Projective Limits and Ultraproducts of Nonabelian Finite Groups
Abstract
Groups that can be approximated by finite groups have been the center of much research. This has led to the investigations of the subgroups of metric ultraproducts of finite groups. This paper attempts to study the dual problem: what are the quotients of ultraproducts of finite groups?
Since an ultraproduct is an abstract quotient of the direct product, this also led to a more general question: what are the abstract quotients of profinite groups? Certain cases were already well-studied. For example, if we have a pro-solvable group, then it is well-known that any finite abstract quotients are still solvable.
This paper studies the case of profinite groups from a surjective inverse system of non-solvable finite groups. We shall show that, for various classes of groups , any finite abstract quotient of a pro- group is still in . Here can be the class of finite semisimple groups, or the class of central products of quasisimple groups, or the class of products of finite almost simple groups and finite solvable groups, or the class of finite perfect groups with bounded commutator width.
Furthermore, in the case of finite perfect groups with unbounded commutator width, we show that this is NOT the case. In fact, any finite group could be a quotient of an ultraproduct of finite perfect groups. We provide an explicit construction on how to achieve this for each finite group.
1 Introduction
1.1 Background and Main Results
Groups that can be approximated by finite groups have been the center of much research. The standard approach is to study subgroups of “limits” of finite groups. For example, in the terminology of Hold and Rees [6], sofic groups are subgroups of the metric ultraproducts of finite symmetric groups, with respect to the normalized Hamming distance (in the sense of Definition 1.6 from [14]). It has gathered the attention of many works, and it is related to Kaplansky’s Direct Finiteness Conjecture [4], Connes’ embedding conjecture [3], and many other problems. As a generalization of sofic groups, one can also consider the -approximable groups, which are groups that can be embedded as subgroups of the metric ultraproducts of groups in a class of finite groups . See [11] for further discussion.
This paper was motivated by the “dual problem”, i.e., given an ultraproduct of finite groups, what are the possible quotients? It turns out that such “dual” problems have their own importance. For example, motivated by gauge field theories in physics, Zilbert asks the following question in [18]:
Conjectures 1.1.
Can a compact simple Lie group be a quotient of an ultraproduct of finite groups?
The answer to Zilbert’s problem is negative, shown by [11]. Nevertheless, the questions on quotients of ultraproducts of finite groups have not been studied much.
In a parallel manner, Bergman and Nahlus have shown the following interesting results on Lie algebra in [2].
Theorem 1.2.
Let be the class of nilpotent Lie algebras, the class of solvable Lie algebras, or the class of semi-simple Lie algebras with characteristics other than 2 or 3. If we have an ultraproduct of Lie algebra s in a class , and a surjective homomorphism where is a finite dimensional Lie algebra, then is also in class .
Motivated by such results, it is natural to consider the parallel situation in the case of groups. Let be a certain class of finite groups. We ask two kinds of questions:
-
1.
(Weak version) If we have an ultraproduct of groups in a class , and a surjective homomorphism where is a finite group, then when is also in class ?
-
2.
(Strong version) If we have a projective limit of a surjective inverse direct system of groups in a class , and a surjective homomorphism where is a finite group, then when is also in class ?
The strong version would immediately imply the weak version since the ultraproduct of groups is a quotient of the direct product of the same groups.
The answer to the strong version of our question is already well known in certain cases. For example, if is the class of finite abelian groups, then obviously any projective limit would also be abelian, and hence any quotient would also be abelian. By Corollary 4.2.3 of [12], the case of -groups is proven. Since each nilpotent group is a product of its -Sylow subgroups, the case of nilpotent groups follows. Finally, the case of solvable groups is proven by Corollary 4.2.4 of [12]. For all these groups, the answer to the strong version of our question is already known to be affirmative.
In this paper, we shall prove that the strong version is true for several other cases as well.
Theorem 1.3.
Let be the class of finite semisimple groups, or the class of finite central products of finite quasisimple groups, or the class of finite perfect groups with bounded commutator width. Then any finite quotient of a pro- group must remain in the class .
If is the class of finite products of finite almost simple groups, then any finite quotient of a pro- group is a direct product of almost simple groups and solvable groups.
In fact, we also showed that statements of this type are true for certain variants of the classes of groups above. Note that Theorem 1.3 is dependent on the classification of finite simple groups.
However, what if we move away from the solvable groups or groups that are close to being simple? For example, if we choose to be the class of finite perfect groups, then even the weak version of our question is false. For example, in Theorem 2.1.11 of [5], Holt and Plesken have constructed specific examples of finite perfect groups with huge centers, such that must have large commutator width. Here the commutator width of a group refers to the least integer such that every element of is a product of at most commutators.
If a sequence of perfect groups has increasing commutator width, then it should be expected that their “limit” of any kind would have “infinite commutator width”, i.e., it is probably not going to be perfect after all. Then it would have a non-trivial abelian quotient, which is not in . This is indeed the case, as shown in Proposition 1.5 in Section 3 of this paper.
Another such example is constructed by Nikolov [10], where the groups are even constructed to be finite perfect linear groups of dimension 15. However, it is worth noting that in both examples by Holt and Plesken (Theorem 2.1.11 of [5]) and the one by Nikolov, must either have non-solvable quotients, or abelian quotients. There is nothing in between.
In pursuit of this phenomenon, Holt111https://mathoverflow.net/questions/280887/subdirect-product-of-perfect-groups asked that, if is a subdirect product of finitely many perfect groups, must its solvable quotients be abelian? This is a “finite” version of our inquiry, and it was answered by Mayr and Ruškuc in the negative [9]. It turns out that such a quotient is not necessarily abelian, but must always be nilpotent.
In a related manner, Thiel222https://mathoverflow.net/questions/289390/inverse-limits-of-perfect-groups asked whether all groups can be achieved as a projective limit of perfect groups. An answer was provided by de Cornulier, but his construction was through an injective directed system of infinite perfect groups.
In this regard, we would establish the following result in our paper as well.
Theorem 1.4.
For any finite group , is a quotient of the projective limit of a surjective inverse directed system of finite perfect groups.
Note that Theorem 1.4 is not dependent on the classification of finite simple groups.
1.2 Outline of the paper
In Section 2, we shall establish the proof of Theorem 1.3, using mostly elementary arguments combined with the main results on ultraproducts of finite simple groups from [15]. We can break it down into the following subsections:
-
•
In Section 2.1, we establish properties of a class such that any pro- is a direct product of groups in . This shall come in handy in almost all cases below.
- •
- •
- •
- •
- •
We shall prove Theorem 1.4 in Section 3. The construction here is a bit elaborate, so we shall provide a brief breakdown of the arguments here.
We shall show that any finite group can be realized as a quotient of , a direct product of a family of finite perfect groups. First of all, if groups in the sequence are perfect groups with increasing commutator width, then their direct product is not perfect, and therefore they would have a non-trivial abelian quotient, as shown in the proposition below.
Proposition 1.5.
If is a sequence of finite perfect groups with strictly increasing commutator width, and is any non-principal ultrafilter on , then is not perfect.
Proof.
Since has strictly increasing commutator width, each must have a commutator width of at least . Pick such that it cannot be written as the product of less than commutators.
If can be written as the product of commutators, then we must have . However, this set is finite, while is a non-principal ultrafilter, a contradiction. Hence is not in the commutator subgroup of . In particular, is not perfect. ∎
We now establish the generic case. For an arbitrary finite group , we would construct a surjective homomorphism from a “pro-perfect” group onto . The homomorphism we constructed would in fact factor through an ultraproduct, as described in the statement of Theorem 1.6.
Theorem 1.6.
Given any finite group , there is a sequence of finite perfect groups and an ultrafilter on such that the ultraproduct has a surjective homomorphism onto .
Since an ultraproduct is a quotient of the direct product, therefore Theorem 1.4 is simply a corollary of Theorem 1.6 above.
We first reduce the generic case to the case of a special kind of groups. In 1989, Zelmanov solved the restricted Burnside problem in [16, 17]. In particular, the following theorem is true.
Theorem 1.7.
For arbitrary positive integers , there is a unique finite group , such that any finite group of exponent on generators is isomorphic to a quotient of .
So to prove Theorem 1.6, it is enough to show that for arbitrary positive integers , the restricted Burnside group can be realized as an abstract quotient of an ultraproduct of finite perfect groups.
We shall provide an explicit construction of these groups . The proof can be decomposed into the following steps:
- •
- •
-
•
In Section 3.3, we reduce the case of the restricted Burnside group to the case of the cyclic group . In particular, if the cyclic group could be realized as an abstract quotient of an ultraproduct of “nice” finite perfect groups, then so can the restricted Burnside group .
-
•
In Section 3.4, we construct a sequence of finite perfect groups .
-
•
In Section 3.5, we construct a sequence of finite abelian groups with exponents dividing , and each has a action.
