8

If $G$ is a compact topological group, how to show that a finite index subgroup of $G$ is open ? I really don't know where/how to start...

PS : I precise that by "compact" I mean that it is hausdorff and that any recovering of $G$ by open sets has a finite sub-recovering (sorry if I wasn't unclear)

AynRand
  • 91

3 Answers3

7

This is false, so don't feel bad you cannot prove it.

One of the standard non-finite counterexamples is below, it's mostly to illustrate that the problem is more systematic than just the trivial, finite ones. In particular, it starts with a Hausdorff group rather than what some might consider cheating by endowing the original group with a non-Hausdorff topology. From this it constructs a non-closed--but still finite-index--subgroup, so that the quotient space has a non-Hausdorff topology (which is equivalent to the original subgroup being non-closed).

Consider the finite group $A=\Bbb Z/2\Bbb Z$, endowed with the discrete topology. (Note that there are four topologies on a $A$, and that only two of them (the discrete one and the coarsest one) are turning it into a topological group, and only one of them (the discrete one) turns it into a compact topological group.)

Construct the group

$$G=A^\Bbb Z=\prod_{n\in\Bbb Z} A$$

This is compact by Tychonoff's theorem, and manifestly a group. Now from here we let $\tau$ be the topology generated by an ultrafilter, $\mathcal{F}$, containing the Fréchet filter. Let $H\le G$ be defined by the fact that Let $\pi_n(g)=g_n$ be the $n^{th}$ coordinate map, and

$$h\in H\iff |\{n\in\Bbb Z : \pi_n(h)=1\}|\in\{0,\infty\}.$$

$H$ is also dense in $G$ because the Fréchet filter is cofinite in the powerset of $\Bbb Z$, but clearly also $H\ne G$. Then distinguish two special elements, $\mathbf{0},\mathbf{1}\in G$, defined by the rules

$$\begin{cases}\pi_n(\mathbf{0}) =0 & n\in\Bbb Z \\ \pi_n(\mathbf{1})=1 & n\in\Bbb Z\end{cases}$$

Now let $g\in G$ be arbitrary and define sets $S_0, S_1$ by the rule

$$S_i = \{n\in\Bbb Z : g_i=n\}$$

So that $\Bbb Z=S_0\coprod S_1$ since $g_i\in\{0,1\}$. Then we see one of the $S_i\in\mathcal{F}$ by maximality. So $g\equiv x\mod H$ for some $x\in\{\mathbf{0},\mathbf{1}\}$, i.e. $[G:H]\le 2$. Since $H\ne G$, clearly $[G:H]=2$, but $H$ is dense, hence cannot be closed, and since closed + finite index = open, it must be that $H$ is not open, despite being finite index.

The key problem: we chose a non-Hausdorff topology on the quotient, $G/H$, i.e. we took only the trivial topology $\tau=\{\varnothing, G/H\}$. It is classical that $G/H$ Hausdorff iff $H$ is closed (provided $G$ is Hausdorff), so this was the natural approach to producing a non-closed subgroup of finite index. The algebra still allows two cosets, but the topology doesn't allow you to force them apart.


Edit: An even easier counterexample is just $G=\Bbb Z/2\Bbb Z$ with the trivial topology. Then $\{e\}\le G$ is not open, but clearly has finite index.


Edit 2: Since the op is using the convention that "compact" means "Hausdorff + finite subcovers" I moved the first edit to the bottom.

Adam Hughes
  • 36,777
  • Finite set are always quasi-compact, this is trivial. But finite set can be non Hausdorff, and therefore also non compact. Typically, on a two elements set $X={a,b}$, put the unique topology defined by $\overline{{a}} = X$ and $\overline{{b}} = {b}$. Any open set contains $a$, so the topology is not Hausdorf. – Olórin Feb 01 '15 at 00:48
  • @RobertGreen I think you fall on the side of people who insist compact entails being Hausdorff, which is not the commonly adopted point of view in topological groups. (I don't know how common it is in general either, but we'll leave that aside). The example above is one of the standard counter-examples in the area for finding non-open finite index subgroups (well, standard for non-finite counter examples). I think that explains our difference in opinion. – Adam Hughes Feb 01 '15 at 00:52
  • @AdamHugues Did not know that there were areas in mathematics where by compact something else than quasi-compact and Hausdorff is meant. Especially in the area of topological groups... – Olórin Feb 01 '15 at 01:00
  • 1
    @RobertGreen Yes, I suspected that might be it. I think that--like those who choose to assume all rings have a $1$--they feel that somehow the only things that make sense are Hausdorff spaces, and so they define the term "quasi-compact" (which is almost universally what most people refer to as "compact," i.e. the finite subcovering) and add the requirement that the space be Hausdorff to merit the adjective "compact." – Adam Hughes Feb 01 '15 at 01:02
  • @AdamHugues 1) Haussdorf = separated (diagonal is closed) 2) Compact = separated/hausdorff + quasi-compact (is open cover has a finite subcover.) These are the definitions. After that, people are free, they can choose to say that a ring as always a unit and that quasi-compact is the same as compact, but they'll be wrong if they do not precise their abuses of language. If they do no precise it, it's not my job to do it instead of them. ;-) Actually in my "world", the $X$ I gave as example above is called a trait, a.k.a spectrum of a dvr. – Olórin Feb 01 '15 at 01:12
  • 1
    @RobertGreen I think you should read some more books on topology: most topologists I know agree the definition of the term "compact" agrees with solely the finite subcover. If you read papers or textbooks in the area, you will frequently see the hypotheses "Let $X$ be a compact, Hausdorff space [...]" et cetera. Wikipedia, the flagship for what the most commonly accepted definitions of mathematical objects are also agrees: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_space#Open_cover_definition

