Clarification needed for notation used in Robinson Abstract algebra text's on External direct product of infinitely many groups.

75 Views Asked by At

The following is taken from Derek Robinson's abstract algebra text

Let $\{G_\lambda, \lambda\in \wedge \}$ be a set of groups a restricted choice function for the set is a mapping $f:\wedge \rightarrow \cup_{\lambda \in \wedge} G_\lambda$ such that $f(\lambda)\in G_\lambda$ and $f(\mu)=1_{G_\mu}$ for all but a finite number of $\mu.$ Let $G$ be the set of all restricted choice functions and define a binary operation on $G$ by $fg(\lambda)=f(\lambda)g(\lambda).$ Then $G$ is called the restricted external direct product $\text{Dr}_{\lambda\in \wedge}G_\lambda$ of the groups $G_\lambda.$

i) For $\lambda\in \wedge$ define $f_\lambda:G_\lambda \rightarrow G$ as follows: if $x\in G_\lambda,$ then $f_\lambda(x)$ sends $\lambda$ to $x$ and $\mu$ to $1_{G_\lambda}$ for $\mu \neq \lambda.$ Prove that $\bar{G_\lambda}=\{f_\lambda(x)\mid x\in G_\lambda\}$ is a normal subgroup of $G$ and that $\bar{G_\lambda}=G_\lambda.$

Question: I don't understand the notation for $f_\lambda(x),$ it states $f_\lambda$ sends "$\lambda$ to $x$ and $\mu$ to $1_{G_\lambda}$ for $\mu \neq \lambda.$". Does it mean the following: $f_\lambda(x)=x$ if $\mu=\lambda$ and $f_\lambda(x)=1_{G_\mu}$ if $\mu\neq\lambda$? Basically if $x\in G_\lambda$, then does $x$ take the form: $x=(x_1,x_2,\ldots, x_\mu, x_\lambda, x_\lambda,\ldots)=(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_\mu,1,1,\ldots).$

Thank you in advance

1

There are 1 best solutions below

2
On BEST ANSWER

You have misunderstood the notation. $f_\lambda(x)$ is an element of $G$, so $f_\lambda(x)$ is a restricted choice function; that is, $f_\lambda(x)$ is itself a function from $\Lambda$ to $\cup_{\lambda \in \Lambda}G_\lambda$.

So $f_\lambda(x)$ is defined by its action on $\Lambda$ which is $f_\lambda(x)(\lambda) = x$ and $f_\lambda(x)(\mu) = 1_{G_\mu}$ for $\mu \ne \lambda$.

So intuitively you could think of the element $f_\lambda(x)$ of $G$ as $(\ldots,1,1,1,x,1,1,1,\ldots)$ with the $x$ being in position $\lambda$ (but that is not intended to imply that $\Lambda$ is countable).

Note that it should be $\bar{G}_\lambda \cong G_\lambda$ rather than $\bar{G}_\lambda = G_\lambda$