-
•
In Section 3.6, we show that the groups are perfect with increasing commutator width.
-
•
In Section 3.7, we establish some properties on and its “dual”.
-
•
In Section 3.8, we construct an explicit homomorphism , which could be extended to a surjective homomorphism from to .
1.3 Notations and Conventions
Given a perfect group and an element , we define its commutator length to be the smallest integer such that it can be written as a product of at most commutators. We define the commutator width of to be the smallest integer such that every element of has commutator length at most .
Given a group , for elements , subgroups , subset , we adopt the following notations. Here means the subgroup generated by the subset .
In our paper, we adopt the convention that all group actions are from the right. Given a group acting on another group via , the corresponding semi-direct product is written as . Elements of this semi-direct product group is written as where and , while the action of on is written as .
For , and subgroup , we adopt the following conventions.
Throughout this paper, all finite groups will be equipped with the discrete topology whenever needed. Let be a class of finite groups equipped with the discrete topology. Then we say is a pro- group if it is the inverse direct limit of a surjective system of groups in .
Other than the inverse direct limit, another kind of limit that concerns us is the ultraproduct. Given any index set , a collection of subsets of is an ultrafilter if the followings are true:
-
1.
If , then .
-
2.
If as subsets of , and , then .
-
3.
For any subset of , exactly one of and its complement is in .
An ultrafilter is principal if the intersection of all elements of is non-empty.
Given a sequence of groups , and an ultrafilter on , consider the subgroup of the group defined as , where is the identity element. This is a normal subgroup, and we denote the quotient as . This is the ultraproduct of the sequence through the ultrafilter .
For the element , its quotient image in is denoted as , called the ultralimit of the sequence .
For further discussions, see [13].
2 Projective limits of non-abelian groups
In this section, we consider projective limits of finite groups that are close to being non-abelian finite simple. Throughout this section, we use the term semisimple group to refer to a direct product of non-abelian finite simple groups.
2.1 Preliminary on Profinite groups
It is well-known that any projective limits of finite semisimple groups must be a direct product of finite simple groups. (E.g., see Lemma 8.2.3 of [12].) In this preliminary section, we try to generalize such a result to some similar classes of groups.
Let be a class of finite groups. Let be the class of finite products of groups in .
Let us say that is a central-simple class of groups if all groups in are non-abelian, and for any homomorphism between groups , implies that is trivial or is an isomorphism. Here refers to the centralizer of . We claim that the following result is true.
Proposition 2.1.
Suppose is a central-simple class of finite groups. Then any pro- group is a direct product of groups in .
Now let us prove Proposition 2.1. For any group , let us say a normal subgroup of is -normal if , and we write .
Lemma 2.2.
Suppose is a central-simple class of finite groups. Then for any , the natural homomorphism from to is an isomorphism.
Proof.
Suppose , and it is the internal direct product where for all . It is enough to show that the only -normal subgroups are kernels of the projection maps onto some factor group.
We perform induction on the number of factor groups, i.e., on the cardinality of the index set . If has only one element, then is a group in . If is a -normal subgroup of , then the quotient map from to is a surjective homomorphism between groups in . In particular, we must have , so is either trivial or an isomorphism. Since the trivial group (which is abelian) is not in , therefore the quotient map must be an isomorphism. Hence the only -normal subgroup of is the trivial subgroup, and the statement is true.
Now suppose has more than one element. Let be any -normal subgroup. Consider the quotient map . For any , since is a direct factor of , any element of must commute with any element of for . In particular, we have . So restricted to must either be trivial or an isomorphism.
If is trivial on all , then is trivial and not in , which is impossible. Hence restricts to an isomorphism to some . Furthermore, if restricted to and restricted to are both isomorphisms for some , then all elements in and in must commute, so is an abelian group and not in , also impossible. Hence, there is a unique such that restricted to is an isomorphism, and kills all other where .
In particular, is a projection map onto a factor group . So we are done. ∎
Proof of Proposition 2.1.
Let be a pro- group. Then it is the projective limits of for all open -normal subgroups .
But for each open -normal subgroup , by Lemma 2.2, we have an isomorphism where is the set of open -normal subgroups containing . By taking inverse limits of these isomorphisms, we have an isomorphism where is the set of open -normal subgroups of . ∎
2.2 Semisimple groups
We start with projective limits of finite semisimple groups. Note that, as we have already noted, this must be a direct product of non-abelian finite simple groups. Such groups are also sometimes called semisimple profinite groups. Let us first describe all maximal normal subgroups of a semisimple profinite group.
Given a semisimple profinite group for a family of non-abelian finite simple groups , for any subset , we define , i.e., the subgroup of elements whose “support” is inside . Clearly is the internal direct product of and .
For any ultrafilter on , we define . Note that the ultraproduct of the groups is by definition .
Proposition 2.3.
If for a family of non-abelian finite simple groups , and is any abstract maximal normal subgroup of , then for some ultrafilter on .
Proof.
Note that if is an arbitrary product of non-abelian finite simple groups, then each factor group of has commutator width by the classification of non-abelian finite simple groups. So has commutator width , and thus it is perfect. So is also a perfect group.
Since is maximal, is perfect and simple. So by Corollary 2.9 below, if for a family of non-abelian finite simple groups , then the quotient map must factor through some ultraproduct for some ultrafilter on . So we are done. ∎
Corollary 2.4.
If for a family of non-abelian finite simple groups , and is any abstract maximal normal subgroup of with finite index, then for some ultrafilter on , and is isomorphic to for some .
Proof.
By Proposition 2.3, we know that we can find an ultrafilter such that . But by [15], is either isomorphic to for some , or it cannot have any non-trivial finite dimensional unitary representation. But is a finite quotient of , which must have a non-trivial finite dimensional unitary representation. Hence is either isomorphic to for some , and thus and is isomorphic to for some . ∎
Corollary 2.5.
If for a family of non-abelian finite simple groups , then intersections of maximal normal subgroups of finite indices of is a perfect group.
Proof.
Using Corollary 2.4, let these maximal normal subgroups of finite indices be for some index set and ultrafilters on . For each , let . Then if and only if . So if and only if .
In particular, is generated by where . Since each is also a semisimple profinite group, hence a perfect group, therefore the subgroup they generate must also be perfect. So we are done. ∎
Now we can establish our desired result.
Proposition 2.6.
If is a semisimple profinite group, then any finite quotient of is a finite semisimple group.
Proof.
Say for a family of non-abelian finite simple groups . Suppose for contradiction that our statement is not true, and let be a minimal counterexample, i.e., is a finite quotient of , but it is not semisimple. Let be the quotient map.
If has a non-trivial center , then by minimality, is a finite semisimple group. Therefore, is an intersection of maximal normal subgroups of with finite indices. Pulling back to , we see that is an intersection of maximal normal subgroups of with finite indices. Therefore according to Corollary 2.5, it is a perfect group. Hence its image must also be a perfect group. But is also abelian, hence it must be trivial, a contradiction.
So must be centerless. Furthermore, if is the direct product of two non-trivial groups, then by minimality of , the two factor groups must both be semisimple groups. Hence itself is a semisimple group, a contradiction.
So must be a centerless group, and it is not the direct product of two non-trivial groups. By Corollary 2.8 below, this means that must factor through an ultraproduct. But by [15] again, this means that is either infinite, or is isomorphic to for some . Neither case is possible.
To sum up, such a counterexample is impossible. ∎
Here are the necessary lemmas for the proofs above. The idea is adapted from Bergman and Nahlus [2], who proved a similar statement for Lie algebras.
Lemma 2.7 ([2, Lemma 7]).
Suppose is a family of sets, is a set, and is a set map whose image has more than one element. Then the following are equivalent:
-
(a)
For every subset , the map factors either through the projection , or through the projection .
-
(b)
The map factors through the natural map , where is an ultrafilter on the index set .
When these hold, the ultrafilter is uniquely determined by the map .
Corollary 2.8 (Analogue of [2, Lemma 5]).
Let be a non-trivial group. Then the following are equivalent:
-
(i)
Every surjective homomorphism from a direct product of two groups onto factors through the projection of onto or the projection of onto .
-
(ii)
There are no non-trivial normal subgroups of such that and .
-
(iii)
The center of is trivial, and is not the direct product of two non-trivial groups.
-
(iv)
For every surjective homomorphism from a direct product of a family of groups over any index set onto , factors through a quotient map from onto some ultraproduct over some ultrafilter on .
Proof.
First let us show that the negation of , , and are equivalent.
Suppose is false. Then let be a counterexample. Let and . Then and are non-trivial. Since is surjective, and are normal subgroups of , and . Finally,
So is false.
Suppose is false. Let be a pair of normal subgroups of and a counterexample to . If , then , and is false. Suppose is non-trivial. For any element , since and , must commute with every element of . Similarly, since , it must commute with every element of . And since , we must have . So is non-trivial. So is false.
