91

Are there abelian groups $A$ with $A \cong A \oplus \mathbb{Z}^2$ and $A \not\cong A \oplus \mathbb{Z}$?

YCor
  • 60,149
  • 11
    Let me ask a weaker question: is there a compact Hausdorff space $X$ such that $X$ is homeomorphic to $X\times \mathbb{T}^2$ but not homeomorphic to $X\times \mathbb{T}$? – Tomasz Kania Sep 12 '15 at 11:49
  • 1
    Have I made an error? If $p : A \to A$ is the projection map and $B$ is the colimit of $A \xrightarrow{p} A \xrightarrow{p} A \ldots$, then doesn't that make $A \cong B \oplus \mathbb{Z}^{\infty}$? –  Sep 12 '15 at 18:23
  • 7
    @Hurkyl: Not necessarily; consider the case of $A=\mathbb{Z}^\mathbb{N}$ where $p$ is the unilateral shift. In general, you can conclude that $\mathbb{Z}^\infty$ is a subgroup of $A$, but not necessarily that it is a summand. – Eric Wofsey Sep 12 '15 at 18:49
  • @Eric: Ah, I've found my error: the obvious morphism between the consecutive exact sequences doesn't commute with the splitting. –  Sep 12 '15 at 18:54
  • 4
    If I remember correctly, there exist abelian groups $A$ such that $A\cong A\oplus A\oplus A$ but $A\not\cong A\oplus A$. If this is the case, then perhaps $A$ or $A\oplus \mathbb{Z}$ will provide an answer to the present question. Note that $A\oplus\mathbb{Z}\cong A\oplus \mathbb{Z}^3$. – Richard Stanley Sep 12 '15 at 19:13
  • 3
    My memory is correct! See http://mathoverflow.net/questions/10128/when-is-a-isomorphic-to-a3. – Richard Stanley Sep 12 '15 at 21:17
  • 6
    @RichardStanley Why should $A\oplus\mathbb{Z}\cong A\oplus\mathbb{Z}^3$? Unless both $A$ and $A\oplus\mathbb{Z}$ have the $X\cong X\oplus X\oplus X$ property. – Jeremy Rickard Sep 13 '15 at 05:52
  • 4
    I suspect that all short proofs or counterexamples are flawed. There are already three deleted answers, and Richard Stanley's suggestion above does not work, unfortunately. +1 for Eric Wofsey's comment because it makes visible the standard error with these types of questions which is otherwise hidden (to most MO users) in the deleted answers. I am almost sure that there are abelian groups $A$ with $A \cong A \oplus \mathbb{Z}^2$ and $A \not\cong A \oplus \mathbb{Z}$, but the construction will be probably quite intricate. – Martin Brandenburg Sep 13 '15 at 08:07
  • 5
    @JeremyRickard: you are right. Haste makes waste. I withdraw my previous comments. – Richard Stanley Sep 13 '15 at 20:15
  • 3
    As alluded to in previous comments, it's not true that $A\cong A\oplus\mathbb{Z}^2$ implies that $A$ has the direct sum of countably many copies of $\mathbb{Z}$ as a direct summand (which would answer negatively the question): this is not true, for example, for the direct product of countably many copies of $\mathbb{Z}$. Probably the answer to at least one of the following questions is "no", but I haven't thought of any counterexamples. Must $A$ have a direct summand $B$ with $\mathbb{Z}^{(\mathbb{N})}\leq B\leq\mathbb{Z}^\mathbb{N}$? Must such a $B$ satisfy $B\cong B\oplus\mathbb{Z}$? – Jeremy Rickard Sep 14 '15 at 17:48
  • @JeremyRickard Good questions! By induction one construts a map $\mathbb Z^{(\mathbb N)} \to A$ and $A \to \mathbb Z^{\mathbb N}$ such that the composition of these two maps is the natural embedding. (Just take the limit of the two maps you get from writing $\mathbb Z^{2n}$ as a summand of $A$.) Presumably you want the image of the second map to be such a $B$. However, I don't see a way to embed $B$ into $A$. – Will Sawin Sep 15 '15 at 21:58
  • @JeremyRickard Given your desired $B$, the naive hope that $B$ is equal to $B + \mathbb Z$ under the obvious map, right-shifting, doesn't work - consider the group of all sequences of natural numbers with finitely many nonzero entries in even places. Then right-shifting turns this into the group with finitely many nonzero entries in odd places, a different group. But maybe it's true by a more clever map? – Will Sawin Sep 15 '15 at 22:00
  • @WillSawin Yes, that's what I had in mind for the first question. For the second I don't even know if there is any $B$ with $\mathbb{Z}^{(\mathbb{N})}\leq B\leq\mathbb{Z}^\mathbb{N}$ (not necessarily one arising as in the first question) with $B\not\cong B\oplus\mathbb{Z}$. – Jeremy Rickard Sep 17 '15 at 13:51
  • 1
    @TomekKania: Perhaps you can ask your interesting topological question in a separate MO-post, so that it gets more attention? By the way, I don't understand why it is "weaker". I don't see any implications between both statements. – Martin Brandenburg Dec 02 '15 at 09:36
  • Martin: Presumably something to do with spaces associated to C*-group algebras of these groups. – user91132 Dec 02 '15 at 18:00
  • 3
    @KonstantinArdakov: Thank you. This is simply the character space $\hom(-,S^1)$. By Pontryagin duality, the question is equivalent to: If $A$ is a compact Hausdorff group with $A \cong A \times T^2$ as topological groups, does it follow that $A \cong A \times T$ as topological groups (where $T$ is the circle group)? So the suggestion by Tomek Kania is to discard the group structures here. This yields a different question, which is still very interesting. One could also ask the (topological) question for the unit intervall $[0,1]$ instead of $T$. – Martin Brandenburg Dec 03 '15 at 07:55
  • @TomekKania lets denote The topological dimension by "dim". Then May be it is true that $dim (X \times \mathbb{T})=dim(X) +1) $ I http://www.univie.ac.at/nuhag-php/bibtex/open_files/2079_Rieffel-StableRank.pdf . – Ali Taghavi Feb 19 '17 at 14:33
  • @MartinBrandenburg I guess that dimension theory implies that such topological space does not exist. am is mistaken(please see my previous comment) – Ali Taghavi Feb 19 '17 at 14:36
  • @TomekKania Can the topological part of the paper of Rieffel say that such $X \simeq X \times I$ is impossible? – Ali Taghavi Feb 19 '17 at 14:42
  • 1
    @TomekKania why do you call it "weaker"? from the abelian group example do you get automatically such an example (it automatically gives an example in the category of compact topological groups, but this is distinct). – YCor Feb 23 '20 at 09:49

