DOCSLIB.ORG

Part III Profinite Groups

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Part III Profinite Groups Part III Profinite Groups Gareth Wilkes Lent Term 2020 Introduction Much of the story of pure mathematics can be expressed as a desire to answer the question "When are two objects different?". Showing that two objects are `the same' in some sense may be considerably easier than proving the contrary. For example, the theory of infinite cardinal numbers may be seen as answering the question `why is the set of real numbers different from the set of rational numbers?'. In this context it is considerably easier, for example, to exhibit a bijection between Z and Q than to show that no bijection between Q and R can possibly exist. In many cases we show that objects are different by defining `invariants': quantities which ideally may be computed, are preserved under isomorphism, and are easier to tell apart than the original object. Some examples of invariants you may have met are given below. • For a (finite-dimensional) vector space V , the base field F and the dimen- sion dimF (V ) determine V up to linear isomrphism. • For an algebraic field extension K=Q, the degree [K : Q] and, under some conditions, the Galois group of K over Q. • For a topological space X, the properties of compactness, connectedness, and path-connectedness may be considered to be invariants. • For a simplicial complex X, the homology groups H∗(X). • For a path-connected topological space X, the fundamental group π1X. This last example is a somewhat odd invariant. It is extremely powerful and often gives fine control over the space X. However, groups are in general quite as difficult to distinguish as spaces. In fact, to some extent, they are impossible to distinguish, even for groups that are given by finite presentations: it is even known (by the Adian-Rabin Theorem) that there can be no algorithm that takes as input a finite presentation and decides whether the presentation gives the trivial group. Never mind the harder question of an algorithm taking in two finite presentations and deciding if they give isomorphic groups. This theorem does not stop us from attempting to design algorithms that distinguish between groups under certain additional conditions. For example, on class of groups for which it is definitely possible to decide isomorphism is the class of finite groups: between any two finite groups there are only finitely many possible bijections, so one can just check all possible bijections to see whether they're isomorphisms. This would be a pretty terrible algorithm, but it would eventually decide the question. 1 2 For infinite finitely presented groups, this suggests one conceivable way to tell two groups apart. One can begin to list finite quotients of the two groups and compare the two lists. If these lists differ at some point (that is, there is a finite group which is a quotient of one but not the other), then we will have proved that the two groups are not isomorphic. Of course, we know that this procedure cannot always work|but it is still worthwhile to investigate when it does. For theoretical purposes, one does not really want to work with such an unwieldy object as `the set of all finite quotients' of a group G. Instead one combines these finite groups into one limiting object, the profinite completion of the group. Such a `limit of finite groups' is the central object of the course, a profinite group. Most of the time we will be studying profinite groups as interesting ob- jects in their own right, or as the profinite completion of a known group. It is worthwhile, however, to mention in the introductory section two other areas of mathematics where profinite groups arise naturally. Neither of these areas is a course pre-requisite, so we will not see these concepts further in this course and can be ignored for those without the precise necessary background. One key area in which profinite groups arise naturally (and indeed, in which they were first defined) is Galois theory. Specifically the Galois group of an infinite Galois extension is naturally a profinite group. Let us see one example. Consider the field extension K obtained from Q by adjoining all pn-th roots of unity for some fixed prime p, as n varies over N. Define also the extension KN n of Q by adjoining all p -th roots for n ≤ N. Then the KN form an increasing S union of subfields of K such that K = KN . Each extension K=KN is Galois, as are the extensions KN =Q, K=Q. It follows that there are natural quotients ∼ N × Gal(K=Q) ! Gal(KN =Q) = (Z=p Z) and in fact the Galois group Gal(K=Q) may be considered to be a `limit' of these finite groups in a certain sense (to be defined soon). This behaviour is typical: every Galois group of an infinite Galois extension may be considered to be a limit of finite Galois groups. I will also mention that profinite groups also appear in algebraic geometry in the guise of ´etalefundamental groups, though to be perfectly honest I'm not qualified to expand upon this remark further. The second part of this course also concerns a certain `invariant' intended to distinguish groups from one another, the theory of group cohomology. As the name may suggest, this theory is intimately connected with the homology theory of spaces as studied in Part II Algebraic Topology, but has its own indepedent strengths