Now suppose is false. If is the direct product of two non-trivial groups, then obviously is false. Suppose is non-trivial. Then let be the homomorphism induced by the inclusion homomorphism of into and the identity homomorphism of . This provides a counterexample of .
Now we shall show that and are equivalent.
is a special case of when . So we only need to show that implies . But this follows easily from Lemma 2.7. ∎
Corollary 2.9.
If is a perfect simple group, then for any surjective homomorphism from a direct product of a family of groups over any index set onto , factors through a quotient map from onto some ultraproduct over some ultrafilter on .
Proof.
Since is perfect and simple, it cannot have a non-trivial center, and it cannot be the direct product of two non-trivial subgroups. So the statement is true by Corollary 2.8. ∎
2.3 Quasisimple groups
A group is quasisimple if it is a perfect central extension of a non-abelian finite simple group. Analogously, one can define a “quasi-semisimple group” to be a perfect central extension of a finite semisimple group. It turns out that such a group is simply a central product of quasisimple groups.
Lemma 2.10.
A finite perfect central extension of a finite semisimple group is a central product of finite quasisimple groups.
Proof.
Suppose is a perfect central extension of a finite semisimple group , which is the internal direct product of non-abelian finite simple subgroups . Let the quotient map be , let , i.e., the pull-back in the following diagram.
Let be the unique maximal perfect normal subgroup of . Now each is perfect by construction, and since is finite, is solvable. Therefore . So, we have the following diagram.
Finally, since the kernel of is the center of , we see that must be a perfect central extension of , i.e., it is quasisimple. I now claim that is the central product of all these .
Let be the center of . Since , we see that restricted to is already surjective onto . Hence we must have .
If is a proper normal subgroup of , then is non-trivial and abelian, which cannot happen since is perfect. So . It remains to be shown that is trivial for all .
Now acts on via conjugation, but is in the kernel of , hence inside of the center . So acts trivially on . But any automorphism of a finite quasisimple group must be trivial if it acts trivially on the corresponding simple group. So is in fact trivial.
So is indeed the central product of . ∎
In general, a direct product of quasisimple groups might have a quotient that is not quasisimple anymore, but rather a central product of quasisimple groups, as shown in the following proposition.
Proposition 2.11.
If is an arbitrary direct product of finite quasisimple groups, then any finite quotient must be a central product of finite quasisimple groups.
Proof.
Say for a family of finite quasisimple groups . Let be the center of , and set . Then is the center of , and is a semisimple profinite group.
Suppose we have a surjective homomorphism . Then is a finite quotient of the semisimple profinite group . Hence is semisimple. Furthermore, since is the center of and is surjective, is inside the center of . So is a central extension of the semisimple group .
Finally, by classification of finite simple groups, any finite quasisimple group has commutator width at most . So has commutator width at most . So is perfect, and its quotient is also perfect.
So is a finite perfect central extension of a finite semisimple group. ∎
Now, the class of quasisimple groups is not central-simple (proper quotients of a quasisimple group might still be quasisimple). So the result above does not immediately generalize to projective limits that are not direct products.
However, by the theory of Schur multipliers, each non-abelian finite simple group has a unique maximal perfect central extension, i.e., the universal covering group for the non-abelian finite simple group. (See, e.g., Proposition 33.4 of [1].) And each quasisimple group must be a quotient of such a group.
These universal covering groups (i.e., quasisimple groups with trivial Schur multiplier) are also sometimes called superperfect quasisimple groups. Then we have the following result.
Proposition 2.12.
The class of finite superperfect quasisimple groups is central-simple.
Proof.
Suppose are finite superperfect quasisimple groups, and is any group homomorphism such that . Since the subgroups and both normalize , therefore implies that is normal in .
If , then note that all proper normal subgroups of a quasisimple group are central, so is abelian. But since is perfect, must be trivial.
If , then is a central perfect extension of . But since is super perfect, it is already a maximal central perfect extension, hence can only be an isomorphism. ∎
Proposition 2.13.
If is a projective limit of finite central products of finite quasisimple groups, then any finite quotient must be a central product of finite quasisimple groups.
Proof.
Let be the class of superperfect quasisimple groups. Then for each finite central product of finite quasisimple groups , then is a quotient of the direct products of these by a central subgroup. Let be the universal perfect central extension of , then is a central quotient of .
Now let be the projective limit of a directed family of finite central products of finite quasisimple groups . Let be the universal perfect central extension of , so that . Let be the kernel of the quotient map from to .
Note that any surjective homomorphism must induce a surjective homomorphism , and must also send the center into the center. So the directed family must induce directed families and , and thus we have corresponding induced projective limits and .
Note that the projective limit on inverse systems of finite groups is an exact functor. (See, e.g., Proposition 2.2.4 of [12].) Therefore, is a quotient of by the closed subgroup . Since is a pro- group and is a central-simple class, must be a direct product of superperfect quasisimple groups, and thus any finite quotient of must be a central product of finite quasisimple groups.
Since is a quotient of , the result holds for as well. ∎
Now, note that the class of finite central products of finite quasisimple groups is NOT closed under sub-direct product, so it is not a formation of groups.
Example 2.14.
Consider the group of by matrices over the field of order , whose determinants are . It is quasisimple over the finite simple group . Then is a perfect central extension of . Now take the diagonal subgroup of , and take its pre-image in . This is a sub-direct product of finite quasisimple groups, but it is isomorphic to , NOT a central product of finite quasisimple groups.
So if one prefers to use a formation of groups, we can consider a larger class of groups, closed under sub-direct product.
Proposition 2.15.
The following three classes of groups are the same:
-
1.
is the smallest class of groups containing all finite quasisimple groups which is closed under sub-direct products and quotients.
-
2.
is the class of finite central extensions of finite semisimple groups.
-
3.
is the class of finite central products of finite quasisimple groups and finite abelian groups.
Proof.
Let us call the three classes .
Since central products are quotients of the direct products, is closed under central products. Also note that any cyclic group can be realized as a center for some quasisimple group over for some . Let be such a quasisimple group over a non-abelian finite simple group with center . Then has a quotient , and the pullback of the diagonal subgroup of in is a sub-direct product of two copies of , and it is isomorphic to . Hence must also contain all finite abelian groups. So .
Suppose . Then we have a quotient map such that is semisimple, and the kernel of is the center of . Since is perfect, the unique largest perfect normal subgroup in must have , and the restriction of to must have kernel , which is in the center of . So is a perfect central extension of . In particular, by Lemma 2.10, is a finite central product of finite quasisimple groups.
But since and is the kernel of , we have . And since is the center, must be trivial. So is the central product of and the abelian group . So .
It remains to show that . Since contains all finite quasisimple groups, we only need to show that it is closed under sub-direct products and quotients.
The class is obviously closed under quotients. We now prove that sub-direct products of groups in are still in .
Suppose has two normal subgroups such that is trivial, and for . Then is a finite group. Let be the intersection of all maximal normal subgroups of whose corresponding quotients are non-abelian finite simple groups. Then is a finite semisimple group. We need to show that is in the center of .
Consider the quotient map . Then is in the intersection of all maximal normal subgroups of whose corresponding quotients are non-abelian finite simple groups. Since , is the center of . In particular, for any and , we have . So, since is trivial, we have
So is in the center of . So is a central extension of , and . So we conclude that . ∎
Now we have a corresponding result on projective limits of finite central extensions of finite semisimple groups.
Proposition 2.16.
If is a projective limit of a family of finite central extensions of finite semisimple groups, then any finite quotient of is still a finite central extension of a finite semisimple group.
Proof.
Now if is a projective limit of a family of groups , each a finite central extension of a finite semisimple group . Let be the center of . Then we have a corresponding projective limit of the abelian groups , and a projective limit of the semisimple groups . Note that the projective limit on inverse systems of finite groups is an exact functor. (See, e.g., Proposition 2.2.4 of [12].) So is a closed central subgroup of and , a semisimple profinite group.
Suppose we have a surjective homomorphism where is finite. Then is a central subgroup of , and is a finite quotient of the semisimple profinite group . By Proposition 2.6, is a finite semisimple group. So is a finite central extension of a finite semisimple group. ∎
2.4 Projective limits via almost simple groups
We now briefly introduce the concept of almost simple groups.
Definition 2.17 (Definition of CR-radicals).
Given any finite group , we define its CR-radical to be the largest semisimple normal subgroup. (“CR” stands for “completely reducible”.)
The CR-radical uniquely exists for all groups, and a solvable group must have a trivial CR-radical.
Definition 2.18 (Definition of Almost Simple Groups).
Given any finite group , we say it is almost simple if is a non-abelian finite simple group, and has no non-trivial solvable normal subgroups.
Note that the above definition is equivalent to the usual definition of an almost simple group, which is a subgroup of containing for some non-abelian finite simple group .