2 Answers2

75

Let $A$ be the additive group of bounded sequences of elements of $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2}]$. Clearly $A\cong A\oplus\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2}]\cong A\oplus\mathbb{Z}^2$ as abelian groups, so we just need to show that $A\not\cong A\oplus\mathbb{Z}$.

Let $A_i\cong\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt 2]$ be the subgroup of $A$ consisting of sequences whose terms are all zero, apart from possibly the $i$th term.

Lemma 1. If $\varphi:A\to\mathbb{Z}$ is a group homomorphism, then the restriction of $\varphi$ to $A_i$ is zero for all but finitely many $i$.

Proof. If not, we can choose $i_0<i_1<\dots$ so that the restriction of $\varphi$ to $A_{i_k}$ is nonzero for all $k$. The intersection of $A_{i_k}$ with $\ker(\varphi)$ has rank at most one, so we can inductively choose $x_k\in A_{i_k}$ so that $\varphi(x_k)\neq0$, $\vert x_k\vert<1$, and $x_k$ is divisible by a larger power of $2$ than any of $\varphi(x_0),\dots,\varphi(x_{k-1})$.

Consider the sequences in $A$ whose $i_k$th term is either $x_k$ or $0$, with all other terms zero. Since there are uncountably many such sequences, $\varphi$ must agree on two of them. Taking the difference of these two, we get a non-zero sequence in $\ker(\varphi)$ whose first non-zero term, in the $i_k$th place for some $k$, is $\pm x_k$ and with all other terms divisible by a higher power of $2$ than $\varphi(x_k)$. But this is a contradiction, since $\varphi(x_k)=\pm\varphi(y)$ where $y$ is the sequence obtained by removing the first non-zero term. $\square$

Remark. The same proof works if we replace $A$ by the group of sequences that tend to zero, or the group of sequences such that $\sum_ia_i$ is absolutely convergent, by replacing the condition $\vert x_k\vert<1$ by sharper inequalities.

Lemma 2. If $\varphi:A\to\mathbb{Z}$ is a group homomorphism whose kernel contains every $A_i$, then $\varphi=0$.