    and even remarks that the Bourbaki convention is newer and more limited in use.

    – Adam Hughes Feb 01 '15 at 01:14
  • @RobertGreen Additionally, I'm looking back and I think I'm confused at your original objection: In my larger example, the original space is Hausdorff, and only the quotient is not, so I haven't even violated the definition you use for compact. Perhaps you mean that the quotient ought to be Hausdorff, but that seems to be the entire point of the exercise is to prove it's closed since $G/H$ Hausdorff iff $H$ is closed. Would you clarify? – Adam Hughes Feb 01 '15 at 01:24
  • @AdamHugues I think that you could maybe read some more books in topology, but different from the ones you read. On the compact vs quasi-compact, I would say that historically the topological word "compact" emerged in the context of $\mathbf{R}$, which is Hausdorff (the notion "Hausforff" dit not yet exist though), and therefore the definition of "compact" needed only the axiom about covers. After that appeared non-Hausdorfness, so that we slowy switched to the new definition of compact, which is now the prevalent one. But end of the story on my side about that, it's off-topic. – Olórin Feb 01 '15 at 01:29
  • @AdamHugues In your original answer wrote "This is compact by Tychonoff's theorem, no matter the topology on $A$ (finite sets are always compact)", which you maybe now edited/erased I don't know, but my objection was ONLY about the fact that finite sets are not always compact, as they are not always separated, as compact = bla bla bla ;-) – Olórin Feb 01 '15 at 01:33
  • @RobertGreen ah, that makes more sense, I thought it was referencing the quotient.

    RE: the rest

    I agree, it may be that quasi-compact is more common than I am aware. I personally have only ever seen it in algebraic geometry, and it's not just books where I've seen the usage of compact I have--all of my topologist friends I can think of use "compact" in the same way, so at the very least it's not standardized with the included Hausdorff definition. (continued)

    – Adam Hughes Feb 01 '15 at 01:34
  • 1
    @RobertGreen As for the historical development, as I recall we transitioned from "sequentially compact" to the open covers definition when we started modern topology, and Hausdorff was discovered (1914) long before Bourbaki introduced the other term with the quasi-adjective in the 30s. – Adam Hughes Feb 01 '15 at 01:35
  • @AdamHugues By the way, you have four topologies on $\mathbf{F}_2$, only two of them do turn it into a topological group, on the one I gave on my $X$ does not. ;-) And only one (the discrete one) is turning it into a compact topological group. – Olórin Feb 01 '15 at 01:40
  • @RobertGreen Oh I should be more specific on that, you're right. Thanks! – Adam Hughes Feb 01 '15 at 01:41
  • @AdamHugues already edited your answer ;-) – Olórin Feb 01 '15 at 01:42
  • @RobertGreen perfect, thanks! – Adam Hughes Feb 01 '15 at 01:42
  • @RobertGreen oops, I was trying to view the second edit to see what happened and rolled it back by mistake. If you had something else you'll need to re add it (my bad) – Adam Hughes Feb 01 '15 at 01:44
  • @AdamHugues Nothing else, I added the two-element set topologies sorite. Oh, except maybe that Frechét, would he be still alive, would for sure prefer to be called Fréchet. ;-) – Olórin Feb 01 '15 at 01:48
  • @RobertGreen Haha, I'll fix that, you're right. – Adam Hughes Feb 01 '15 at 01:49
  • 1
    History of compactness. In my own experience, compactness assumes separation only in some contexts. The two teachers that first taught me analysis were mainly historians of mathematics. I remember they saying that the closer you get to analysis the more people assume Hausdorff (explicitly or implicitly) in compactness. You know, to have unique limits. The closer you get to topology that stops being the case. – Pp.. Feb 01 '15 at 05:07
  • @Pp.. Fantastic read, thanks for adding it to the discussion! – Adam Hughes Feb 01 '15 at 05:10
4

