Are we allowed to interchange product and inverse limits?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Currently, I am trying to show that the profinite completion $hatmathbbZ$ of $mathbbZ$ is isomorphic to $prod_p mathbbZ_p$ (as topological groups) where $p$ runs through all prime numbers and $mathbbZ_p$ denotes the ring of $p$-adic integers.
By definition, we know that $hatmathbbZ$ is the inverse limit of $mathbbZ/nmathbbZ$ and $mathbbZ_p$ is the inverse limit of $mathbbZ/p^nmathbbZ$. Furthermore, the Chinese Remainder Theorem tells us that if $n = prod_p p^e_p(n)$ denotes the prime factorization of $n$, then we have $$ mathbbZ/nmathbbZ simeq prod_p mathbbZ/p^e_p(n) mathbbZ.$$
So I would like to show that
$$
hatmathbbZ = varprojlim_n mathbbZ/nmathbbZ simeq varprojlim_n prod_p mathbbZ/p^e_p(n) mathbbZ = prod_p varprojlim_n mathbbZ/p^e_p(n) mathbbZ = prod_p varprojlim_n mathbbZ/p^n mathbbZ = prod_p mathbbZ_p,
$$
but I am not sure about these steps, especially with the third and fourth step. Could you please give me an easy explanation whether this works or not? Thank you!
abstract-algebra algebraic-number-theory p-adic-number-theory chinese-remainder-theorem profinite-groups
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Currently, I am trying to show that the profinite completion $hatmathbbZ$ of $mathbbZ$ is isomorphic to $prod_p mathbbZ_p$ (as topological groups) where $p$ runs through all prime numbers and $mathbbZ_p$ denotes the ring of $p$-adic integers.
By definition, we know that $hatmathbbZ$ is the inverse limit of $mathbbZ/nmathbbZ$ and $mathbbZ_p$ is the inverse limit of $mathbbZ/p^nmathbbZ$. Furthermore, the Chinese Remainder Theorem tells us that if $n = prod_p p^e_p(n)$ denotes the prime factorization of $n$, then we have $$ mathbbZ/nmathbbZ simeq prod_p mathbbZ/p^e_p(n) mathbbZ.$$
So I would like to show that
$$
hatmathbbZ = varprojlim_n mathbbZ/nmathbbZ simeq varprojlim_n prod_p mathbbZ/p^e_p(n) mathbbZ = prod_p varprojlim_n mathbbZ/p^e_p(n) mathbbZ = prod_p varprojlim_n mathbbZ/p^n mathbbZ = prod_p mathbbZ_p,
$$
but I am not sure about these steps, especially with the third and fourth step. Could you please give me an easy explanation whether this works or not? Thank you!
abstract-algebra algebraic-number-theory p-adic-number-theory chinese-remainder-theorem profinite-groups
2
Yes, you can. A product is a particular case of an inverse limit and you can interchange inverse limits.
â d.t.
Aug 24 at 9:46
More generally you can interchange any two limits (in the categorical sense; in particular "direct limits" are not limits)
â Max
Aug 24 at 9:51
1
Okay, that is good to know! Could you maybe explain the second last step as well? I do not really see why this is true.
â Diglett
Aug 24 at 9:55
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
Currently, I am trying to show that the profinite completion $hatmathbbZ$ of $mathbbZ$ is isomorphic to $prod_p mathbbZ_p$ (as topological groups) where $p$ runs through all prime numbers and $mathbbZ_p$ denotes the ring of $p$-adic integers.