and weaknesses. Much like the homology group of a space, we will take a group G and define a collection of abelian groups depending on G, called the cohomology groups of G. These can be powerful theoretical tools in many contexts. As one key application we will show how cohomology groups provide a solution to the following natural question: Given a group G and an abelian group A, how many groups E can there be such that A/E with E=A = G? It is readily seen that a good answer to this question would allow one in principle to classify all groups with order pn, or more generally all solvable groups, so this 3 particular application of cohomology theory may be seen as carrying on some of the story from IB Group Theory. At the conclusion of the course we will combine our two main threads into the cohomology theory of profinite groups, and establish some remarkably strong theorems which show that in some ways our profinite groups are actually better behaved than normal groups! First however, we must lower our sights back down to fundamentals. We begin with some category theory. Chapter 1 Inverse limits 1.1 Categories and limits As was mentioned in the introductory section, we will be seeking to combine the information contained in, for example, the finite quotients of a given group into one object which we can study. Let us see some basic constructions which combine several objects into one. Let A and B be two sets, with no particular relationship between them. How might these be combined into one object? Two constructions should come to mind fairly quickly: the product A × B and the disjoint union A t B. What properties of A × B and A t B describe their relationship to A and B? The disjoint union comes equipped with inclusion maps iA : A ! A t B and iB : B ! A t B. Furthermore, it is in some sense the `minimal' object that sensibly contains both A and B: for any other set Z with maps jA : A ! Z and jB : B ! Z, there is a unique function f : A t B ! Z which restricts to jA and jB, defined simply by f(a) = jA(a) for a 2 A and f(b) = jB(b) for b 2 B. This situation would be represented diagrammatically as follows: A iA A t B iB B 9! f (1.1) jA jB Z This diagram commutes in the sense that `following the arrows' gives the same result whatever path is taken|for example, f ◦ iA = jA. The sort of property described above|where some data (e.g. the set Z and the functions jA and jB) implies the unique existence of something else (here, the map f) is called a universal property. We see that the disjoint union tells us about maps leaving A and B. What about maps to A and B? This is where the product comes in. The product A×B is equipped with the usual projection maps pA : A×B ! A and pB : A×B ! B. Once again, there is a `universality' condition too. Given a set Z and maps qA : Z ! A and qB : Z ! B, there is a unique map g : Z ! A × B such that pA ◦ g = qA and pB ◦ g = qB, defined by g(c) = (qA(c); qB(c)). In the form of a 4 CHAPTER 1. INVERSE LIMITS 5 diagram: Z q q A 9! g B (1.2) A A × B B pA pB Note the similarity between these two diagrams. We say that the product and disjoint union of sets are dual to one another. Duality in this situation is often denoted by the prefix `co-': so the disjoint union may also be called a coproduct. Let us now move back to group theory, and insist that all our functions are group homomorphisms. We can still ask what groups may play the roles of AtB and A × B in the diagrams above. The product A × B is of course a perfectly sensible group, and satisfies the same universal property: the projection maps pA and pB are group homomorphisms, and provided we assume Z is a group and qA and qB are homomorphisms, then so is g = (qA; qB).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Complete Objects in Categories
    Complete objects in categories James Richard Andrew Gray February 22, 2021 Abstract We introduce the notions of proto-complete, complete, complete˚ and strong-complete objects in pointed categories. We show under mild condi- tions on a pointed exact protomodular category that every proto-complete (respectively complete) object is the product of an abelian proto-complete (respectively complete) object and a strong-complete object. This to- gether with the observation that the trivial group is the only abelian complete group recovers a theorem of Baer classifying complete groups. In addition we generalize several theorems about groups (subgroups) with trivial center (respectively, centralizer), and provide a categorical explana- tion behind why the derivation algebra of a perfect Lie algebra with trivial center and the automorphism group of a non-abelian (characteristically) simple group are strong-complete. 1 Introduction Recall that Carmichael [19] called a group G complete if it has trivial cen- ter and each automorphism is inner. For each group G there is a canonical homomorphism cG from G to AutpGq, the automorphism group of G. This ho- momorphism assigns to each g in G the inner automorphism which sends each x in G to gxg´1. It can be readily seen that a group G is complete if and only if cG is an isomorphism. Baer [1] showed that a group G is complete if and only if every normal monomorphism with domain G is a split monomorphism. We call an object in a pointed category complete if it satisfies this latter condi- arXiv:2102.09834v1 [math.CT] 19 Feb 2021 tion.