Proof. Let $A'\leq A$ be the subgroup consisting of sequences such that $\sum_ia_i$ is absolutely convergent. Suppose $\varphi(a)\neq0$ where $a\in A$ is the sequence $(a_0,a_1,\dots)$, but that every sequence with finitely many nonzero terms is in $\ker(\varphi)$. Define a homomorphism $\theta:A'\to A$ by $$\theta(y_0,y_1,y_2,\dots)=(y_0a_0,(y_0+y_1)a_1,(y_0+y_1+y_2)a_2,\dots).$$ Then if $e(k)\in A'$ is the sequence which is zero except that the $k$th term is $1$, then $\varphi\theta\left(e(k)\right)=\varphi(a)\neq0$ for every $k$, contradicting the version of Lemma 1 that applies to $A'$. $\square$

The proofs of Lemmas 1 and 2 are adapted from well-known proofs of the corresponding facts for the "Baer-Specker group" (the group of sequences of integers). These were first proved (I think) by Specker, but the particular proofs that I've adapted are due (I think) to Sasiada and Łos respectively. There are other proofs, and from Yves de Cornulier's comments it seems that at least some of those can also be adapted for what we need.

Prop. 3. Every group homomorphism $\varphi:A\to A$ is determined by the compositions $\varphi_{ij}:A_j\to A\stackrel{\varphi}{\to}A\to A_i$, where for each $i$, all but finitely many $\varphi_{ij}$ are zero.

Proof. Since $A$ is a subgroup of a direct product of copies of $\mathbb{Z}$ in an obvious way, this follows immediately from Lemmas 1 and 2. $\square$

In other words, this means that if we think of sequences as infinite column vectors, we can represent $\varphi$ as an infinite matrix of homomorphisms $\varphi_{ij}:\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt 2]\to\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt 2]$, with finitely many nonzero entries in each row.

Lemma 4. Let $\vartheta:\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt 2]\to\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt 2]$ be a group homomorphism that is not a $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt 2]$-module homomorphism. Then for any $\epsilon>0$ and $N>0$ there is some $x\in\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt 2]$ with $\vert x\vert<\epsilon$ and $\vert\vartheta(x)\vert>N$.

Proof. Straightforward. $\square$

Lemma 5. If $\varphi:A\to A$ is a group endomorphism, and $\varphi_{ij}$ are as above, then for all but finitely many $j$, all the $\varphi_{ij}$ are $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt 2]$-module homomorphisms.

Proof. Suppose not. Then because, by Lemma 1, for each $i$ all but finitely many $\varphi_{ij}$ are zero, we can choose $(i_0,j_0),(i_1,j_1),\dots$ so that $\varphi_{i_kj_k}$ is not a $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt 2]$-module homomorphism for any $k$, and such that $\varphi_{i_kj_l}=0$ for $k<l$.

Using Lemma 4, we can construct a bounded sequence $a=(a_j)$ of elements of $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt 2]$ inductively so that $a_j=0$ for $j\not\in\{j_0,j_1,\dots\}$ and $$\vert\varphi_{i_kj_k}(a_{j_k})+\sum_{l<k}\varphi_{i_kj_l}(a_{j_l})\vert>k.$$ But this contradicts the fact that $\varphi(a)$ is bounded. $\square$

Theorem 6. $A\not\cong A\oplus\mathbb{Z}$.

Proof. Suppose there were such an isomorphism. Then there would be an injective map $\varphi:A\to A$ with $A/\varphi(A)\cong\mathbb{Z}$. By Lemma 5, $\varphi$ is described by a matrix $(\varphi_{ij})$ with only finitely many columns containing entries that are not $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt 2]$-module homomorphisms. So for sufficiently large $n$, if $A[n]\leq A$ consists of the sequences whose first $n$ terms are zero, then the restriction of $\varphi$ to $A[n]$ is a $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt 2]$-module homomorphism, and so $A/\varphi(A[n])$ is a $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt 2]$-module. But $A/\varphi(A[n])\cong\mathbb{Z}^{2n+1}$ as an abelian group, which is impossible, since $A/\varphi(A[n])\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{Q}$ is a vector space over $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt 2)$ and so has even dimension over $\mathbb{Q}$. $\square$


It's obvious that $A\cong A\oplus A$, and if $B=A\oplus\mathbb{Z}$ then it follows that $A\cong B\oplus B$ and $B\cong B\oplus B\oplus B$, so $B$ is an example of an abelian group $B$ with $B\cong B\oplus B\oplus B\not\cong B\oplus B$, I think rather simpler to describe than other examples I know of.


