gree. Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc. 25 (1982), 237243.

[283] B.A.F. Wehrfritz, Groups whose irreducible representations have nite de-

gree. Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 91 (1982), 397406.

[284] J.S. Wilson, Some properties of groups inherited by normal subgroups of

nite index. Math.Z. 114 (1970), 1921.

[285] J.S. Wilson Locally soluble groups satisfying the minimal condition for nor-

mal subgroups. Lecture Notes Math. 573 (1977),130142.

[286] J.S. Wilson, Soluble products of minimax groups and nearly surjective

derivations. J. pure applied Algebra 53 (1988), 297318.

[287] J.S. Wilson, Soluble groups which are products of minimax groups. Arch.

Math. 50 (1988), 1921.

[288] A.V. Yakovlev, To the problem of classication of torsion-free abelian

groups of nite rank. Zapiski nauchn. semin. Lomi 57 (1976), 171175.

[289] D.I. Zaitsev, Groups satisfying the weak minimal condition. Ukrain. Math.

J. 20 (1968), 472482.

[290] D.I. Zaitsev, On groups satisfying the weak minimal condition. Mat. Sb.

78 (1969), 323331.

Bibliography 243

[291] D.I. Zaitsev, To the theory of minimax groups. Ukrain. Math. J. 23 (1971),

652660.

[292] D.I. Zaitsev, Groups satisfying the weak minimal condition for non-abelian

subgroups. Ukrain. Math. J. 23 (1971), 661665.

[293] D.I. Zaitsev, On soluble groups of nite rank. Groups with restrictions on

subgroups, Naukova Dumka Kiev 1971, 115130.

[294] D.I. Zaitsev, On complementations of subgroups in extremal groups. Inves-

tigations of groups with prescribed properties of subgroups, Math. Inst.

Kiev, 1974, 72130.

[295] D.I. Zaitsev, On the index of minimality of groups. Investigations of

groups with prescribed properties of subgroups, Math. Inst. Kiev, 1974,

72130.

[296] D.I. Zaitsev, Groups with complemented normal subgroups. Some prob-

lems in Group Theory, Math. Inst. Kiev, 1975, 3074.

[297] D.I. Zaitsev, On existence of direct complements in groups with operators.

Investigations in Group Theory, Math. Inst. Kiev, 1976, 2644.

[298] D.I. Zaitsev, On soluble groups of nite rank. Algebra i logika 16 (1977),

300312.

[299] D.I. Zaitsev, Innitely irreducible normal subgroups. Structure of groups

and properties of its subgroups, Math. Inst. Kiev, 1978, 1738.

[300] D.I. Zaitsev, On locally soluble groups of nite rank. Doklady AN SSSR

240 (1978), 257259.

[301] D.I. Zaitsev, Hypercyclic extensions of abelian groups. Groups dened by

the properties of systems of subgroups, Math. Inst. Kiev, 1979, 1637.

[302] D.I. Zaitsev, On extensions of abelian groups. A constructive description

of groups with prescribed properties of subgroups, Math. Inst. Kiev, 1980,

1640.

[303] D.I. Zaitsev, Products of abelian groups. Algebra i logika 19 (1980), 94106.

[304] D.I. Zaitsev, On splitting of extensions of abelian groups. Investigations

of groups with the prescribed properties of systems of subgroups, Math.

Inst. Kiev, 1981, 1425.

[305] D.I. Zaitsev, The residual nilpotence of metabelian groups. Algebra i logika

20 (1981), 638653.

[306] D.I. Zaitsev, On properties of groups inherited by its normal subgroups.

Ukrain. Math. J. 38 (1986), 707713.

[307] D.I. Zaitsev, Splitting extensions of abelian groups. The structure of

groups and properties of its subgroups, Math. Inst. Kiev, 1986, 2231.

244 Bibliography

groups with restrictions on subgroups, Math. Inst. Kiev 1988, 1726.

[309] D.I. Zaitsev, On direct decompositions of abelian groups with operators.

Ukrain. Math. J. 40 (1988), 303309.

[310] D.I. Zaitsev, On locally supersoluble extensions of abelian groups. Ukrain.

Math. J. 42 (1990), 908912.

[311] D.I. Zaitsev, M.I. Kargapolov, V.S. Charin, Innite groups with prescribed

properties of systems of subgroups. Ukrain. Math. J. 24 (1972), 618633.

[312] D.I. Zaitsev, L.A. Kurdachenko, A.V. Tushev, Modules over nilpotent

groups of nite rank. Algebra and logic 24 (1985), 412436.

[313] D.I. Zaitsev, V.A. Maznichenko, On the direct decomposition of artinian

modules over hypercyclic groups. Ukrain. Math. J. 43 (1991), 930934.