    [Show full text]
  • Category of G-Groups and Its Spectral Category
    Communications in Algebra ISSN: 0092-7872 (Print) 1532-4125 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lagb20 Category of G-Groups and its Spectral Category María José Arroyo Paniagua & Alberto Facchini To cite this article: María José Arroyo Paniagua & Alberto Facchini (2017) Category of G-Groups and its Spectral Category, Communications in Algebra, 45:4, 1696-1710, DOI: 10.1080/00927872.2016.1222409 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00927872.2016.1222409 Accepted author version posted online: 07 Oct 2016. Published online: 07 Oct 2016. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 12 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lagb20 Download by: [UNAM Ciudad Universitaria] Date: 29 November 2016, At: 17:29 COMMUNICATIONS IN ALGEBRA® 2017, VOL. 45, NO. 4, 1696–1710 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00927872.2016.1222409 Category of G-Groups and its Spectral Category María José Arroyo Paniaguaa and Alberto Facchinib aDepartamento de Matemáticas, División de Ciencias Básicas e Ingeniería, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Unidad Iztapalapa, Mexico, D. F., México; bDipartimento di Matematica, Università di Padova, Padova, Italy ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Let G be a group. We analyse some aspects of the category G-Grp of G-groups. Received 15 April 2016 In particular, we show that a construction similar to the construction of the Revised 22 July 2016 spectral category, due to Gabriel and Oberst, and its dual, due to the second Communicated by T. Albu. author, is possible for the category G-Grp.
    [Show full text]
  • Categories of Sets with a Group Action
    Categories of sets with a group action Bachelor Thesis of Joris Weimar under supervision of Professor S.J. Edixhoven Mathematisch Instituut, Universiteit Leiden Leiden, 13 June 2008 Contents 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Abstract . .1 1.2 Working method . .1 1.2.1 Notation . .1 2 Categories 3 2.1 Basics . .3 2.1.1 Functors . .4 2.1.2 Natural transformations . .5 2.2 Categorical constructions . .6 2.2.1 Products and coproducts . .6 2.2.2 Fibered products and fibered coproducts . .9 3 An equivalence of categories 13 3.1 G-sets . 13 3.2 Covering spaces . 15 3.2.1 The fundamental group . 15 3.2.2 Covering spaces and the homotopy lifting property . 16 3.2.3 Induced homomorphisms . 18 3.2.4 Classifying covering spaces through the fundamental group . 19 3.3 The equivalence . 24 3.3.1 The functors . 25 4 Applications and examples 31 4.1 Automorphisms and recovering the fundamental group . 31 4.2 The Seifert-van Kampen theorem . 32 4.2.1 The categories C1, C2, and πP -Set ................... 33 4.2.2 The functors . 34 4.2.3 Example . 36 Bibliography 38 Index 40 iii 1 Introduction 1.1 Abstract In the 40s, Mac Lane and Eilenberg introduced categories. Although by some referred to as abstract nonsense, the idea of categories allows one to talk about mathematical objects and their relationions in a general setting. Its origins lie in the field of algebraic topology, one of the topics that will be explored in this thesis. First, a concise introduction to categories will be given.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamental Groups of Schemes
    Fundamental Groups of Schemes Master thesis under the supervision of Jilong Tong Lei Yang Universite Bordeaux 1 E-mail address: [email protected] Chapter 1. Introduction 3 Chapter 2. Galois categories 5 1. Galois categories 5 §1. Definition and elementary properties. 5 §2. Examples and the main theorem 7 §2.1. The topological covers 7 §2.2. The category C(Π) and the main theorem 7 2. Galois objects. 8 3. Proof of the main theorem 12 4. Functoriality of Galois categories 15 Chapter 3. Etale covers 19 1. Some results in scheme theory. 19 2. The category of étale covers of a connected scheme 20 3. Reformulation of functoriality 22 Chapter 4. Properties and examples of the étale fundamental group 25 1. Spectrum of a field 25 2. The first homotopy sequence. 25 3. More examples 30 §1. Normal base scheme 30 §2. Abelian varieties 33 §2.1. Group schemes 33 §2.2. Abelian Varieties 35 §3. Geometrically connected schemes of finite type 39 4. G.A.G.A. theorems 39 Chapter 5. Structure of geometric fundamental groups of smooth curves 41 1. Introduction 41 2. Case of characteristic zero 42 §1. The case k = C 43 §2. General case 43 3. Case of positive characteristic 44 (p0) §1. π1(X) 44 §1.1. Lifting of curves to characteristic 0 44 §1.2. the specialization theory of Grothendieck 45 §1.3. Conclusion 45 ab §2. π1 46 §3. Some words about open curves. 47 Bibliography 49 Contents CHAPTER 1 Introduction The topological fundamental group can be studied using the theory of covering spaces, since a fundamental group coincides with the group of deck transformations of the asso- ciated universal covering space.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract Quotients of Profinite Groups, After Nikolov and Segal
