Skip Navigation

Corrigendum for Sands, Bull. London Math. Soc. 32 (3) 297-304.
Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society 2005 37(1):80; doi:10.1112/S0024609304003686
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sands, A. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© London Mathematical Society

Replacement of Factors by Subgroups in the Factorization of Abelian Groups

A. D. Sands

Department of Mathematics, Dundee University Dundee, DD1 4HN, United Kingdom

Received 21 January 2004.

Abstract

The above-titled paper of mine appeared in the Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society, 32 (2000) 297–304. Regrettably, there is a careless error in the proofs of Theorems 6 and 8. In line 6 of the proof of Theorem 6, it is claimed that a certain subset must be a subgroup. For this to hold, the subset must contain the zero element. This need not be the case; the true deduction is that the subset is a coset, say M + h, of a subgroup M. Now M and M + h contain the same number of elements, and so the deduction that M has p elements is still correct.

Similarly, in the proof of Theorem 8, the subgroup Mk must be replaced by a coset Mk + hk. This is the only change needed in this proof, since the sum Mk+hk+(nB{cap}H) being direct implies that the sum Mk+(nB{cap}H) is also direct. Since the zero element does belong to the sets (mA{cap}H) and (nB{cap}H), the statements about these sets are correct. So the second paragraph of the Proof of Theorem 8 is correct, and is also a proof of Theorem 6.

Now we present an example that, we hope, will clarify the situation, as well as showing that certain statements in the original ‘Proof’ of Theorem 6 not only could be wrong but actually are wrong. The smallest numerical example occurs with p = 2, m = 3, n = 5. Then G is a cyclic group of order 60, and may be represented as the integers modulo 60.

Let A = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4} + {0, 15} and B = {0, 5, 10} + {0, 30}. It is easily verified that A + B = {0, 1,..., 59}. In the notation of Theorem 6, we see that H = {0, 15, 30, 45}, K = {0, 12, 24, 36, 48}, L = {0, 20, 40}, and M = {0, 30}. Now we see that mA = {0, 3, 6, 9, 12} + {0, 45} != M + K, and that nB = {0, 25, 50} + {0, 30} != M + L. We note, however, that A is a complete set of residues modulo 10; that is, that B can be replaced by M + L.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.