Proposition 2.19 (Alternative Definition of Almost Simple Groups).
If is almost simple, then it is isomorphic to a subgroup of containing for some non-abelian finite simple group .
Proof.
Let be the CR-radical of . Then acts on by conjugation, which induces a homomorphism from to . Let be the kernel of this homomorphism. Assume for contradiction that it is not trivial.
Since is a normal subgroup of and is characteristic in , therefore is a semisimple normal subgroup of . Therefore and by construction, every element of commutes with every element of . Hence is in the center of . But is a non-abelian finite simple group. So is trivial.
Therefore, any minimal normal subgroup of must be a direct product of cyclic subgroups of prime order. In particular, the solvable radical of (the unique largest solvable normal subgroup of ) is non-trivial. Since is characteristic in , it is a non-trivial solvable normal subgroup of , a contradiction.
So we must conclude that is trivial. Hence is isomorphic to a subgroup of . And since contains , the image of in would contain . ∎
By the classification of finite simple groups, we also see that if is almost simple, then is solvable.
Proposition 2.20.
The class of finite almost simple groups is central-simple.
Proof.
Suppose are finite almost simple groups, and is any group homomorphism such that . Then is a normal subgroup of .
Suppose it is not trivial. Let be the unique minimal normal subgroup of . Then it is a finite simple group, and any non-trivial normal subgroup of must contain . So contains . However, since can be seen as a subgroup of , the centralizer of in is trivial. Hence is trivial. So implies that .
Finally, note that proper quotients of an almost simple group must be solvable. But is not solvable. So has a trivial kernel, and thus it is an isomorphism. ∎
As a result of Proposition 2.20, projective limits of finite products of almost simple groups must be a direct product of almost simple groups. Now, the quotient of such a profinite group might no longer be almost simple. For example, if we take a single almost simple group that is not simple itself, then it will have a solvable quotient. So we need to look at a larger class of groups.
Let be the class of finite groups that are direct products of solvable groups and almost simple groups. Note that this class is closed under central products.
Proposition 2.21.
If , then any central product of is still in .
Proof.
Note that is obviously closed under direct products. So we only need to show that it is closed under central quotients.
Suppose , say is the internal direct product of almost simple subgroups and a solvable subgroup . Now acts on its normal subgroup by conjugation. Since are all almost simple, the kernel of the induced homomorphism is exactly . So the center of is contained inside of . Hence . ∎
In the remainder of this section we establish the following:
Proposition 2.22.
Let be a pro- group. Then any finite homomorphic image of must still be in .
Proof.
Consider a potential counterexample. Suppose for contradiction that we have a pro- group , each is either finite solvable or finite almost simple, and is a surjective homomorphism onto a finite group NOT in . Since is finite, if such counterexample exists, then we can in fact let be a minimal counterexample.
Then by Corollary 2.30 below, cannot exist. Hence we are done. ∎
In the remainder of this section, we preserve the notations of and as in the minimal counterexample in the proof above.
For any subset of , let .
We use the notation . Note that is isomorphic to , which is a pro-solvable group. We use to denote .
Lemma 2.23 (Dichotomy between complementary factors).
For any subset of , either or . In particular, one is and the other one is inside the center of .
Proof.
Note that is the internal direct product of and , hence is the central product of and .
Note that and are also finite homomorphic images of products of groups in . So if both are proper subgroups, then by minimality of , both are in . Hence by Proposition 2.21, as their central product is also in . A contradiction.
So one of and is . But since is the central product of these two groups, the other one must be in the center. ∎
In particular, let . Then is the central product of and . but since while must be solvable, we see that . So we may safely throw away all solvable factor groups from when we construct our counterexample. WLOG, from now on we may simply assume that all factor groups of are almost simple groups.
Proposition 2.24 (Dichotomy via ultrafilter).
There is an ultrafilter on , such that if and only if , and is in the center of if and only if .
Proof.
We define to be the collection of all subsets such that . Then it is enough to show that this is an ultrafilter.
We already see that for any , exactly one of and is in .
If and , then . Hence . So as desired.
If , then . Then, as a result, are both in the center of . Then
So is also in the center of . So and .
So is indeed an ultrafilter. ∎
We fix this ultrafilter from now on. We now show that, in fact, is an -ultraproduct of for , and the corresponding quotient map is exactly restricted to .
Corollary 2.25 ( is simple).
, and this quotient map yields as an -ultraproduct of for . In particular, is a non-abelian finite simple group isomorphic to for some .
Proof.
Note that is a direct product of non-abelian finite simple groups. Hence any finite homomorphic image must also be a direct product of non-abelian finite simple groups. So is inside of .
In particular, cannot be trivial. This is because is a finite quotient of , which is solvable, but .
Now is a finite quotient of , which is a pro-solvable group. So is solvable. In particular, is solvable, and thus it must be trivial. So .
Now for any , , and by similar reasoning, we see that . While for , is in the center of . But it must also be a direct product of non-abelian finite simple groups. Hence it is trivial.
In particular, the restriction of to must in fact factor through the -ultraproduct. Such an ultraproduct must either have no non-trivial finite quotient, or it is isomorphic to one of the factor groups of . Since is non-trivial, then has a non-trivial finite quotient. So in our case, is isomorphic to the finite simple group for some , and is a non-trivial quotient of this finite simple group. Hence is a finite simple group. ∎
Now we establish a description of the center of . Note that acts on by conjugation, and this induces a natural homomorphism from to . Let be the kernel of this map. Then is by definition almost simple.
Proposition 2.26 (Description of pre-images of ).
For any element , we have if and only if .
Proof.
Suppose we have an element where . Then for any , we have . Note that, since we picked , the element is also in , and restricted to is the quotient map onto the -ultraproduct. Hence . In particular, commutes with . Since , could be any element of . Therefore commutes with all elements of , and it must be in . So we have proven necessity.
Now we pick any element of , say . Note that each is generated by at most two elements, say and . Consider the elements and . Their images through are in , so we know must commute with . In particular, we have . However, the element is in , and restricted to this subgroup is the quotient map onto the -ultraproduct. Therefore implies that . Similarly, as well. Taking their intersection, we see that .
But if commutes with , this means commutes with all elements of . But since is an almost simple group, this imples that . Hence . ∎
Corollary 2.27.
is the center of .
Proof.
Let be the center of . Since is almost simple, which is centerless, we must have .
Now pick any element of , say . Then . Let , then , where . Hence is in the center of . So . ∎
Now we proceed to show that is in fact a direct factor of , which would result in a contradiction to the minimality of , finishing our proof of Proposition 2.22.
Proposition 2.28.
The derived subgroup has a trivial intersection with .
Proof.
Pick any element of , say . Suppose this is also inside , then .
Let . We define if and if . Similarly, we define if and if . Then always. So .
However, we clearly have . So are in the center . So we have
Hence has a trivial intersection with . ∎
For the moment, we use the notation and .
Proposition 2.29.
For any integer , .
Proof.
First let us show that . Suppose , say
Here and . Then since , the index set is an element of .
Define to be respectively if , and to be if . Then we have
But since -almost-all coordinates of and are trivial. Hence their commutator is also trivial. So . We also have since -almost-all coordinates of are trivial. Therefore .
So we have
Now, suppose where and . Then . So we have
Hence . ∎
Corollary 2.30.
cannot exist.
Proof.
We claim that is a direct factor of . Consider in the abelian group . Then for any integer ,
By the Kulikov criteria [7], this means that is a direct summand of the abelian group . Let its complement subgroup be for some subgroup of containing . So and .
Then
So is trivial. But we also have . Hence is the internal direct product of and .
But now is abelian, and is almost simple. So , a contradiction. ∎
2.5 Almost semisimple groups
When studying a class of groups, it is sometimes useful if the class of groups is in fact a formation of groups.
Definition 2.31.
A class of groups is a formation if it is closed under quotients and subdirect products.
Note that the class of finite products of finite almost simple groups and finite solvable groups is not closed under subdirect product. Hence it is not a formation of groups.
Example 2.32.
Think of the symmetric group as the semi-direct product , and the symmetric group as the semi-direct product . Now, let act on both and simultaneously, then we have a group , which is a sub-direct product of the almost simple groups and . However, the resulting group is not a direct product of almost simple groups and solvable groups.
So if we want to study a formation of groups, we need to consider a larger class of groups.
Definition 2.33.
We define a group to be almost semisimple if has no solvable normal subgroups.
These groups are natural generalizations of almost simple groups.
Proposition 2.34.
If is an almost semisimple group, then acts on its CR-radical faithfully. In particular, we may think of as a subgroup of containing for some semisimple group .
Proof.
Note that acts on its CR-radical by conjugation. Let be the kernel of the induced homomorphism . Suppose for contradiction that it is not trivial. Let be a minimal non-trivial normal subgroup of . Then is either semisimple or abelian.