    ABSTRACT QUOTIENTS OF PROFINITE GROUPS, AFTER NIKOLOV AND SEGAL BENJAMIN KLOPSCH Abstract. In this expanded account of a talk given at the Oberwolfach Ar- beitsgemeinschaft “Totally Disconnected Groups”, October 2014, we discuss results of Nikolay Nikolov and Dan Segal on abstract quotients of compact Hausdorff topological groups, paying special attention to the class of finitely generated profinite groups. Our primary source is [17]. Sidestepping all difficult and technical proofs, we present a selection of accessible arguments to illuminate key ideas in the subject. 1. Introduction §1.1. Many concepts and techniques in the theory of finite groups depend in- trinsically on the assumption that the groups considered are a priori finite. The theoretical framework based on such methods has led to marvellous achievements, including – as a particular highlight – the classification of all finite simple groups. Notwithstanding, the same methods are only of limited use in the study of infinite groups: it remains mysterious how one could possibly pin down the structure of a general infinite group in a systematic way. Significantly more can be said if such a group comes equipped with additional information, such as a structure-preserving action on a notable geometric object. A coherent approach to studying restricted classes of infinite groups is found by imposing suitable ‘finiteness conditions’, i.e., conditions that generalise the notion of being finite but are significantly more flexible, such as the group being finitely generated or compact with respect to a natural topology. One rather fruitful theme, fusing methods from finite and infinite group theory, consists in studying the interplay between an infinite group Γ and the collection of all its finite quotients.
    [Show full text]
  • 24 the Idele Group, Profinite Groups, Infinite Galois Theory
    18.785 Number theory I Fall 2016 Lecture #24 12/06/2015 24 The idele group, profinite groups, infinite Galois theory 24.1 The idele group Let K be a global field. Having introduced the ring of adeles AK in the previous lecture, it is natural to ask about its unit group. As a group we have × × × AK = f(av) 2 AK : av 2 Kv for all v 2 MK ; and av 2 Ov for almost all v 2 MK g; however, as a subspace of AK , this is not a topological group because the inversion map a 7! a−1 need not be continuous. Example 24.1. Consider K = Q and for each prime p let xp = (1; 1;:::; 1; 1; p; 1; 1;:::) 2 AQ be the adele with a p in its pth component and 1's elsewhere. Every basic open set U about 1 in A has the form Q Y Y U = Uv × Ov; v2S V 62S with S ⊆ MQ finite and 1v 2 Uv, and it is clear that U contains xp for all sufficiently large p. It follows that the sequence x2; x3; x5;::: converges to 1 in the topology of AQ. But notice −1 −1 −1 −1 that U does not contain xp for all sufficiently large p, so the sequence x2 ; x3 ; x5 ;::: −1 −1 cannot possibly converge to 1 = 1 in AQ. Thus the function x ! x is not continuous × in the subspace topology for AK . This problem is not specific to rings of adeles. In general, given a topological ring R, there is no reason to expect its unit group R× ⊆ R to be a topological group in the subspace topology unless R happens to be a subring of a topological field (the definition of which × requires inversion to be continuous), as is the case for the unit group OK ; this explains why we have not encountered this problem up to now.
    [Show full text]
  • Subgroups of Finite Index in Profinite Groups
    Subgroups of Finite Index in Profinite Groups Sara Jensen May 14, 2013 1 Introduction In addition to having a group structure, profinite groups have a nontrivial topological structure. Many results pertaining to profinite groups exploit both structures, and there- fore both structures are important in understanding profinite groups. An amazing result due to Nikolov and Segal is the following theorem. Theorem 1.1. Suppose that G is a topologically finitely generated profinite group. Then every subgroup of G of finite index is open. One way to view Theorem 1.1 is as a statement that the algebraic structure of a finitely generated profinite group somehow also encodes the topological structure. That is, if one wishes to know the open subgroups of a profinite group G, a topological property, one must only consider the subgroups of G of finite index, an algebraic property. As profinite groups are compact topological spaces, an open subgroup of G necessarily has finite index. Thus it is also possible to begin with a subgroup of G having a particular topological property (the subgroup is open) and deduce that this subgroup must also have a particular algebraic property (the subgroup has finite index). The proof of Theorem 1.1 is quite extensive, and requires the classification of finite simple groups. However, if one restricts attention to a smaller class of groups, the result can be done in a fairly straightforward manner. Suppose that G is a finite group having a normal series 1 = Gl ⊆ Gl−1 ⊆ ::: ⊆ G1 ⊆ G0 = G such that Gi=Gi+1 is nilpotent for all 0 ≤ i < l.
