\(\omega\)-elongations and Crawley's problem. The solution to Crawley's problem
type: Item
instance of: scholarly article
title: \(\omega\)-elongations and Crawley's problem. The solution to Crawley's problem
zbMATH Open document ID: 0587.20036
author: Alan H. Mekler
author: S. Shelah
published in: Pacific Journal of Mathematics
publication date: 1986-01-01T00:00:00Z
review text: All groups in this review are abelian p-groups. An \(\omega\)-elongation of a group B by a group A is a group H such that \(p^{\omega}H\cong A\) and H/A\(\cong B\). The group B is a Crawley group if every two elongations of B by Z(p) are isomorphic. It is well-known that \(\Sigma\)-cyclic groups are Crawley groups. Crawley's problem is to determine whether the converse is true. \textit{C. Megibben} [Pac. J. Math. 107, 205-212 (1983; Zbl 0521.20035)] showed that the converse holds for groups of cardinality \(\aleph_ 1\) assuming \((V=L)\) but that it fails assuming \(MA+\neg CH.\) In the papers under review it is shown that under the assumption (V\(=L)\) every Crawley group (of arbitrary cardinality) is \(\Sigma\)-cyclic. Further it is shown assuming \((V=L)\) that a non-\(\Sigma\)-cyclic (separable) group B of cardinality \(\aleph_ 1\) fails to be a Crawley group in a spectacular fashion: There exist \(2^{\aleph_ 1}\) \(\omega\)- elongations of B by Z(p) such that for any two different groups H and G of this family and every \(f\in Hom(H,G)\) necessarily \(f(p^{\omega}H)=0\). It is shown further that it is consistent that there exists a Crawley group of cardinality \(\aleph_ 1\) which is not \(\aleph_ 1\)-separable. The latter means that the group is separable and every countable subset is imbedded in a countable direct summand. The papers contain several other incisive theorems and interesting methods but the proofs are sketchy at times and require background knowledge about elongations, filtrations, and, of course, set-theoretic principles. \(\{\) In the definition of ''maximal direct summand'' on p. 125 of the first paper it is probably ment that ''any Ulm invariant of B/A is either 0 or \(>\omega\), or else Lemma 1.5 is incorrect as it stands. At any rate the lemma only affects a new proof of a result of Megibben. In the proof of Lemma 2 of the second paper \(A^*\) must be chosen such that \(A^*/B_ 1=p^{\omega}(A/B_ 1).\}\)
Mathematics Subject Classification ID: 20K10
Mathematics Subject Classification ID: 20K99
Mathematics Subject Classification ID: 03E35
Mathematics Subject Classification ID: 03E50
Mathematics Subject Classification ID: 20K27
zbMATH DE Number: 3941804
zbMATH Keywords: abelian p-groups
zbMATH Keywords: \(\Sigma \) -cyclic groups
zbMATH Keywords: Crawley groups
zbMATH Keywords: Crawley's problem
zbMATH Keywords: \((V=L)\)
zbMATH Keywords: \(\omega \) -elongations
zbMATH Keywords: consistent
zbMATH Keywords: Ulm invariant
reviewed by: Adolf Mader
MaRDI profile type: Publication
full work available at URL: pjm.1986.121.121
OpenAlex ID: W2038394665
DOI: 10.2140/PJM.1986.121.121
description: scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3941804