Edit (7 April 2016) I've just discovered that this question was answered by Eklof and Shelah in 1985. They reference Shabbagh for asking the question. The link I've given, from Google books, only gives a few pages of the paper, and I haven't yet got hold of a full copy, but their example seems to be more complicated (at least to describe) than mine. I've also realized that my example, if you let $B=A\oplus\mathbb{Z}$, gives an example of non-isomorphic abelian groups $A$ and $B$ with $A\oplus A\cong B\oplus B$, which is one of Kaplansky's "test problems" for abelian groups in his famous 1954 book on Infinite Abelian Groups, which also seems to be simpler to describe than other examples that I know of.
  • 1
    How do you prove that the group of bounded sequences of integers is free abelian? – Eric Wofsey Jan 01 '16 at 17:51
  • 14
    The freeness of the group of bounded sequences of integers is a hard theorem due to G. Nöbeling, Verallgemeinerung eines Satzes von Herrn Specker, Invent. Math. 6 (1968), 41-55. I learned this through Google books: https://books.google.com/books?id=8aR0i1I2XB4C&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=%22group+of+bounded+sequences+of+integers%22&source=bl&ots=yNKOS3_8wX&sig=RNfX5dUX83bm7UN4OL3jdJEDhl0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiS_bPzoYnKAhVJWCYKHf8qAtwQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=%22group%20of%20bounded%20sequences%20of%20integers%22&f=false – Todd Trimble Jan 01 '16 at 18:54
  • Is subgroup of finitary sequences a direct summand? – Fedor Petrov Jan 01 '16 at 22:38
  • 3
    The subgroup $B$ of finitary sequences is not a direct summand, because $A/B$ has nonzero elements which are infinitely $2$-divisible, but $A$ has no such elements. – Pace Nielsen Jan 01 '16 at 23:24
  • @Jeremy: Very interesting idea! – Martin Brandenburg Jan 02 '16 at 17:04
  • I had a look at the similar example. I would like to look at the subgroup of all integer sequences such that $a_{2n}-a_{2n-1}$ is bounded. This subgroup is isomorphic to the direct sum of all integer sequences and bounded integer sequences. (Look at the even terms and at the differences $(a_{2n+1}-a_{2n})n$). So this group is not a counterexample. Now I am wondering whether there is a similar isomorphism when we use the condition $a{2n}-\sqrt{2}a_{2n-1}$, which is essentially this group. – HenrikRüping Jan 04 '16 at 00:52
  • @HenrikRüping: Probably no since $\sqrt{2}$ is irrational. At least, I don't see any such isomorphism. – Martin Brandenburg Jan 05 '16 at 08:27
  • 2
    Extension of $X$ by $Y$ has 2 usual meanings, the group theorists's convention being that $X$ is the kernel and the algebraic geometer's convention being that $Y$ is the kernel. In your claim that "$A$ is extension of $\mathbb{Z}^\omega$ by the group of bounded integral sequences" if I'm correct you use the second convention. Here you can define the quotient map to be $(a_n+b_n\sqrt{2}){n\ge 0}\mapsto (b_n){n\ge 0}$ (the image is the set of all integral sequences, the kernel is the set of bounded integral sequences). – YCor Jan 06 '16 at 23:18
  • 1
    @YCor Yes, by "extension of $\mathbb{Z}^\omega$" I mean $\mathbb{Z}^\omega$ is the quotient. I'm pretty sure that's the convention used by most of the group theorists I hang out with, but maybe it varies between subfields of group theory. – Jeremy Rickard Jan 07 '16 at 11:11
  • @JeremyRickard: oh yes sorry I egocentrically meant "infinite/geometric/combinatorial group theorists" when I said "group theoretists". I think finite group theorists sociologically live more at the algebraic side, so I expect they rather use the same convention as you. – YCor Jan 07 '16 at 12:27
  • Since some part of the discussion became obsolete after you proved that $A$ is not free, I did some minimal cleaning to ease the reading to future readers (esp. moving the freeness of bounded integral sequences to the end), please feel free to revert to the previous version if you don't like it. – YCor Jan 08 '16 at 00:31
  • Do you mean that $a_n+b_n\sqrt{2}$ is bounded in $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{2}]$ if $a_n^2-2b_n^2$ is bounded in $\mathbb{Z}$? – Adam Przeździecki Jan 30 '16 at 13:39
  • 3
    @Adam No, I mean bounded as a real number. – Jeremy Rickard Jan 30 '16 at 14:16
  • By the group $N$ of null sequences, you mean those eventually zero, or those tending to zero (in the real topology)? – YCor Jan 30 '16 at 14:45
  • 2
    @YCor Tending to zero in the real topology. – Jeremy Rickard Jan 30 '16 at 14:47
  • 2
    @JeremyRickard I've spent a non-trivial amount of time trying to prove your example works, so I look forward to your proof, especially part (1). – Pace Nielsen Jan 30 '16 at 16:43