    [Show full text]
  • Homological Algebra Lecture 1
    Homological Algebra Lecture 1 Richard Crew Richard Crew Homological Algebra Lecture 1 1 / 21 Additive Categories Categories of modules over a ring have many special features that categories in general do not have. For example the Hom sets are actually abelian groups. Products and coproducts are representable, and one can form kernels and cokernels. The notation of an abelian category axiomatizes this structure. This is useful when one wants to perform module-like constructions on categories that are not module categories, but have all the requisite structure. We approach this concept in stages. A preadditive category is one in which one can add morphisms in a way compatible with the category structure. An additive category is a preadditive category in which finite coproducts are representable and have an \identity object." A preabelian category is an additive category in which kernels and cokernels exist, and finally an abelian category is one in which they behave sensibly. Richard Crew Homological Algebra Lecture 1 2 / 21 Definition A preadditive category is a category C for which each Hom set has an abelian group structure satisfying the following conditions: For all morphisms f : X ! X 0, g : Y ! Y 0 in C the maps 0 0 HomC(X ; Y ) ! HomC(X ; Y ); HomC(X ; Y ) ! HomC(X ; Y ) induced by f and g are homomorphisms. The composition maps HomC(Y ; Z) × HomC(X ; Y ) ! HomC(X ; Z)(g; f ) 7! g ◦ f are bilinear. The group law on the Hom sets will always be written additively, so the last condition means that (f + g) ◦ h = (f ◦ h) + (g ◦ h); f ◦ (g + h) = (f ◦ g) + (f ◦ h): Richard Crew Homological Algebra Lecture 1 3 / 21 We denote by 0 the identity of any Hom set, so the bilinearity of composition implies that f ◦ 0 = 0 ◦ f = 0 for any morphism f in C.
    [Show full text]
  • Classifying Categories the Jordan-Hölder and Krull-Schmidt-Remak Theorems for Abelian Categories
    U.U.D.M. Project Report 2018:5 Classifying Categories The Jordan-Hölder and Krull-Schmidt-Remak Theorems for Abelian Categories Daniel Ahlsén Examensarbete i matematik, 30 hp Handledare: Volodymyr Mazorchuk Examinator: Denis Gaidashev Juni 2018 Department of Mathematics Uppsala University Classifying Categories The Jordan-Holder¨ and Krull-Schmidt-Remak theorems for abelian categories Daniel Ahlsen´ Uppsala University June 2018 Abstract The Jordan-Holder¨ and Krull-Schmidt-Remak theorems classify finite groups, either as direct sums of indecomposables or by composition series. This thesis defines abelian categories and extends the aforementioned theorems to this context. 1 Contents 1 Introduction3 2 Preliminaries5 2.1 Basic Category Theory . .5 2.2 Subobjects and Quotients . .9 3 Abelian Categories 13 3.1 Additive Categories . 13 3.2 Abelian Categories . 20 4 Structure Theory of Abelian Categories 32 4.1 Exact Sequences . 32 4.2 The Subobject Lattice . 41 5 Classification Theorems 54 5.1 The Jordan-Holder¨ Theorem . 54 5.2 The Krull-Schmidt-Remak Theorem . 60 2 1 Introduction Category theory was developed by Eilenberg and Mac Lane in the 1942-1945, as a part of their research into algebraic topology. One of their aims was to give an axiomatic account of relationships between collections of mathematical structures. This led to the definition of categories, functors and natural transformations, the concepts that unify all category theory, Categories soon found use in module theory, group theory and many other disciplines. Nowadays, categories are used in most of mathematics, and has even been proposed as an alternative to axiomatic set theory as a foundation of mathematics.[Law66] Due to their general nature, little can be said of an arbitrary category.