By definition, we know that $hatmathbbZ$ is the inverse limit of $mathbbZ/nmathbbZ$ and $mathbbZ_p$ is the inverse limit of $mathbbZ/p^nmathbbZ$. Furthermore, the Chinese Remainder Theorem tells us that if $n = prod_p p^e_p(n)$ denotes the prime factorization of $n$, then we have $$ mathbbZ/nmathbbZ simeq prod_p mathbbZ/p^e_p(n) mathbbZ.$$
So I would like to show that
$$
hatmathbbZ = varprojlim_n mathbbZ/nmathbbZ simeq varprojlim_n prod_p mathbbZ/p^e_p(n) mathbbZ = prod_p varprojlim_n mathbbZ/p^e_p(n) mathbbZ = prod_p varprojlim_n mathbbZ/p^n mathbbZ = prod_p mathbbZ_p,
$$
but I am not sure about these steps, especially with the third and fourth step. Could you please give me an easy explanation whether this works or not? Thank you!
abstract-algebra algebraic-number-theory p-adic-number-theory chinese-remainder-theorem profinite-groups
Currently, I am trying to show that the profinite completion $hatmathbbZ$ of $mathbbZ$ is isomorphic to $prod_p mathbbZ_p$ (as topological groups) where $p$ runs through all prime numbers and $mathbbZ_p$ denotes the ring of $p$-adic integers.
By definition, we know that $hatmathbbZ$ is the inverse limit of $mathbbZ/nmathbbZ$ and $mathbbZ_p$ is the inverse limit of $mathbbZ/p^nmathbbZ$. Furthermore, the Chinese Remainder Theorem tells us that if $n = prod_p p^e_p(n)$ denotes the prime factorization of $n$, then we have $$ mathbbZ/nmathbbZ simeq prod_p mathbbZ/p^e_p(n) mathbbZ.$$
So I would like to show that
$$
hatmathbbZ = varprojlim_n mathbbZ/nmathbbZ simeq varprojlim_n prod_p mathbbZ/p^e_p(n) mathbbZ = prod_p varprojlim_n mathbbZ/p^e_p(n) mathbbZ = prod_p varprojlim_n mathbbZ/p^n mathbbZ = prod_p mathbbZ_p,
$$
but I am not sure about these steps, especially with the third and fourth step. Could you please give me an easy explanation whether this works or not? Thank you!
abstract-algebra algebraic-number-theory p-adic-number-theory chinese-remainder-theorem profinite-groups
asked Aug 24 at 9:36
Diglett
579311
579311
2
Yes, you can. A product is a particular case of an inverse limit and you can interchange inverse limits.
â d.t.
Aug 24 at 9:46
More generally you can interchange any two limits (in the categorical sense; in particular "direct limits" are not limits)
â Max
Aug 24 at 9:51
1
Okay, that is good to know! Could you maybe explain the second last step as well? I do not really see why this is true.
â Diglett
Aug 24 at 9:55
add a comment |Â
2
Yes, you can. A product is a particular case of an inverse limit and you can interchange inverse limits.
â d.t.
Aug 24 at 9:46
More generally you can interchange any two limits (in the categorical sense; in particular "direct limits" are not limits)
â Max
Aug 24 at 9:51
1
Okay, that is good to know! Could you maybe explain the second last step as well? I do not really see why this is true.
â Diglett
Aug 24 at 9:55
2
2
Yes, you can. A product is a particular case of an inverse limit and you can interchange inverse limits.
â d.t.
Aug 24 at 9:46
Yes, you can. A product is a particular case of an inverse limit and you can interchange inverse limits.
â d.t.
Aug 24 at 9:46
More generally you can interchange any two limits (in the categorical sense; in particular "direct limits" are not limits)
â Max
Aug 24 at 9:51
More generally you can interchange any two limits (in the categorical sense; in particular "direct limits" are not limits)
â Max
Aug 24 at 9:51
1
1
Okay, that is good to know! Could you maybe explain the second last step as well? I do not really see why this is true.
â Diglett
Aug 24 at 9:55
Okay, that is good to know! Could you maybe explain the second last step as well? I do not really see why this is true.
â Diglett
Aug 24 at 9:55
add a comment |Â
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2892937%2fare-we-allowed-to-interchange-product-and-inverse-limits%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
2
Yes, you can. A product is a particular case of an inverse limit and you can interchange inverse limits.
â d.t.
Aug 24 at 9:46
More generally you can interchange any two limits (in the categorical sense; in particular "direct limits" are not limits)
â Max
Aug 24 at 9:51
1
Okay, that is good to know! Could you maybe explain the second last step as well? I do not really see why this is true.
â Diglett
Aug 24 at 9:55