  • Yes, it would be nice to see details on (1). Generally speaking, I suggest that the answer may be rewritten so it only contains the actual proof and not its development (this can be found in the history of the post). – Martin Brandenburg Jan 30 '16 at 22:52
  • I have checked a number of details, including what's after (1), and one half of (1), namely that, denoting $A_0$ the group of functions with finite support, one has $\mathrm{Hom}(A/A_0,\mathbf{Z})=0$. As in the standard case it consists in proving that in this group every element is sum of a 2-divisible element and a 3-divisible elements, but the argument goes different as an arbitrary Bezout relation is not enough. The remaining part I can't prove now is that given $f:A\to\mathbf{Z}$, there exists $n$ such that $f$ is zero on $A_0(>n)$, where $A_0(>n)={x\in A_0: x_n=0, \forall k\le n}$. – YCor Jan 31 '16 at 01:20
  • Btw all details I could check also work if one considers the additive subgroup $D$ generated by $1$ and some irrational $t$. When $t$ is not an quadratic algebraic number, it makes a little difference at the end of the proof, in which case the module argument has to be performed over the base ring $M_2(\mathbf{Z})$. When $t$ is quadratic, one considers the ring $R$ of those real numbers $r$ such that $rD\subset D$ and it works the same way. – YCor Jan 31 '16 at 01:26
  • Oh, I have the argument for the remainder of (1), and is again an adaptation of the usual argument. This second part of (1) (which translates in (2) into the finiteness of rows) is really needed in the "cook up" of (4). I have written details for my own sake, but would rather let Jeremy shot first (but I can send by email to anybody interested). Btw I have no use of null sequences. – YCor Jan 31 '16 at 03:09
  • I've included the start of the proof, and will finish later. I've put the proof of (1) of my "sketch" first, as that seems to be what people are most interested in. – Jeremy Rickard Jan 31 '16 at 11:43
  • @YCor It sounds as though we've just chosen different proofs of the standard case to try to generalize. Actually, it wasn't quite null sequences that I needed to use. – Jeremy Rickard Jan 31 '16 at 11:44
  • Great! Your arguments are actually shorter than mine especially for Lemma 2; I didn't think of using Lemma 1 to prove Lemma 2 (since I proved Lemma 2 before). It seems that until (4) everything works with an arbitrary dense subgroups $D$ of the reals. Then, considering $R_D={r\in\mathbf{R}:rD\subset D}$, and $R'_D$ the commutant of $R_D$ in the group of group automorphisms of $D$, (5) shows that after precomposition with a right shift, we have a $R'_D$-module homomorphism. – YCor Jan 31 '16 at 12:42
  • I think I've finished now. Comments/corrections/requests for clarification welcome. – Jeremy Rickard Jan 31 '16 at 15:34
  • I'm convinced. A remark: while the $\varphi_{ij}$ can be defined directly (not using Lemmas 1,2), just by evaluation of $\varphi$ on finitely supported sequences, the proof of Lemma 5 really makes use at least of Lemma 1. – YCor Jan 31 '16 at 15:49
  • PS a motivation for my discussion about more general subgroups is the following question: is it possible to find an abelian group $B$ such that $B$ is isomorphic to $B\oplus\mathbf{Z}^k$ for $k=2,3$ but not $k=1$? In the current example $B$ is isomorphic to $B\oplus\mathbf{Z}^k$ iff $k$ is even. – YCor Jan 31 '16 at 15:51
  • 1
    @YCor If $B\cong B\oplus\mathbb{Z}^2\cong B\oplus\mathbb{Z}^3$, then $B\oplus\mathbb{Z}\cong(B\oplus\mathbb{Z}^2)\oplus\mathbb{Z}\cong B$. – Jeremy Rickard Jan 31 '16 at 15:54
  • 1
    Oh, you're right. The set of $k$ such that $B\simeq B\oplus\mathbf{Z}^k$ always has the form $n\mathbf{N}$ (and all $n$ can be achieved by immediate variations of your argument). – YCor Jan 31 '16 at 16:20
  • @YCor I've only just really thought about your comment on arbitrary dense subgroups $D$ of the reals. Is there not a problem because the group of bounded sequences of elements of $D$ is not an $R'_D$-module? – Jeremy Rickard Feb 08 '16 at 06:37
  • @JeremyRickard: indeed. I think I could fix this if I could show that for every injective endomorphism $f$ of $A$ we have $f^{-1}(A_0)=A_0$ (we have one inclusion since $f(A_0)\subset A_0$). I can't now; I'll think twice. (I'm assuming here $D$ finitely generated.) – YCor Feb 08 '16 at 11:12
  • 2
    Sorry for not accepting this answer earlier. My plan was to understand every part of the answer before accepting it, but that might as well never happen in the next years :) – Martin Brandenburg Apr 18 '20 at 09:02
  • 2
    Perhaps worth mentioning that this answer was turned into the paper "Jeremy Rickard, Pathological abelian groups: a friendly example, J. Algebra 558 (2020), 640-645." MR4102131 – spin Jan 06 '23 at 08:12
2