Index

(G), 17 th -XC-hypercenter, 27

s(G), 19 X-group, 25

t(G), 18 XC-group, 27

XC-hypercenter, 27, 112

algebra XC-hypercentral, 27

locally Wedderburn algebra, 95 XC-hyperecccenter, 112

annihilator XC-nilpotent, 27

of a module, 3

abelian U-group, 15

of a subset of a module, 2 abelian A1 -group, 16

of a subset of a ring, 59 abelian A0 -group, 15

augmentation artinian, 8

ideal augmentation, 51 central direct product, 26

unit augmentation, 51 Charin group, 44

Chernikov, 8

chain condition

complement, 213

ascending, 1

factor

descending, 1

X-central, 112

chain conditions

X-eccentric, 112

Max-, 8

generalized radical, 22

Max-G, 8

hypernite radical, 206

Max-n, 8

just innite, 9

Min-, 8

layer of a group, 9

Min-G, 8

layers of a p-group, 11

Min-n, 8

lower layer of a p-group, 11

cocentralizer, 25

conjugacy classes, 25 minimax, 16

noetherian, 8

formation, 26 Prufer, 8

innitely hereditary, 126 quasinite, 9

overnite, 114 restricted, 96

soluble U-group, 15

group soluble S1 -group, 16

CC-group, 26 soluble A0 -group, 15

F C-group, 25 soluble A1 -group, 14

-invariant, 7 soluble A2 -group, 16

-operator group, 7 soluble A3 -group, 16

246 Index

upper CC-hypercenter, 27 factor

upper F C-hypercenter, 27 X-central, 112

upper hypercenter, 27 X-eccentric, 112

Frattini submodule of a module,

idempotent 90

orthogonal, 84 hereditary, 194

primitive, 84 indecomposable, 6

injective, 66

maximal condition, 1 injective envelope of a module,

minimal condition, 1 66

module monolith of a module, 6

F C-center, 113 monolithic, 6

I-module, 60 nearly injective, 164

RG-center, 113 noetherian, 2

H-module, 164 periodic, 59

Mc -module, 89 periodic part of a module, 59

X-RG-hypereccentric, 113 Prufer P -module, 72

XC-RG-hypercentral, 113 primary, 60

XC-RG-nilpotent, 113 primary decomposition, 62

XC-RG-center of a module, 113 quasinite, 192

XC-RG-hypercenters, 113 semisimple, 38

XC-center of a module, 113 series

artinian, 2 XC-RG-central series, 113

assasinator of a module, 60 lower DG-central series, 130

complemented submodule, 65 simple, 6

component of a module, 60 socle of a module, 37

composition length of a module, stabilizer, 98

39 strong locally semisimple, 91

conjugate, 98 the upper XC-RG-hypercenter of

decomposable, 6 a module, 113

decompositions the upper XC-hypercenter of a

Z-decomposition, 114 module, 113

F-decomposition, 114 torsion-free, 59

Baer X-decomposition, 113 uniserial, 43

divisible length, 43

R-divisible, 66 upper F C-hypercenter, 113

x-divisible, 66 upper RG-hypercenter, 113

divisible part of a module, 70

envelope divisible, 69 rank

minimal divisible, 69 P -rank of a module, 74

element-module, 156 torsion-free rank, 74

essential extension of a submod- rank of a group

ule, 67 0-rank, 13

Index 247

p-rank of an abelian group , 14 conjugately splitting, 213

Hirsch number, 13

index of minimality, 16

minimax rank, 16

PruferMaltsev rank, 15

reduced rank, 15

section rank, 15

special rank, 15

torsion-free rank, 13

total rank, 16

rationally irreducible, 20

ring

artinian, 2

Dedekind

Dedekind Z-domain, 156

Dedekind domain, 54

element integral over a ring, 54

hereditary, 194

ideal

divisor, 55

greatest common divisor, 55

least common multiple, 56

relatively prime, 56

ideal fractional, 54

invertible, 54

product, 54

integral closure, 54

integrally closed, 54

Jacobson radical of a ring, 84

noetherian, 2

prime spectrum of a ring, 54

series, 87

composition series, 87

factor, 87

renement, 87

term, 87

upper XC-central series, 27

series of a module

ascending Loewy series, 40

composition series, 39

upper socular series, 40

socular height, 40

- Primera ParteUploaded byEdwin Wilfredo
- Intuitionistic Neutrosphic Soft Set over RingsUploaded byAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- ON THE EXISTENCE OF STABLE RINGSUploaded byGath
- SOME EQUIVALENT CONDITIONS OF SMARANDACHE - SOFT NEUTROSOPHIC-NEAR RINGUploaded byDon Hass
- mathgen-130283249Uploaded byJungleSquid
- Rudiger Gobel and Saharon Shelah- Endomorphism Rings of Modules whose Cardinality is Cofinal to OmegaUploaded byJgfm2
- chapter-0Uploaded byRolando Mota del Campo
- Solusi soal RingsUploaded byFifi Anggraeni
- Project Report.docxUploaded byShaibal Ahmed
- ExercisesUploaded by2eaa889c
- On the Diameter and Girth of an Annihilating-Ideal GraphUploaded byDon Hass
- Nonnegative Factorization of a Data Matrix as a Motivational Example for Basic Linear AlgebraUploaded byYork Zeng
- Differential Galois TheoryUploaded bygermanschultze
- Syllabus MSc Math ProgrammeUploaded byAzhar Mahmood
- Gallian Ch 32Uploaded bywoodbrent7
- Algebraic StructuresUploaded byMonark Huny
- Rudiger Gobel, Jose L. Rodroguez and Saharon Shelah- Large localizations of finite simple groupsUploaded byHmsdk