As I gave a wrong answer I will try to amend myself. Denote by (P) the following property for a topological group : all finite index subgroups are open. Recall that a profinite group is a topological group isomorphic (in the category of topological groups) to a projective limit of finite groups endowed with discrete topologies. Since a product is but a projective limit, Adam's answer shows in particular that (P) is in general not satisfied for profinite groups. I will give an everyday life counter-example.

Let $L$ be a Galois extension of $K$, but not necessarily a finite extension, and $G$ be the Galois group $\mathrm{Gal}(L/K)$. Put the dicrete topology on $L$, the product topology on $L^L$, and the induced topology on $G$. Let $A$ be the set of finite subextensions of $L/K$. For $\sigma\in G$ and $E\in A$, set $U_{\sigma}(E) := $ the subset of $G$ consisting of elements $\tau$ having same restriction on $E$ that $\sigma$. One can show that $U_{\sigma}(E)$ is a filter basis of $\sigma$ for this topology, and that the restrictions $G \rightarrow \mathrm{Gal}(L'/K)$ are continuous for any subextension $L'/ K$ that is Galois, but not necessarily finite. Moreover, one can show that $G$ is compact and totally disconnected. Actually, if $(L_i)_i$ is a filtered familly of galois subextensions such that $L = \cup_i L_i$, you have $G \simeq \varprojlim_i \mathrm{Gal}(L_i / K)$. (As you can choose all $L_i$'s to be finite over $K$, you got in particular that $G$ is profinite.)

From now we will considerer the extension $\overline{\mathbf{Q}} / \mathbf{Q}$ where $\overline{\mathbf{Q}}$ is the algebraic closure of $\mathbf{Q}$ in $\mathbf{C}$. Let $E = \mathbf{Q}\left[ \{\sqrt{-1}\}\cup\{\sqrt{p}\;|\;p\textrm{ prime}\} \right]$ and $$G := \mathrm{Gal}(E/\mathbf{Q}) \simeq \varprojlim \mathrm{Gal}\left(\mathbf{Q}\left[\sqrt{-1}, \sqrt{2}, \ldots, \sqrt{p}\right] / \mathbf{Q}\right) $$ which is a subgroup of $\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{\mathbf{Q}} / \mathbf{Q})$ and let $H$ be the subgroup of $G$ consisting in elements permuting only finitely many elements among $\sqrt{-1}$ and all the $\sqrt{p}$ for $p$-prime. The subgroup $H$ is dense in $G$ as by definition of $\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{\mathbf{Q}} / \mathbf{Q})$'s topology and $G$'s induced topology every open of $G$ contains obviously an element of $H$. Now $H$ is normal and the group $G / H$ is an $\mathbf{F_2}$-vector space in an obvious manner. Now fix a $d\in\mathbf{N}^{*}$ and let $E$ be a sub-$\mathbf{F_2}$-vector space of $G / H$ of codimension $d$. (Possible by Zorn's lemma.) The inverse image of $E$ in $G$ is a subgroup $K$ of $G$ containing $H$ and of index $\textrm{Card}\left(\mathbf{F_2}^d\right) = 2^d$. The subgroup $K$ is not open because were it open he would be closed which would be a contradiction with the density of $H$ in $G$. Now $K$ is not open, and its inverse image in $\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{\mathbf{Q}} / \mathbf{Q})$ is not open and is of finite index. Indeed, if the inverse image were open, its fixed field would be a nontrivial extension $F$ of $\mathbf{Q})$ contained in $E$ but then $F$ would be fixed by $K$, which is dense... The group $\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{\mathbf{Q}} / \mathbf{Q})$ has not the property (P).

Remark 1. I wrote Were it open he would be closed. For a subgroup $H$ of finite index of a topological group (not necessarily quasi-compact nor compact), being closed or being open is equivalent. Indeed. Make $H$ act of $G$ by left translations and, as $H$ is of finite index, let $g_1,\ldots,g_n$ be a set whose classes modulo $H$ partition $G$ in classes, and suppose that $g_1$'s class is $H$. You can therefore write the disjoint union $G = H \cup \left( \cup_{i=2}^n g_i H\right)$. Note that the $g\mapsto x g$ are homeomorphisms so that a $xH$ is closed (resp. open) if and only if $H$ is. Now, if $H$ is closed, the $g_i H$'s are also, so that the finite union of closed $\cup_{i=2}^n g_i H$ also is, and its complement in $G$, which is but $H$, is open. The same argument applies mutatis mutandis to show that if $G$ is open, it is closed. Note that in this case, our proof would have worked also if there wouldn't have been finitely many $g_i$'s, so that in fact, any open subgroup of a topological group is closed.

