text:
# Untitled Document

ON THE ADM EQUATIONS FOR GENERAL RELATIVITY

Giampiero EspositoandCosimo Stornaiolo

INFN, Sezione di Napoli

Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo

Via Cintia, Edificio N’

80126 Napoli, Italy

and

Università di Napoli Federico II

Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche

Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo

Via Cintia, Edificio N’

80126 Napoli, Italy

The Arnowitt–Deser–Misner (ADM) evolution equations for the induced metric and the extrinsic-curvature tensor of the spacelike surfaces which foliate the space-time manifold in canonical general relativity are a first-order system of quasi-linear partial differential equations, supplemented by the constraint equations. Such equations are here mapped into another first-order system. In particular, an evolution equation for the trace of the extrinsic-curvature tensor $`K`$ is obtained whose solution is related to a discrete spectral resolution of a three-dimensional elliptic operator $`𝒫`$ of Laplace type. Interestingly, all nonlinearities of the original equations give rise to the potential term in $`𝒫`$. An example of this construction is given in the case of a closed Friedmann–Lemaitre–Robertson–Walker universe. Eventually, the ADM equations are re-expressed as a coupled first-order system for the induced metric and the trace-free part of $`K`$. Such a system is written in a form which clarifies how a set of first-order differential operators and their inverses, jointly with spectral resolutions of operators of Laplace type, contribute to solving, at least in principle, the original ADM system.

The canonical formulation of general relativity relies on the assumption that space-time $`(M,g)`$ is topologically $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times 𝐑`$ and can be foliated by a family of spacelike surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$, all diffeomorphic to the three-manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The space-time metric $`g`$ is then locally cast in the form

$$g=(N^2N_iN^i)dtdt+N_i(dx^idt+dtdx^i)+h_{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
$`(1)`$
where $`N`$ is the lapse function and $`N^i`$ are components of the shift vector of the foliation \[1–3\]. The induced metric $`h_{ij}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ and the associated extrinsic-curvature tensor $`K_{ij}`$ turn out to obey the first-order equations \[1–3\]

$$\frac{h_{ij}}{t}=2NK_{ij}+N_{ij}+N_{ji},$$
$`(2)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \frac{K_{ij}}{t}=N_{ij}+N\left[{}_{}{}^{(3)}R_{ij}^{}+K_{ij}(\mathrm{tr}K)2K_{im}K_j^m\right]\hfill & \\ & +\left[N^mK_{ijm}+N_i^mK_{jm}+N_j^mK_{im}\right],\hfill & (3)\hfill \end{array}$$

where the stroke denotes covariant differentiation with respect to the induced connection on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$. Moreover, the constraint equations hold. For Einstein theory in vacuum they read

$$K_{il}^i(\mathrm{tr}K)_l0,$$
$`(4)`$
$${}_{}{}^{(3)}RK_{ij}K^{ij}+(\mathrm{tr}K)^20,$$
$`(5)`$
where $``$ is the weak-equality symbol introduced by Dirac to denote equations which only hold on the constraint surface .

Equation (3) is quasi-linear in that it contains terms quadratic in the extrinsic-curvature tensor, i.e.

$$N\left(K_{ij}(\mathrm{tr}K)2K_{im}K_j^m\right).$$

We are now aiming to obtain from eqs. (2) and (3) another set of quasi-linear first-order equations. For this purpose, we contract Eq. (2) with $`K^{ij}`$ and Eq. (3) with $`h^{ij}`$. This leads to (hereafter $`_i^i`$ is the Laplacian on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$)

$$K^{ij}\frac{h_{ij}}{t}=2NK_{ij}K^{ij}+2K^{ij}N_{ij},$$
$`(6)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}& h^{ij}\frac{K_{ij}}{t}=N+N[{}_{}{}^{(3)}R+(\mathrm{tr}K)^22K_{im}K^{im}]\hfill & \\ & +\left[N^m(\mathrm{tr}K)_m+2N_i^mK_m^i\right].\hfill & (7)\hfill \end{array}$$

It is now possible to obtain an evolution equation for $`(\mathrm{tr}K)`$, because

$$\frac{}{t}(\mathrm{tr}K)=\frac{h^{ij}}{t}K_{ij}+h^{ij}\frac{K_{ij}}{t}.$$
$`(8)`$
The second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (8) is given by Eq. (7), whereas the first term is obtained after using the identity

$$\frac{}{t}(h^{ij}h_{jl})=\frac{}{t}\delta _l^i=0,$$
$`(9)`$
which implies

$$\frac{h^{ij}}{t}=h^{ip}h^{jl}\frac{h_{pl}}{t},$$
$`(10)`$
and hence

$$\frac{h^{ij}}{t}K_{ij}=\frac{h_{ij}}{t}K^{ij}.$$
$`(11)`$
By virtue of Eqs. (6)–(8) and (11), and imposing the constraint equation (5), we get

$$\frac{}{t}(\mathrm{tr}K)=(K_{ij}K^{ij})N+N^m(\mathrm{tr}K)_m,$$
$`(12a)`$
which can also be cast in the form (here $`\widehat{}_m_m`$)