If is semisimple, then . Since is characteristic in , it is also a semisimple normal subgroup of , so and . However, since is semisimple, therefore it acts on itself faithfully. So the intersection is trivial, which implies that is trivial as well. Then cannot contain , a contradiction.
Suppose is abelian. Then the unique maximal solvable normal subgroup of is non-trivial. But this subgroup is also characteristic in , hence it is a non-trivial solvable normal subgroup of , which is impossible as we require to be almost semisimple. Contradiction.
So must be trivial. ∎
Now to have a formation of groups, we also want our class to be closed under quotient. Hence we need to throw solvable groups into the mix as well.
Proposition 2.35.
If is solvable, then is a subdirect product of a solvable group and an almost semisimple group.
Proof.
Let be the solvable radical of (i.e., the unique largest solvable normal subgroup of ). Then is an almost simple group, while is solvable. Finally, the intersection of and must be both CR and solvable, so it is trivial. So we are done. ∎
Now let be the class of groups such that is solvable. It is clearly closed under taking quotients.
Proposition 2.36.
is closed under subdirect product.
Proof.
Suppose has two normal subgroups such that . We can find normal subgroups of that are the pre-images of . Then is solvable. As a result, since is a subdirect product of solvable groups , is also solvable, and its subgroups and are also solvable.
Let us now show that . To see this, note that is a quotient of the solvable group , hence it is solvable. However, it is also the quotient of , therefore it is a CR group. Since it is both solvable and CR, it has to be trivial. So we have , and similarly as well.
So we have
So and similarly are both CR groups. We also see that is trivial. Hence is the subdirect product of CR groups and . So must be a CR group itself. In particular, .
On the other hand, since is solvable, . So we see that , and is solvable. ∎
Proposition 2.37.
If is a pro- group, then any finite homomorphic image of must still be in .
Proof.
Suppose is formed via a surjective inverse directed system . Let be the CR-radical of .
For any surjective homomorphism , then must be mapped into . Hence this induces homomorphisms and . So the inverse directed system would induce the corresponding inverse directed systems and .
Let be the projective limit of the system , then is a semisimple profinite group and a closed normal subgroup of . Note that the projective limit on inverse systems of finite groups is an exact functor. (See, e.g., Proposition 2.2.4 of [12].) As a result, is the projective limit of the system , and therefore it is pro-solvable.
Now suppose is a finite quotient of . Let be the quotient map from to . Then since is a semisimple profinite group, must be a semisimple normal subgroup of . Hence . So is in the kernel of the quotient map from to . This induces a surjective homomorphism from to . Since is pro-solvable, we see that is solvable. Hence is in . ∎
2.6 Perfect groups with bounded commutator width
We devote a small section to perfect groups with bounded commutator width.
Proposition 2.38.
Let be a surjective inverse direct system of perfect groups, and suppose they all have commutator width at most . Let be their projective limit. Then is also perfect with commutator width .
Proof.
Since the class of finite perfect groups with commutator width at most is quotient closed, therefore any continuous finite quotient of must be perfect with commutator width at most . Let be the set of commutators in , then is mapped surjectively onto all continuous finite quotients. In particular, is dense in .
However, consider the map sending to the element . Since must be continuous, and is compact, therefore its image is compact. Since is Hausdorff, is a dense closed subset of . Hence .
So is perfect with commutator length at most . ∎
3 Perfect Groups with Unbounded Commutator Width
3.1 The restricted Burnside coproduct
For any positive integer , consider the category of finite groups with exponent dividing . Then Theorem 1.7 showed that is the free object on generators in this category.
Proposition 3.1.
The category is a reflexive subcategory of the category of finitely generated groups (i.e., the inclusion functor has a left adjoint).
Proof.
Let us create this reflexive functor to the inclusion functor. Given any finitely generated group , then it is the quotient of the free group for some positive integer . Let the kernel of this quotient map be .
According to Theorem 1.7, the free group has a normal subgroup such that any group homomorphism from to a group in must factor through . Let be the normal subgroup generated by and , and we define . Since is a quotient of the restricted Burnside group , therefore as desired.
We claim that for any , any homomorphism , then there is a unique induced homomorphism . This would show that the functor is indeed a left adjoint to the inclusion functor.
To see the claim, note that must have both and in its kernel. So is in this kernel. Hence this map factors through a unique homomorphism . ∎
Corollary 3.2.
In the category , finite product and finite coproduct exist. And the coproduct of and is isomorphic to .
Proof.
Since the category of finitely generated groups has coproducts, therefore any reflexive subcategory has coproducts. The other statements are trivial. ∎
We define a functor that maps each group in to the coproduct of with itself -times, and maps each morphism to the corresponding morphism on the -times iterated coproducts.
Proposition 3.3.
preserves all colimits.
Proof.
Note that the coproduct functor is left adjoint to the diagonal functor , while the diagonal functor is left adjoint to the product functor. Therefore the functor is left adjoint and preserves colimits. ∎
Corollary 3.4.
is surjective if is surjective.
Lemma 3.5.
Let be the coprojection morphisms. Then they are injective. Furthermore, are independent subgroups generating .
Proof.
Since the category has zero morphisms, therefore all coprojections are split monomorphisms, and the images are independent subgroups.
Since the restricted Burnside coproduct is a quotient of the free product of copies of , therefore the subgroups generates . ∎
We now examine the interaction of with group actions. In the following, is a finite group with exponents dividing , and are the images of the coprojection morphisms from into . We use to denote the generators of .
Proposition 3.6.
Suppose is a group acting on a finite group , and the exponent of divides . Then has an induced action on .
If the coprojection images of in are , then these subgroups are -invariant, and the -action on restricted to each is identical to the -action on .
Proof.
Suppose we have . As is functorial and is a finite group with exponent dividing , we have a map . So is the induced -action on .
Let be the coprojection morphisms so that . For any , then by definition of the coproduct. So
So is -invariant, and the -action on restricted to is identical to the -action on . ∎
Proposition 3.7.
Suppose is a group acting on a finite group , and the exponent of divides , and is perfect. Then for the induced action of on , and is perfect.
Proof.
Now is generated by -invariant subgroups as in Proposition 3.6. However, since acts on the same way as its action on , therefore as a subgroup of is isomorphic to , which is perfect. As these perfect subgroups generate the whole group, is perfect. ∎
Proposition 3.8.
Suppose is a group acting on a finite group , and the exponent of divides . Then for any -invariant homomorphism , the induced homomorphism is -invariant.
Proof.
Since is -invariant, for any and , we have . Let be the coprojection morphisms so that . Then
So restricted to each is -invariant. But since these generates the domain , therefore we see that is -invariant. ∎
3.2 The ultraproduct functor
The ultraproduct of groups can be thought of as a functor from to . It has the following categorical properties:
-
1.
The ultraproduct functor preserves all finite limits. (In particular, the ultraproduct of subgroups is a subgroup of the ultraproduct, and the ultraproduct of intersections is the intersection of ultraproducts.)
-
2.
The ultraproduct functor preserves short exact sequences. (In particular, it preserves normal subgroups, monomorphism, epimorphism, and quotients.)
-
3.
The ultraproduct functor preserves semi-direct products.
-
4.
The ultraproduct of abelian groups is an abelian group.
-
5.
The ultraproduct of groups of exponent dividing is a group of exponent dividing .
-
6.
The ultraproduct of a sequence of the same finite group is the finite group itself.
Given any sequence of finite groups of exponents dividing a fixed integer , we want to understand homomorphisms from to . Note that many of such homomorphisms are elements of , as shown in the example below.
Example 3.9.
One way to construct such a homomorphism is to first pick a homomorphism for each , and take the ultralimit , which is a homomorphism from to .
If we use to denote the abelian group of homomorphisms from to (i.e., the “dual group”), then these correspond to elements of the ultraproduct .
Unfortunately, not all homomorphisms from to are elements of . Here is another kind of construction: we take all homomorphisms from to in as above, and take their “consensus” according to some ultrafilter on .
Definition 3.10.
Let be any ultrafilter on the set , then we define the -consensus to be the homomorphism such that for all ,
Then it is straight forward to verify that is indeed a homomorphism.
It turns out that, when all groups are abelian, then any homomorphism is equal to for some ultrafilter on , as in the above example.
Proposition 3.11.
Fix a sequence of finite abelian groups of exponents dividing a fixed integer . Then any homomorphism is equal to for some ultrafilter on .
Proof.
This is a special case of Proposition 3.12 below, when the group actions are all trivial. ∎
In fact, we can prove something stronger. Proposition 3.12 below shows that we can in fact do this even with respect to a given group action. To do this, we need a definition of -invariant ultrafilter on .
Suppose we have a finite group acting on for each . Then there is an induced action of on .
For each , let be the collection of all -invariant elements of . Then we say the ultrafilter is -invariant if and only if for all . Then we have the following result.