Also not an answer, but the following Boolean algebra gives a similar example of William Hanf.

Let B be the two element boolean algebra, and we will use an uncountable subuniverse of a countable power of B. Let A be the subalgebra with subuniverse $\{\sigma \in \{0,1\}^{\omega}:$ there is $n$ so that for all $k \geq n, \sigma(2k)=\sigma(2k+1)\}$. Then A Is isomorphic to A $\oplus$ B $\oplus$ B , but not to A $\oplus$ B .

This suggests putting $Z$ in for B and seeing what comes of it. For more details, consult Algebras, Lattices, Varieties Volume I of McKenzie, McNulty, and Taylor, chapter 5 section 5.1 exercise 9 (p. 267 in my copy). I do not know what happens if the signature is restricted to that of Abelian groups.

Gerhard "Not Feeling That Ambitious Today" Paseman, 2016.01.02

  • This suggests to me a (likely unoriginal) notion of directed power. Let P be a poset (well-founded, say), and for an algebra B consider this algebra raised to the power of P. Picking the right poset may allow similar constructions where the power is isomorphic to some subpowers (using fragments of P) and not others. I leave it for others to consider. Gerhard "May Have More Energy Tomorrow" Paseman, 2016.01.02 – Gerhard Paseman Jan 03 '16 at 03:30
  • 3
    I suspect that some version of this would give an example of a ring $A$ such that $A\cong A\times\mathbb{Z}^2$ but $A\not\cong A\times\mathbb{Z}$, but it seems like it would take a lot more work to prove that $A\not\cong A\times\mathbb{Z}$ as a group (if it is even true). Note that in the Boolean case, $A$ is isomorphic to $A\oplus B$ as an $\mathbb{F}_2$-module, though not as an $\mathbb{F}_2$-algebra. – Eric Wofsey Jan 03 '16 at 08:09
  • So the suggestion is the abelian group $A={a \in \mathbb{Z}^{\mathbb{N}} : \exists n \forall k \geq n ~ ( a(2k)=a(2k+1))}$, right? My first question: Is $A$ free? – Martin Brandenburg Jan 03 '16 at 15:01
  • That, or variations. I haven't gone through the proof to see how it works, but it seems to me the order properties of $\omega$ are part of what pulls it through. Thus pick some poset P as in my comment, and an appropriate subalgebra of a Pth power. Gerhard "Hand-waving At A High Level" Paseman, 2016.01.03 – Gerhard Paseman Jan 03 '16 at 17:23
  • 3
    But this group is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}^{\mathbb{N}} \oplus \mathbb{Z}^{\oplus \mathbb{N}}$ via $a \mapsto ((a(2k)){k \geq 0},(a(2k+1)-a(2k)){k \geq 0})$, right? So it won't work. – Martin Brandenburg Jan 03 '16 at 17:24
  • I don't think so, but I am low on coffee, so I do not trust my own judgment on this. Gerhard "Ask Me After A Cup" Paseman, 2016.01.03 – Gerhard Paseman Jan 03 '16 at 17:30
  • Well, the inverse is given by $\mathbb{Z}^{\mathbb{N}} \oplus \mathbb{Z}^{\oplus \mathbb{N}} \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} A$, $(a,b) \mapsto c$ with $c(2k)=a(k)$ and $c(2k+1)=a(k)+b(k)$. So $A \cong A \oplus \mathbb{Z}$ holds (and $A$ is not free, by the way). – Martin Brandenburg Jan 03 '16 at 19:05