$$(\frac{}{t}N^m\widehat{}_m)(\mathrm{tr}K)=(+K_{ij}K^{ij})N.$$
$`(12b)`$
This is a first non-trivial result because it tells us that, given the operator of Laplace type

$$𝒫+K_{ij}K^{ij},$$
$`(13)`$
the right-hand side of Eq. (12b) is determined by a discrete spectral resolution of $`𝒫`$. By this one means a complete orthonormal set of eigenfunctions $`f_\lambda ^p`$ belonging to the eigenvalue $`\lambda `$, so that, for each fixed value of $`t`$, the lapse can be expanded in the form

$$N(\stackrel{}{x},t)=\underset{\lambda }{}C_\lambda f_\lambda ^p(\stackrel{}{x},t),$$
$`(14)`$
with Fourier coefficients $`C_\lambda `$ given by the scalar product

$$C_\lambda =(f_\lambda ^p,N).$$
$`(15a)`$
This point is simple but non-trivial: for each fixed value of $`t`$, the restriction of the lapse to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ becomes a function on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ only, and hence the Fourier coefficients in (15a) read

$$C_\lambda =_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t}(f_\lambda ^p)^{}N\sqrt{h}d^3xC_{\lambda ,t},$$
$`(15b)`$
where the star denotes complex conjugation. In the application to the initial-value problem, one studies the lapse at different values of $`t`$, and hence it is better to write its expansion in the form (14), with the time parameter explicitly included. The integration measure for $`C_\lambda `$, however, remains the invariant integration measure on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$.

The existence of discrete spectral resolutions of $`𝒫`$ is guaranteed if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ is a compact Riemannian manifold without boundary , which is what we assume hereafter. Thus, Eq. (12b) can be re-expressed in the form

$$\left(\frac{}{t}N^m\widehat{}_m\right)\mathrm{tr}K(\stackrel{}{x},t)=\underset{\lambda }{}\lambda C_{\lambda ,t}f_\lambda ^p(\stackrel{}{x},t).$$
$`(16)`$
On denoting by $`L`$ the operator

$$L\frac{}{t}N^m\widehat{}_m,$$
$`(17)`$
and writing $`G(\stackrel{}{x},t;\stackrel{}{y},t^{})`$ for the Green function of $`L`$, Eq. (16) can be therefore solved for $`(\mathrm{tr}K)`$ in the form

$$\mathrm{tr}K(\stackrel{}{x},t)=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_t^{}\times 𝐑}G(\stackrel{}{x},t;\stackrel{}{y},t^{})\underset{\lambda }{}\lambda C_{\lambda ,t^{}}f_\lambda ^p(\stackrel{}{y},t^{})d\mu (\stackrel{}{y},t^{}),$$
$`(18)`$
where $`d\mu (\stackrel{}{y},t^{})`$ is the invariant integration measure on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t^{}\times 𝐑`$. Note that the eigenfunctions $`f_\lambda ^p`$ are different at different times and hence, to compute them at all times, one has to integrate the equations of motion so that the metric and the extrinsic-curvature tensor are known at all times. Thus, Eq. (18) does not reduce the amount of entanglement of the original equations (2) and (3). A relevant particular case is obtained on considering the canonical form of the foliation , for which the shift vector vanishes. The operator $`L`$ reduces then to $`\frac{}{t}`$, and its Green function can be chosen to be of the form

$$G_c(t,t^{})=\frac{1}{2}[\theta (tt^{})\theta (t^{}t)],$$
$`(19)`$
where $`\theta `$ is the step function. Such a Green function equals $`\frac{1}{2}`$ for $`t>t^{}`$ and $`\frac{1}{2}`$ for $`t<t^{}`$, and hence its “jump” at $`t^{}`$ equals $`1`$, as it should be from the general theory. It is sometimes considered in a completely different branch of physics, i.e. the theory of solitons and nonlinear evolution equations.

A cosmological example shows how the right-hand side of Eq. (16) can be worked out explicitly in some cases. We are here concerned with closed Friedmann–Lemaitre–Robertson–Walker models, for which the three-manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ reduces to a three-sphere of radius $`a`$. It is indeed well known that the space of functions on the three-sphere can be decomposed by using the invariant subspaces corresponding to irreducible representations of $`O(4)`$, the orthogonal group in four dimensions. These invariant subspaces are spanned by the hyperspherical harmonics , i.e. generalizations to the three-sphere of the familiar spherical harmonics. The scalar hyperspherical harmonics $`Q^{(n)}(\chi ,\theta ,\phi )`$ form a basis spanning the invariant subspace labeled by the integer $`n1`$ corresponding to the $`n`$-th scalar representation of $`O(4)`$. The label $`(n)`$ of $`Q^{(n)}`$ refers both to the order $`n`$ and to other labels denoting the different elements spanning the subspace. The number of elements $`Q^{(n)}`$ is determined by the dimension of the corresponding $`O(4)`$ representation. On using the general formula for $`O(2k)`$ representations, the dimension of the irreducible scalar representations is found to be $`d_Q(n)=n^2`$. The Laplacian on a unit three-sphere when acting on $`Q^{(n)}`$ gives