    [Show full text]
  • The Equivalence Between Rational G-Sheaves and Rational G-Mackey
    THE EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN RATIONAL G-SHEAVES AND RATIONAL G-MACKEY FUNCTORS FOR PROFINITE G DAVID BARNES AND DANNY SUGRUE Abstract. For G a profinite group, we construct an equivalence between rational G-Mackey functors and a certain full subcategory of G-sheaves over the space of closed subgroups of G called Weyl-G-sheaves. This subcategory consists of those sheaves whose stalk over a subgroup K is K-fixed. This extends the classification of rational G-Mackey functors for finite G of Thévenaz and Webb, and Greenlees and May to a new class of examples. Moreover, this equivalence is instru- mental in the classification of rational G-spectra for profinite G, as given in the second author’s thesis. Contents 1. Introduction 2 1.1. Organisation 3 2. Mackey functors and sheaves 3 2.1. Basic facts on profinite groups 3 2.2. Mackey functors for profinite groups 4 2.3. Burnside ring idempotents 6 2.4. Equivariant sheaves 10 3. The functors 11 3.1. Weyl-G-sheaves determine Mackey Functors 11 3.2. Mackey Functors determine Weyl-G-sheaves 13 4. The equivalence 16 4.1. The equivalence on sheaves 17 4.2. The equivalence on Mackey functors 19 5. Consequences 20 5.1. Examples 20 arXiv:2002.11745v1 [math.AT] 26 Feb 2020 5.2. Weyl Sheaves from equivariant sheaves 21 References 22 1 WEYL SHEAVES AND MACKEY FUNCTORS 2 1. Introduction The classification of rational Mackey functors for finite groups is well-known and highly useful. An algebraic version of this result is given by Thévenaz and Webb [TW95].
    [Show full text]
  • The Étale Fundamental Group Wouter Zomervrucht, December 9, 2014
    The étale fundamental group Wouter Zomervrucht, December 9, 2014 1. Topology Let X be a connected topological space. Let x 2 X be a point. An important invariant of (X, x) is the (topological) fundamental group p(X, x) := loops x x in X /'. It can also be described in terms of covers. A cover of X is a map p : Y ! X such that every point x 2 X has an open neighborhood U ⊆ X with p−1(U) =∼ U × p−1(x) as spaces over U (endowing p−1(x) with the discrete topology). A cover Y ! X is universal if Y is simply connected. In this case p(X, x) = AutX Y. Theorem 1.1. Suppose X admits a universal cover. Then the functor Cov X ! p(X, x)-Set, p 7! p−1(x) is an equivalence. Theorem 1.2. There is a profinite group p, unique up to isomorphism, such that FCov X ≈ p-FSet. If X admits a universal cover, then p is isomorphic to the profinite completion pˆ (X, x). All data in this theorem can be made functorial in (X, x). Example 1.3. The circle S1 has fundamental group p(S1, x) = Z. It has the universal cover R ! S1, t 7! exp 2pit, with automorphism group generated by the shift t 7! t + 1. In the set- ting of theorem 1.2, suppose A is a transitive finite Zˆ -set. Then A =∼ Z/nZ, and it corresponds to the finite cover R/nZ ! S1, t 7! exp 2pit. 2. Algebraic geometry Let X be a connected scheme.
    [Show full text]
  • Residual Properties of Free Products
    Residual properties of free products Federico Berlai∗ Abstract Let C be a class of groups. We give sufficient conditions ensuring that a free product of residually C groups is again residually C, and analogous conditions are given for LE-C groups. As a corollary, we obtain that the class of residually amenable groups and the one of LEA groups are closed under taking free products. Moreover, we consider the pro-C topology and we characterize special HNN extensions and amalgamated free products that are residually C, where C is a suitable class of groups. In this way, we describe special HNN extensions and amalgamated free products that are residually amenable. Key words: root property, residually amenable group, sofic group, free product, pro-C topology, proamenable topology. 2010 AMS Subject Classification: 20E26, 43A07, 20E06, 20E22, 20E18. 1 Introduction Amenable groups were defined in 1929 by von Neumann in his work on the Banach-Tarski paradox and, since then, the study of amenability has been remarkably fruitful in a variety of branches of mathematics. Recently, weak variants of amenability have attracted considerable interest. Examples are the Haagerup property, also known as Gromov’s a-T-menability, and coarse amenability, also termed as Guoliang Yu’s Property A. These notions appeared in the study of analytic properties of infinite groups. The main focus of this paper are other, more algebraic, weak forms of amenability: the notions of residual amenability and of LEA (Locally Embeddable into Amenable) groups. Residual amenability is a common generalization of amenability and of residual finiteness. While the stability, or permanence, properties of both the classes of amenable groups and of residually finite groups are well known, the stability properties of the class of residually amenable groups have not yet been investigated.
    [Show full text]