Proposition 3.12.
Fix a sequence of finite abelian groups of exponents dividing a fixed integer . Suppose for each , we have a finite group acting on . So we have an action of on .
Then any -invariant homomorphism is equal to for some -invariant ultrafilter on .
Proof.
For each , let be the collection of all -invariant elements of . For each , let be the collection of all such that .
Then is -invariant if and only if it contains all for all , and we have if and only if contains for all . So our proposition is the same as the claim that there is an ultrafilter on containing all and all .
To prove this claim, we need to show that the collection of all and all has finite intersection property. This is done by Lemma 3.14. ∎
First, let us show that the collection of all has the finite intersection property.
Lemma 3.13.
Let be a sequence of finite abelian groups with exponents dividing . For any and any homomorphism , we can find a homomorphism such that for all .
Proof.
Note that finite abelian groups with exponents dividing are the same as -modules. Picking elements is the same as picking a -modules homomorphism . Say we let be the standard generators of , so that we have .
Let , then we can define -modules homomorphism such that . Then in the sense that for all .
Let . Since if and only if , the sets for are inside the ultrafilter , and the sets for are also inside the ultrafilter . Since is a finite set, we have the following result.
So for -almost all .
Now the homomorphism factors through the quotient map , and induces a homomorphism . For -almost all , the map also factors through as well, and induces an injective homomorphism .
Note that by Baer’s criterion (see, e.g., [8]), is an injective module over itself. Since for -almost all , is injective, therefore we have an extension such that . Clearly . In particular, for -almost all .
Let . Let us verify that is what we need.
So we are done. ∎
Lemma 3.14.
Let be a sequence of finite abelian groups with exponents dividing . Let be automorphisms of for each . Then is an automorphism of for each .
For any and any -invariant homomorphism , we can find a -invariant homomorphism such that for all .
Proof.
Suppose .
For each , let be the subgroup generated by . For simplicity of notation, let . Let be the quotient map.
Then if is -invariant, then . So we have an induced homomorphism . By Lemma 3.13, we can find an element such that for all ,
Let , then as desired. Furthermore, each homomorphism is invariant under . Thus is invariant under . ∎
Now we want to apply the restricted Burnside coproduct on the homomorphisms and for ultrafilters on . Here are the constructions.
For each element , note that each induces a homomorphism . As a result, we make the following definition.
Definition 3.15.
Given , we define its restricted Burnside power to be the homomorphism
This is a homomorphism from to .
Definition 3.16.
For any ultrafilter on the set , we may define
such that for all , we have
The image is well-defined because is a finite group.
Then under these definitions, the properties of homomorphisms from to will carry over to homomorphisms from to . Two particularly notable properties are surjectivity and invariance under a group action.
Proposition 3.17.
Fix a sequence of finite groups of exponents dividing . For any ultrafilter on the set , if is surjective onto , then is also surjective onto .
Proof.
Let be the -th coprojection map. Let be the corresponding -th coprojection map. We claim that .
If the claim is true, then we can pick any that is a pre-image of under the map . Then is the -th generator of . So each generator of is in the image of , hence is surjective.
We now prove our claim. For any homomorphism , by definition of the restricted Burnside coproduct functor, we have .
Taking ultralimit , we have for any .
Note that the right side of the diagram stays unchanged because the groups on the right side are all finite.
So we have the calculation
Here the ultralimit operator and the homomorphism commute because is a homomorphism between finite groups independent of . ∎
Proposition 3.18.
Fix a sequence of finite groups of exponents dividing . Suppose we have a finite group acting on for each . So we have an action of on .
For any -invariant ultrafilter on the set , then both and are -invariant.
Proof.
Suppose is -invariant. For any , let be the subset of -invariant elements of . Then for all . So for each , we have .
Now for each , say and . Then is -invariant for -almost all . But by Proposition 3.8, this means is -invariant for -almost all . So is -invariant.
So is -invariant for all , i.e., for -almost all . So for each , we have .
Since is an arbitrary element of , both and are -invariant. ∎
3.3 Reduction to the cyclic case
Recall that our goal is to realize the restricted Burnside group as a quotient of an ultraproduct of finite perfect groups. In this subsection, we shall use the fact to reduce our goal to this: it is enough to realize the cyclic group as a quotient of an ultraproduct of “nice” finite perfect groups.
In particular, we shall show that it is enough to have the following lemma. We delay its proof to later subsections.
Lemma 3.19.
Pick any non-principal ultrafilter on and any positive integer . Then we can find a sequence of finite groups , each acting on the corresponding finite abelian group whose exponent divides , such that they satisfy the following conditions.
-
1.
is perfect for each .
-
2.
There is a -invariant surjective homomorphism .
Note that the conditions here guarantee the following corollary.
Corollary 3.20.
Any cyclic group can be realized as an abstract quotient of an ultraproduct of finite perfect groups.
Proof.
Pick any non-principal ultrafilter on and any positive integer . Let and and be the sequences of groups and the homomorphism in Proposition 3.19.
Since is -invariant, by Lemma 3.21 below, it has an extension . So is surjective, and as ultraproduct preserves semi-direct product, the domain of is canonically isomorphic to , an ultraproduct of finite perfect groups. ∎
Lemma 3.21.
Suppose we have a group acting on another group , and a -invariant homomorphism to some group . Then there is an extension of .
Proof.
Let . Then since is -invariant, . So the map factors into a quotient map and a map .
For any and , we have and , so is a -invariant normal subgroup of . So is a subgroup of . Furthermore, for any , then in the group we have the following calculation:
Hence we see that is a normal subgroup of . But for each and , then is in the normal closure of . So is in the normal closure of , and hence it is the normal closure of .
Let be the quotient homomorphism from to . Then we have a commutative diagram:
So we have a map extending . ∎
Assuming Lemma 3.19, which builds a homomorphism onto , now we show that it induces a similar construction which shall induce a homomorphism onto .
Lemma 3.22.
Pick any non-principal ultrafilter on and any positive integers . Let and and be the sequences of groups and the homomorphism in Lemma 3.19. Then they satisfy the following conditions:
-
1.
is perfect for each .
-
2.
We can find a -invariant surjective homomorphism from to .
Proof.
By Proposition 3.7, is perfect for each .
Corollary 3.23.
For any positive integer , the restricted Burnside group can be realized as an abstract quotient of an ultraproduct of finite perfect groups.
Proof.
Pick any non-principal ultrafilter on and any positive integer . Let and and be the sequences of groups and the homomorphism in Lemma 3.19.
Let . For any positive integer , by Lemma 3.22, we can then find the -invariant surjective homomorphism . By Lemma 3.21, has an extension .
Note that is perfect for each , so is indeed an abstract quotient of an ultraproduct of finite perfect groups. ∎
Hence Theorem 1.4 is proven.
3.4 Constructing the group
We now move on to the proof of Lemma 3.19, by an explicit construction of the groups and and the homomorphism .
Pick any two distinct prime numbers coprime to , and . For each , the alternating group acts on the -vector space by permuting the factor spaces . Let be the subspace of of tuples with such that . Note that is -invariant.
Proposition 3.24.
is a perfect group with commutator width at most 2.
Proof.
For any , we have for any . Now if , then as well. Hence is an -invariant subspace.
Since and it is a prime, it must be odd. So let be the -cycle in such that for any . Note that the action by induces an automorphism of , and if in , then we must have for all . Since are coprime, implies that for all . So induces an automorphism with only trivial fixed point.
Now the map is a linear automorphism of , and its kernel is exactly the set of fixed points of , which must be trivial. So this map is bijective. So for any , we can find such that . So all elements of are commutators of .
Now for the group , all elements in are commutators since , and all elements in are commutators. Therefore is perfect with commutator width at most 2. ∎
Remark 3.25.
The bound here is tight. Suppose . Let and pick any , and consider . Suppose , then . Then by Lemma 3.26 below.
Now , where is the linear automorphism on induced by . But since both fix the fifth component, and must kill the fifth component. So we must have when has non-zero fifth component.
Lemma 3.26 (Remark Lemma).
If in , then .
Proof.
The proof is basically a direct enumeration of all possible cycle-types of .
Suppose is a -cycle, then this implies that a product of two 5-cycles and is .
Suppose are two 5-cycles such that . Then . By symmetry, WLOG, say . Since and has no fixed point, we see that . We also know that since has no fixed point and since is a 5-cycle. Hence or . By symmetry, WLOG say .
Now , so . But we also have or since is a 5-cycle, and since . This means .
Now since they are already taken by other -values, and implies . So . And finally, this means . So . It is then easy to see that . But now we see that and are NOT conjugate in . However, by definition and are conjugate in , a contradiction. So cannot be a 5-cycle. Similarly, also cannot be a 5-cycle.
