7

A profinite group is an inverse limit of an inverse system of discrete finite groups. Alternatively, a profinite group is a topological group that is also a Stone space. Under the second, axiomatic definition it's obvious that a profinite group $G$ is a Stone space.

My professor made the claim that a group $G$ is profinite if and only if $G$ is a Stone space. The forward implication, as I mentioned, seems trivial. I need some help figuring out what is meant to be shown in the opposite direction. It is true that a topological space $X$ being a Stone space is equivalent to $X$ being homeomorphic to a projective limit of an inverse system of finite discrete spaces. My thought is that the reverse implication means to show that if $G$ is a Stone space, then the finite discrete spaces in the projective limit may be taken to be finite discrete groups.

If this is the case, how would someone go about proving such a thing? Otherwise, can someone lay out this duality in a more sensible way, and indicate the direction to go for studying profinite groups, and more generally pro-objects in a category?

  • 2
    So you need to find a group structure for your space, maybe watch how compact or connected sets of your pro finite group have a link with the group operation? Good luck :) You're idea about a colimit of finite discrete spaces is the right one, but you need to add the right number of elements each time – julio_es_sui_glace Jun 26 '23 at 23:03
  • 1
    @JulesBesson Thanks for verifying that the idea is the correct way to go. Do you know about the order in which the two characterizations came about? I can think of both ways as a valid route, i.e., as defining a profinite group as an inverse limit and then recognizing that sounds like a Stone space, proving that they are Stone topological groups, and then realizing that the two notions coincide; or by considering a Stone space with underlying group structure and then observing that the inverse limit characterization holds, and getting the reverse equivalence for free. – Alex Byard Jun 26 '23 at 23:13
  • 1
    @JulesBesson Perhaps the previous comment displays my ignorance when it comes to Stone duality and the general view of the theory. The discussion with my professor came up as more of a "look into this" sort of thing rather than a well-presented course on the theory. – Alex Byard Jun 26 '23 at 23:14
  • 1
    @AlexByard I recommend you show us some diagrams: https://q.uiver.app. Right now, your question has 0 pictures. I want to see what is going on categorically. Just a thought! I upvoted – Daniel Donnelly Jun 26 '23 at 23:17
  • 1
    @DanielDonnelly I'm all too familiar with diagrams... I'll try to make some xD – Alex Byard Jun 26 '23 at 23:18
  • 1
    @AlexByard this is tricky because you didn't say what definition of Stone space you were using. On Wikipedia, what you're trying to prove is the first "definitional" equivalence listed:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_space#Equivalent_conditions

    – Daniel Donnelly Jun 26 '23 at 23:24
  • @DanielDonnelly I don't particularly know which definition I'm using either... I think this is some of the confusion. The definition of a profinite group as a Stone topological group doesn't come with a notion of "Stone", probably because they've all been shown to be definitionally equivalent, but this definitely doesn't help me figure out what exactly I'm even trying to understand :` ) – Alex Byard Jun 26 '23 at 23:30
  • @DanielDonnelly Does this mean that I want to show that a profinite group as an inverse limit has the Stone topology, in one direction, and that a Stone (Hausdorff, compact, totally disconnected) topological group has the inverse limit characterization? – Alex Byard Jun 26 '23 at 23:32
  • It is well known that every Stone space is an inverse limit of finite discrete spaces. But I don’t think one can simply “deduce” that a topological group whose underlying topological space is profinite is itself an inverse limit of finite discrete groups. There is something special about groups that makes this possible. – Zhen Lin Jun 27 '23 at 01:51
  • 1
    The reverse direction is a nontrivial theorem--it's not just some simple definition chasing. – Eric Wofsey Jun 27 '23 at 01:57
  • @ZhenLin Right. So as a profinite group, it is the inverse limit of finite discrete spaces, which makes it a Stone space. For a Stone topological group is needs to be shown that its characterization as an inverse limit of finite discrete spaces can arise from finite discrete groups. Does this sound correct? – Alex Byard Jun 27 '23 at 18:35

1 Answers1

6

Suppose $G$ is a topological group that is a Stone space, and let $g\in G$ be different from $1$. Since $G$ is a Stone space, there is a clopen set $U\subseteq G$ such that $1\in U$ and $g\not\in U$ (the basic open sets given by the presentation of a Stone space as an inverse limit of finite discrete spaces are clopen). If $\mu:G\times G\to G$ is the multiplication map, then $\mu^{-1}(U)$ is an open set containing $\{1\}\times U$. Since $U$ is compact, this implies $\mu^{-1}(U)$ contains $V\times U$ for some open set $V\subseteq G$ containing $1$. Let $W=V\cap V^{-1}$ and let $H\subseteq G$ be the subgroup generated by $W$. Note that $H\subseteq U$, since every element of $H$ is a product of elements of $W$ and $W\times U\subseteq\mu^{-1}(U)$ so any product of elements of $W$ will remain in $U$. Also, $H$ is open, since for any $h\in H$ the open neighborhood $hW$ of $h$ is contained in $H$. The coset space $G/H$ is then discrete and thus finite by compactness. The action of $G$ on $G/H$ then gives a continuous homomorphism $G\to S$ where $S$ is the symmetric group on $G/H$ (with the discrete topology). The kernel of this homomorphism is contained in $H$, and so in particular $g$ is not in the kernel.