Remark 2. The group of $p$-adic integers $\mathbf{Z}_p$ is a profinite group in which all subgroups of finite index are closed and open. You can show this by finding explicitly all these subgroups, but how could you show it "conceptually"?

Olórin
  • 12,040
  • I think a property that would guarantee it is: for all $N \ge 1$ there exists an open subgroup $U_N\subset G$ so that the map $x\mapsto x^N$ is surjective on $U_N$. – orangeskid Feb 02 '15 at 00:36
1

Consider $$\mathfrak{C}=\prod_{n\in \mathbb{N}_+}\mathbb{Z}/2$$ the set of all sequences $a=(a_n)_{n\ge 1}$ with $a_n \in \{0,1\}\simeq \mathbb{Z}/2$. From Cantor we know $\mathfrak{C}$ is uncountable. Moreover, $\mathfrak{C}$ is an abelian group with the addition $$(a_n) + (b_n) = (a_n+b_n) \mod 2$$

Define the map $\rho : \mathfrak{C} \to [0,1]$ $$\rho((a_n)) = \sum_n \frac{a_n}{2^n}$$ We observe that $$\rho(a) + \rho(b) - \rho(a+b) \ge 0 $$ indeed, the difference is $2 \cdot \sum_{n, a_n=b_n=1} \frac{1}{2^n}$ We define the metric $d$ on $\mathfrak{C}$ by $$d(a,b) = \rho(a-b) ( = \rho(a+b))$$

Intuitively, $d(a,b)$ small means $a$ and $b$ coincide on a large finite set. Indeed, for $a \in \mathfrak{C}$ we have the implications

$$ \rho(a) < \frac{1}{2^N} \implies a_n =0 \text{ for all } 1 \le n \le N \implies \rho(a) \le \frac{1}{2^N} $$

With the topology given by $d$ ( which, by the way, is the product topology from $\mathbb{Z}/2$ with the discrete topology) $\mathfrak{C}$ becomes a compact abelian topological group ( compactness is essentially due to Cantor - and this implies $[0,1]$ is compact)

Inside $\mathfrak{C}$ we have $\mathfrak{C}_0$ , the subgroup of all sequences of $0$,$1$ which have only finitely many nonzero components.

We'll show that $\mathfrak{C}$ has a subgroup of index $2$ containing $\mathfrak{C}_0$. Now, $\mathfrak{C}$ is a a vector space over the field $\mathbb{Z}/2$, and the subgroups of $\mathfrak{C}$ are exactly its subspaces. So we need to show that there exists a subspace of codimension $1$ containing $\mathfrak{C}_0$. For this, extend the standard basis $(e_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}_+}$ to a basis $(e_i)_{i \in I}$ ( note that $I$ is uncountable since $\mathfrak{C}$ is). Take $i \in I \backslash \mathbb{N}_+$ and define $$\mathfrak{C}' = \text{span}(e_j)_{j \in I, j \ne i}$$ a subgroup of index $2$ containing $\mathfrak{C}_0$. Note that $\mathfrak{C}_0$ is dense in $\mathfrak{C}$ and so $\mathfrak{C}'$ is dense.

This provides a counterexample to the question posted. However, the result holds for compact Lie groups. It follows from the following fact:

Let $G$ a compact connected Lie group and $H$ a subgroup of finite index of $G$. Then $H=G$. From this, using $H \cap G_e$, follows that if $H$ is a subgroup of finite index of a compact Lie group then $H \supset G_e$, the connected component of the identity $e$.

To show that $H=G$ in the case $G$ compact connected, we record the fact that for every $N\ge 1$ the map $$g \mapsto g^N$$ is surjective. Let now $H \subset G$, $H$ of finite index. The normal core $H'$ of $H$ equals $$\bigcap_{g \in G/H} g H g^{-1}$$ and is again of some finite index $N$. The group $G/H'$ is of order $N$ and therefore $N$-torsion. Therefore, for all $g \in G$ we have $g^N \in H'$. But every element is an $N$-th power. We conclude $H'=G$.

Obs: The fact that the power map $g \mapsto g^N$ is surjective for compact connected Lie groups follows from the fact that $G$ connected is a union of tori, and checking the statement for tori (that is easy already).

orangeskid
  • 53,909