Now suppose is a 3-cycle. Then is the product of two 3-cycles. Note that the union of the supports of the two 3-cycles must obviously include . However, if two 3-cycles have only one element in common in their support, then their product is a 5-cycle. So the two 3-cycles must have two elements in common. So they must both have support inside . WLOG suppose the other fixed point of is . Then or . WLOG suppose . Then and . So or . We see that in this case, indeed we have .
Finally, suppose neither nor is a 3-cycle. Then both and must be of cycle type . Then . Suppose , say WLOG . Then since , we see that as well. So and , where . But then is a 3-cycle, a contradiction. So , and therefore as desired. ∎
We shall set . Let and .
Proposition 3.27.
.
Proof.
Note that the ultraproduct of semi-direct products is the semidirect product of ultraproducts. And since is finite, we have a canonical identification . ∎
We now establish some properties of to be used later. Note that has a natural “inner product”. If , let them be for , then we define . Note that this defines a non-degenerate symmetric bilinear form on . This then induces a symmetric bilinear form on such that for .
Proposition 3.28.
for all and .
Proof.
. ∎
Proposition 3.29.
The induced bilinear form on restricts to a symmetric non-degenerate bilinear form on .
Proof.
We only needs to verify that it is non-degenerate. Suppose for some , for all . Then if for , pick any , then implies that for all . Since is non-degenerate on , we have . Similarly we have for all . But since , we have , so . Finally, since are coprime, we have for all . So . ∎
Lemma 3.30.
The symmetric non-degenerate bilinear forms on induce a symmetric non-degenerate bilinear form on the ultraproduct .
Proof.
Taking the ultralimit of , we obtain a symmetric bilinear map . Let us verify that it is indeed non-degenerate.
Suppose is non-zero in . Then for -almost all . For each , since is non-degenerate, we can find such that . If , we pick arbitrarily. So for -almost all by construction.
Then since our bilinear form takes value in a finite set , we have . So is indeed non-degenerate. ∎
We now study subspaces of with finite codimension, which would be useful later. We first make a definition of a “closed” subspace.
Definition 3.31.
Given a vector space with a symmetric non-degenerate bilinear form, we say are perpendicular if .
We define the orthogonal complement of a subset to be the set , i.e., the subspace of elements perpendicular to all elements of .
We say a subspace of is closed if for some subset .
Lemma 3.32.
If for two subsets in a vector space with a symmetric non-degenerate bilinear form, then and .
Proof.
If , then is perpendicular to all elements of , which includes all elements of . Hence .
If , then it is by definition perpendicular to all elements of , so . ∎
Lemma 3.33.
Given a vector space with a symmetric non-degenerate bilinear form, then we have the following results.
-
1.
A subspace is closed if and only if .
-
2.
If is a closed subspace with finite codimension , then has dimension .
-
3.
Finite dimensional subspaces are closed.
Proof.
Suppose , then , and hence . On the other hand, . So we see .
Now suppose is a subspace with finite codimension . Pick linearly independent vectors such that span . Then since the bilinear form is non-degenerate, must be the trivial.
Since each is non-zero and the bilinear form is non-degenerate, the map is a surjective linear map from to with kernel , so is a closed subspace of codimension .
Since are linearly independent, the subspaces intersect each other transversally. Since has dimension zero, has dimension .
Finally, suppose is finite dimensional. Say it has a basis . Then , so it is a closed subspace of codimension . So . Since we also have and , we conclude that , i.e., it is a closed subspace. ∎
We now go back to our discussion of the group where .
Proposition 3.34.
If is a closed -invariant subspace of of codimension , then for -almost all , we can find closed -invariant subspace of of codimension such that .
Proof.
By Lemma 3.33, is -dimensional. Let be a basis for , say . Let be the orthogonal complement of . Since are linearly independent, and there are only finitely many possible linear combinations among vectors, we see that are linearly independent for -almost all . So has codimension .
Let us show that is exactly the orthogonal complement of .
Fix . For each , then since for all , we see that . So .
Conversely, suppose is orthogonal to all . Then for all . Since there are only finitely many possible , therefore for -almost all , for all , and hence . So .
In conclusion, we have seen that .
Now we need to show that is -invariant for -almost all . Suppose for contradiction that this is not the case. Then for -almost all , is NOT -invariant, and we can find such that for some . So but .
However, since is a finite set, let . Then , a contradiction. So for -almost all , must be an -invariant subspace. ∎
Proposition 3.35.
Suppose is a closed subspace of with finite codimension. Then we can find a closed -invariant subspace with finite codimension in .
Proof.
Let be a basis for . Then the orbit for each under the action has at most elements. So the union of all these orbits has at most elements, and they span a finite dimensional -invariant subspace containing . So is an -invariant closed subspace.
Note that is finite dimensional, so by Lemma 3.33, it must be a closed subspace. So has codimension , which is at most . ∎
Finally, here is a lemma we need for future use.
Lemma 3.36.
If is a subspace of codimension , and . Then we can find such that its orbit in under the action has exactly elements.
Proof.
Since is finite dimensional, all subspaces are closed. Let be the orthogonal complement of . Let , where and for each .
Now consider the span of these in . Since for each , this subspace has dimension at most . Let be the orthogonal complment of this subspace in . Since , is non-trivial. Pick any non-zero . Consider . Since for all , we see that for all . Hence .
Now acts on by permuting the components. Since are coprime, we must have . Hence has exactly elements. ∎
3.5 Constructing the -modules and an action by
We now move on to the construction of in Lemma 3.19. Note that the category of finite abelian groups whose exponent divides is the same as the category of finite -modules. So we construct as -modules. We use the same , and as in the last section.
Consider the free -module . Let be the submodule of of tuples with such that . Consider the module automorphism such that .
Proposition 3.37.
is a free module, and only has the trivial fixed-point and has order .
Proof.
Obviously the identity automorphism, and if for an element , then we see that all are the same. But since and are coprime, we see that for all . Hence only has the trivial fixed-point.
Let us now show that is a free module. Set , and set for each . We claim that form a basis.
For any , then since , we have
So are spanning.
Now suppose . Then since the first component of is zero, and only contributes to this component, we see that . Moving on inductively, we see that for all , and hence are linearly independent. ∎
Corollary 3.38.
is also an automorphism of , where is the identity automorphism of .
Let , the -module of all set-functions from to . Then clearly is a free module.
We let act on such that for each . This is well defined because and has order .
We also let act on such that for each .
Proposition 3.39.
We have a group action of on induced from the group actions of and on .
Proof.
So the group action is well-defined. ∎
3.6 is perfect
We not only want this to be perfect, but we also want to have increasing commutator width. Otherwise, will also have bounded commutator length and become a perfect group, in which case any would be trivial.
Proposition 3.40.
The group is perfect.
Proof.
We already know that is perfect. So we just need to show that is also in the commutator subgroup of . We are going to show that .
Pick any and any , and let be the function such that and for all . Note that such elements generate . So we only need to show that for all and all are in .
Pick any such that is NOT perpendicular to , say . Then for any , we have
And we also have
Here is the identity automorphism on . So .
Since is also an automorphism, we see that for any , we can find such that , so
So we are done. ∎
We make the following useful definition.
Definition 3.41.
For each , we define the null set for as
We include zero for convenience. Under certain conditions, we want to be some subspace of .
Lemma 3.42.
For any and , we have
And for each -orbit of , we have
Proof.
If , then
Finally, for each -orbit of ,
∎
Proposition 3.43.
has a commutator width of at least .
Proof.
We know that . We first investigate the diameter of with respect to the generators for .
Fix a positive integer . Suppose has for some , and .
Let be an -invariant subspace of orthogonal to all . Thus by Proposition 3.35, it has codimension at most . If , then is not trivial. Furthermore, since is -invariant, is a collection of -orbits.
By Lemma 3.42, we have
Now for each , we have . Hence .
Furthermore, for each -orbit of , we have .
Therefore, for each -orbit inside of , we have
So together, we see that .
In particular, let us pick any such that for each -orbit of . Then implies that the corresponding must be trivial. In particular, we must have .
So the collection of for generates with a diameter of at least . Thus the commutator width of our group is at least by Lemma 3.44 below. ∎
Lemma 3.44.
Let be an abelian group, and suppose we have a group acting on . If the group has commutator width at most , then the elements for all generate with a diameter of at most .
Proof.
We write the group operation on multiplicatively for the sake of this argument. Suppose has commutator width at most .
Then pick any , it must be the product of commutators, say
Then by taking all the to the right, for some in , we have
For the two sides to be equal, we must have
By replacing by , and replacing by , we have
Note that is abelian. Then
In particular, since is artibrary, must be generated by elements for all with a diameter of at most . ∎
In particular, as increases, we see that the commutator width of is unbounded as desired.
3.7 Ultraproducts of and
Let , , and let . We shall establish some properties of them to be used later.
Note that each is the collection of set functions from to . Hence given a sequence , their ultralimit is a set function from to . So is canonically a submodule of .