To sum up we have now shown that for any $g\in G$ different from $1$, there is a continuous homomorphism from $G$ to a finite discrete group whose kernel does not contain $g$. Now consider the collection $I$ of all open normal subgroups of $G$ ordered by reverse inclusion. There is a natural inverse system of finite discrete groups indexed by $I$, with $K\in I$ getting sent to the quotient $G/K$. Let $L$ be the inverse limit of this system. The quotient maps $G\to G/K$ induce a continuous homomorphism $f:G\to L$ by the universal property. Since the quotient maps $G\to G/K$ are all surjective, the image of $f$ is dense, and thus $f$ is surjective since $G$ is compact and $L$ is Hausdorff. Also, from what we showed before, for every $g\in G$ different from $1$ there is some $K\in I$ such that the quotient map $G\to G/K$ does not map $g$ to $1$, so $f$ is injective. Thus $f$ is bijective, and thus a homeomorphism since $G$ is compact and $L$ is Hausdorff. Thus $G$ is an inverse limit of finite discrete groups.

(There is not any significantly simpler way to prove this result, and in particular there is no easy "abstract nonsense" way to turn the inverse system of finite sets into an inverse system of finite groups. In particular, for instance, there are other finitary algebraic structures besides groups for which this result is not true. See this answer for more about that.)

Eric Wofsey
  • 342,377
  • Thank you for this answer. I wonder is there a way to prove this without referencing the group identity element? How do such proofs tend to work for other finitary algebraic structures without an identity? – Alex Byard Jun 27 '23 at 18:38
  • "(the basic open sets given by the presentation of a Stone space as an inverse limit of finite discrete spaces are clopen)" -- Is this because the space is totally disconnected? It's existence being implied by the Hausdorff condition? – Alex Byard Jun 27 '23 at 19:09
  • 1
    That's just because every open set in a finite discrete space is clopen, so the basic open sets you get by pulling them back to the inverse limit are clopen. – Eric Wofsey Jun 27 '23 at 20:46
  • 1
    Anyways this is just a basic property of Stone spaces: any two points are separated by clopen sets. How you prove it depends on exactly what definition you start from (the proof I gave was for if you start from the definition as a profinite set). If you start from the definition as a totally disconnected compact space it takes some work (you need to use both total disconnectedness and compactness). – Eric Wofsey Jun 27 '23 at 20:53
  • 1
    As for the role of the identity element, what is actually going on here is that we are showing that any clopen subset of $G$ contains a coset of some normal open subgroup, so that that clopen set will still be there if you take the topology generated only be the continuous homomorphisms from $G$ to finite discrete groups instead of arbitrary continuous maps from $G$ to finite discrete spaces. You can translate your clopen set to assume it contains $1$, and then this amounts to showing that a clopen neighborhood of $1$ contains an open subgroup. – Eric Wofsey Jun 27 '23 at 21:11
  • 1
    For more general algebraic structures, what you would need to prove is that any clopen subset contains an equivalence class for some congruence relation whose equivalence classes are open. So you start with the equivalence relation given by the partition into the clopen set and its complement, and take the congruence relation this generates. Then you have to hope you can prove the equivalance classes of the generated congruence relation are still open. – Eric Wofsey Jun 27 '23 at 21:20
  • 1
    As I mentioned in the answer I linked, you can find more about this in section VI.2 of Peter Johnstone's Stone spaces. – Eric Wofsey Jun 27 '23 at 21:22
  • I think I am starting to understand it – Alex Byard Jun 27 '23 at 23:09
  • Is it correct to say that the first part of the proof amounts to showing that a Stone topological group is residually finite? From which the second part of the proof follows in general? – Alex Byard Jun 28 '23 at 19:08
  • 1
    It's showing that a Stone topological group is topologically residually finite, i.e. continuous homomorphisms to finite groups separate points. This is enough to imply that it injects into a profinite group but you still additionally need compactness to conclude it is the entire profinite group. – Eric Wofsey Jun 28 '23 at 19:24