- On Rosenbrock Models Over a Commutative Ring (Lomadze 2002)Uploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Algebras and DerivationsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Groebner Bases- A TutorialUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Gröbner Bases Tutorial I_slides.pdfUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- The General Linear GroupUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Differential Invariant Algebras of Lie Pseudo–GroupsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Behaviors and Symbols of Rational Matrices (Lomadze 2012)Uploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Secure State Reconstruction in Differentially Flat SystemsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Quinlan_Introduction to Rings and Fields.pdfUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Clark Noncommutative AlgebraUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- A Characterization of GCU Rings With the FC2 PropertyUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Matrix GroupsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Flatness of Nonlinear Control Systems- A Cartan-Kahler ApproachUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Remarks on a Lie Theorem on the Integrability of Differential Equations in Closed FormUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- On the Zeros and Poles of a Transfer Function (Conte 1989)Uploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Rosenbrock Schemes With Complex Coefficients for Stiff and Differential Algebraic SystemsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- The High School Course in LatinUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- An Extension of Buchberger's AlgorithmUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- On Defining Ideals and Differential Algebras of Nichols AlgebrasUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Variational Symmetries of LagrangiansUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Algorithmes Efficaces en Geometrie Algebrique ReelleUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Power Series Solutions of Singular Linear SystemsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Ordered Differential FieldsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- On Feedback Linearization of Mobile RobotsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Latin in the Commercial High SchoolUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Feedback Equivalence of Constant Linear SystemsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Gröbner Fan and Universal Characteristic Sets of Prime Differential IdealsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Measuring Volterra kernels I.pdfUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- Gröbner Bases, Gaussian Elimination and Resolution of Systems of Algebraic EquationsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741
- A Controllability Criterion for a Class of Linear SystemsUploaded byAnonymous Tph9x741

- Lie 2008 ExamUploaded byIonutgmail
- -27Uploaded byGovind Gopal
- IXL - British Columbia Grade 9 Math CurriculumUploaded bypkgarg_iitkgp
- First Year and Second Year MTAPUploaded byandroidaptoide
- lec14Uploaded byvaradu
- sturm unit planUploaded byapi-318305920
- graphUploaded byMàddìRèxxShìrshír
- An Efficient Secure Multimodal Biometric Fusion Using Palmprint and Face Image,, IJCSI, Volume 2, August 2009.Uploaded byIJCSI Editor
- Homological Connectivity of Random 2-ComplexesUploaded byKevin Liu
- cm2015-handout09Uploaded bychaa
- Part IV Loop Closure SolutionsUploaded byMohammad Kahlon
- algebraUploaded byRusselle Guadalupe
- David's Blog Ellipse by Cylindrical SectionUploaded byYerrit Price
- c1-algebra-and-functions.pdfUploaded byAnonymous GNWnQac
- E-Book 'Pure Maths Part Three - Algebra' from A-level maths TutorUploaded byA-level Maths Tutor
- diffforms-1Uploaded bySpencer Dang
- (With BCA_iLrn(TM) Tutorial and InfoTrac) (Advantage Series) Ronald Staszkow, Robert Bradshaw-The Mathematical Palette-Cengage Learning (2004)Uploaded byMargarita Palacios Vargas
- vectors.pdfUploaded byhthaier4062
- DRMAC VESELIC - 2008-Siam-new Fast and Accurate Jacobi Svd AlgorithmUploaded byJulio Cesar Barraza Bernaola
- IJEAS0204023Uploaded byerpublication
- MA385Uploaded byslimane1
- r5102305-mathematics-for-biotechnologistsUploaded bysivabharathamurthy
- Matrices Are Used Throughout Mathematics and in Related ¿EldsUploaded byZaid Hadi
- 1409893853_400__316hw00_14Uploaded bybaingar
- 1 MathUploaded byMohamed Ali
- Converting to the State SpaceUploaded bypanbuu
- ch02Uploaded byNg Heng Lim
- Vector CalculusUploaded byEnas Al-khawaldeh
- Algebra of FunctionsUploaded byAngel Shan
- Algebraic Thinking 5Uploaded byprakashraman