Remark 3.45.
We do NOT have . Note that all are finite, so the cardinality of their ultraproduct by a non-principal ultrafilter is that of the continuum. Similarly, note that all are also finite, so the cardinality of is also that of the continuum. Then will have cardinality strictly larger than that of the continuum. In particular, .
This means we can treat each as a set-function from to . So we can make the following definition.
Definition 3.46.
For each , we define its null set as
Lemma 3.47.
If , then
Proof.
Note that for each , then if and only if
But note that implies that , so we have
So we have
Since this is true for all , we have
The other direction is obvious. ∎
Proposition 3.48.
For any and , then
Proof.
Proposition 3.49.
For any and and , then
Proof.
Say , and . Then
But since we have
So their intersection is still in , so we have
∎
Now we define the “support for ” as the dual concept of “null set for ”.
Definition 3.50.
For each , we say a subset of is a supporting set for if for all such that , we have . Define to be the intersection of all supporting sets for .
Proposition 3.51.
is also a supporting set for all .
Proof.
First, the whole space is a supporting set for .
For any two supporting sets for , say , suppose for some .
Let be the function that agrees with on , but sends all other inputs to zero. Then and hence .
Now we have
Therefore we have
But we also see that
So we can conclude that and hence .
Combining results above, we have
So finite intersections of supporting sets are supporting sets.
Finally, since is finite, therefore is a finite intersection of supporting sets for , so it is a supporting set for . ∎
Proposition 3.52.
For any , then if and only if there exists such that the followings are true
Proof.
Suppose . Then is NOT a supporting set for . So there exists such that we have the following
In particular, implies that . Therefore , and we must in fact have as desired.
Conversely, suppose . Then for all with , we have
And thus
∎
Now consider . We make the following definition.
Definition 3.53.
We say a subset of is a supporting set for if whenever . Define to be the intersection of all supporting sets for .
Proposition 3.54.
If , then is a supporting set for and is equal to .
Proof.
For , suppose
.
Then by Proposition 3.47, we have
Then for -almost all , we have
Thus for -almost all . So .
So the set is a supporting set for .
Conversely, for each , then there exists such that
Then for and , we have
So NO subsets of can be a supporting set for . Hence any supporting set for must contain .
Since we started with arbitrary , the statement above is true for arbitrary . As a result, is the unique smallest supporting set for . ∎
3.8 The existence of and
We now construct the homomorphism by picking the right ultrafilter on , and set to be the -consensus homomorphism . To facilitate computations, we shall first pick out bases for all the free -modules involved.
For , set , and set for each . Then we know that form a basis. We fix this basis for for this section.
For each and each integer , let be the function that sends to and all other inputs to zero.
Proposition 3.55.
The elements for each and each integer form a basis for .
Proof.
Straightforward verification. ∎
We shall use the basis as a standard basis for . For each , let such that is sent to , and all other standard basis elements for are sent to zero.
Lemma 3.56.
for all , , and .
Proof.
Note that by definition. So the -component of is the same as the -component of . So . ∎
Proposition 3.57.
For any , we have
-
1.
.
-
2.
.
-
3.
For any homomorphism , then if and only if for some .
Proof.
We have by definition.
For the second statement, note that , so . And for any with , then all -components of are zero. So . So is the smallest supporting set for .
For the last statement, if for some , note that the null set for is . Then all subsets of cannot be a supporting set for . So we must have .
Conversely, if , then by Proposition 3.52, for some with , we have . But the identity implies that must be a linear combination of , and thus for some . ∎
Now we start to build the homomorphism . We want to guarantee that is surjective, so it must some specific element of to the generator of .
We define to be the element in such that
We then take an ultralimit and set
Our goal is to construct such that it sends to , and it is -invariant. Let us now reduce this to the task of finding a nice ultrafilter on .
For any closed subspace , let be the collection of all such that .
Let be the collection of all such that , and for all and .
Proposition 3.58.
Suppose is an ultrafilter on such that for all closed subspace of finite codimension in , and . Then is -invariant and is surjective and -invariant.
Proof.
Note that for all , . Since , we conclude that . So the image of contains a generator of , and thus is surjective.
For any , say . Let be the set of all -invariant elements . Let us show that .
Set , and consider any . Then since is in , it is -invariant.
Since is in , for any , we have
Thus we have
Therefore . Hence is -invariant.
In conclusion, is both -invariant and -invariant, therefore it is -invariant. So . But since , therefore we see that .
So is -invariant, and consequently, is also -invariant. ∎
In particular, the proof of Lemma 3.19 depends entirely on the existence of an ultrafilter containing and for all closed subspace of finite codimension in . So we need to show that and these have the finite intersection property.
Lemma 3.59.
Let be an -invariant subspace of of codimension , such that . Then there exists such that for all and , we have
Proof.
Since , by Lemma 3.36, we can find whose -orbit has exactly elements. Let .
Since is -invariant, we have , and thus
Finally, note that for all . So we have
But note that are coprime, so is invertible in . So by replacing with a suitable multiple, we can guarantee that . ∎
Proposition 3.60.
For any closed subspace of finite codimension in , then is non-empty.
Proof.
Note that if is closed in with finite codimension, then by Proposition 3.35, we can find which is closed, -invariant, and has finite codimension in . We also necessarily have . So, replacing by the smaller subspace , we can assume that is also -invariant.
By Proposition 3.34, since is -invariant and closed with finite codimension in , therefore where each is -invariant and closed with bounded codimension in for all . Say the codimension are all at most . Then for all , we can find such that for all and , we have
Then since is not principal, we only need to consider the cases where as above. So this defines such that for all and ,
So . So we are done. ∎
Proposition 3.61.
There is an ultrafilter on such that for all closed subspace of finite codimension in , and .
Proof.
We only need to show that these subsets of have finite intersection property. Pick closed subspaces of finite codimension in , we want to show that is non-empty.
Let . This is a finite intersection of closed subspaces of finite codimensions, so it is itself closed with finite codimension.
Note that
if and only if | |||
if and only if |
So we have .
So we only need to show that is non-empty. But since is closed with finite codimension, this is non-empty by Proposition 3.60. So we have the desired finite intersection property, and the desired ultrafilter exists. ∎
We now finish the proof of Lemma 3.19.
References
- Asc [00] Michael Aschbacher. Finite group theory, volume 10. Cambridge University Press, 2000.
- BN [11] George M Bergman and Nazih Nahlus. Homomorphisms on infinite direct product algebras, especially lie algebras. Journal of Algebra, 333(1):67–104, 2011.
- CLP [15] Valerio Capraro, Martino Lupini, and Vladimir Pestov. Introduction to sofic and hyperlinear groups and Connes’ embedding conjecture, volume 1. Springer, 2015.
- ES [04] Gábor Elek and Endre Szabó. Sofic groups and direct finiteness. J. Algebra, 280(2):426–434, 2004.
- HP [89] Derek F Holt and W Plesken. Perfect groups. Oxford, 1989.
- HR [17] Derek Holt and Sarah Rees. Some closure results for -approximable groups. Pacific Journal of Mathematics, 287(2):393–409, 2017.
- Kul [45] L Ya Kulikov. On the theory of abelian groups of arbitrary cardinality. Mat. Sb, 16(2):129–162, 1945.
- Lam [12] Tsit-Yuen Lam. Lectures on modules and rings, volume 189. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
- MR [19] Peter Mayr and Nik Ruškuc. Generating subdirect products. Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 100(2):404–424, 2019.
- Nik [04] Nikolay Nikolov. On the commutator width of perfect groups. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, 36(1):30–36, 2004.
- NST [18] Nikolay Nikolov, Jakob Schneider, and Andreas Thom. Some remarks on finitarily approximable groups. Journal de l’École polytechnique-Mathématiques, 5:239–258, 2018.
- RZ [00] Luis Ribes and Pavel Zalesskii. Profinite groups. In Profinite Groups, pages 19–77. Springer, 2000.
- SB [81] Hanamantagouda P Sankappanavar and Stanley Burris. A course in universal algebra, volume 78. Citeseer, 1981.
- Tho [12] Andreas Thom. About the metric approximation of Higman’s group. 2012.
- Yan [16] Yilong Yang. Ultraproducts of quasirandom groups with small cosocles. Journal of Group Theory, 19(6):1137–1164, 2016.
- Zel [90] Efim Isaakovich Zel’manov. Solution of the restricted Burnside problem for groups of odd exponent. Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk. Seriya Matematicheskaya, 54(1):42–59, 1990.
- Zel [91] Efim Isaakovich Zel’manov. A solution of the restricted Burnside problem for 2-groups. Matematicheskii Sbornik, 182(4):568–592, 1991.
- Zil [14] Boris Zilber. Perfect infinities and finite approximation. In Infinity and truth, pages 199–223. World Scientific, 2014.