$$Q^{(n)}=(n^21)Q^{(n)}n=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
$`(20)`$
Any arbitrary function $`F`$ on the three-sphere can be expanded in terms of these hyperspherical harmonics as they form a complete set:

$$F=\underset{(n)}{}q_{(n)}Q^{(n)},$$
$`(21)`$
where the sum $`(n)`$ runs over $`n=1`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ and over the $`n^2`$ elements in each invariant subspace, and the $`q_{(n)}`$ are constant coefficients. The lapse function on the three-sphere is therefore expanded according to (cf. (14))

$$N=\underset{(n)}{}c_{(n)}Q^{(n)},$$
$`(22)`$
and bearing in mind that $`K_{ij}K^{ij}=3`$ on a unit three-sphere we find, on a three-sphere of radius $`a`$,

$$𝒫N=\underset{(n)}{}c_{(n)}\lambda _nQ^{(n)},$$
$`(23)`$
where (here $`a=a(t)`$)

$$\lambda _n=\frac{(n^2+2)}{a^2}n=1,2,\mathrm{}.$$
$`(24)`$
We have therefore found that all nonlinearities of the original equations give rise to the potential term in the operator $`𝒫`$ defined in Eq. (13), which is a positive-definite operator of Laplace type (unlike the Laplacian, which is bounded from below but has also a zero eigenvalue when $`n=1`$).

The interest in the evolution equation for the trace of the extrinsic-curvature tensor is motivated by a careful analysis of the variational problem in general relativity. More precisely, the “cosmological action” is sometimes considered, which is the form of the action functional $`I`$ appropriate for the case when $`(\mathrm{tr}K)`$ and the conformal three-metric $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{ij}h^{\frac{1}{3}}h_{ij}`$ are fixed on the boundary. One then finds in $`c=1`$ units

$$I=\frac{1}{16\pi G}_M{}_{}{}^{(4)}R\sqrt{g}d^4x+\frac{1}{24\pi G}_M(\mathrm{tr}K)\sqrt{h}d^3x,$$
$`(25)`$
and this formula finds important applications also to the quantum cosmology of a closed universe, giving rise to the $`K`$-representation of the wave function of the universe .

The program we have outlined in our letter shows an intriguing link between the Cauchy problem in general relativity on the one hand \[10–13\], and the spectral theory of elliptic operators of Laplace type on the other hand , which is obtained by exploiting the nonlinear form of the ADM equations and the nonpolynomial form of the Hamiltonian constraint (5). On denoting by $`\sigma _{ij}`$ the trace-free part of the extrinsic-curvature tensor:

$$\sigma _{ij}K_{ij}\frac{1}{3}h_{ij}(\mathrm{tr}K)$$
$`(26)`$
we therefore obtain a set of equations, equivalent to (2) and (3), in the form (here $`L^1`$ denotes the inverse of the operator $`L`$ defined in (17))

$$\mathrm{tr}K=L^1𝒫N,$$
$`(27)`$
$$\frac{h_{ij}}{t}=\frac{2}{3}Nh_{ij}(\mathrm{tr}K)2N\sigma _{ij}+2N_{(ij)},$$
$`(28)`$
$$\frac{\sigma _{ij}}{t}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}N\frac{2}{3}N_{(ij)}(\mathrm{tr}K)+N^m\widehat{}_m\sigma _{ij}+2N_{(i}^m[\sigma _{j)m}+\frac{1}{3}h_{j)m}(\mathrm{tr}K)],$$
$`(29)`$
where the operator of Laplace type $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}& \widehat{}_j\widehat{}_i\frac{1}{3}h_{ij}𝒫+\frac{1}{3}\sigma _{ij}(\mathrm{tr}K)\hfill & \\ & +\frac{1}{3}h_{ij}(\mathrm{tr}K)^2+{}_{}{}^{(3)}R_{ij}^{}2\sigma _{im}\sigma _j^m.\hfill & (30)\hfill \end{array}$$

It now appears desirable to understand to which extent the differential-operator viewpoint plays a role in solving the coupled system (27)–(30). For this purpose, we consider a relevant particular case, i.e. the canonical foliation studied in Ref. , for which the shift vector vanishes. The operator $`L`$ reduces then to $`\frac{}{t}`$ and, on defining the operators

$$Q\frac{}{t}+\frac{2}{3}N\mathrm{tr}K=L+\frac{2}{3}NL^1𝒫N,$$
$`(31)`$
$$S\frac{}{t}\frac{N}{3}\mathrm{tr}K=L\frac{N}{3}L^1𝒫N,$$
$`(32)`$
$$A_{ij}\widehat{}_j\widehat{}_i+{}_{}{}^{(3)}R_{ij}^{},$$
$`(33)`$
one finds the equations

$$\left[S+\frac{2}{3}(L^1𝒫N)^2Q^1N\right]\sigma _{ij}\frac{2}{3}(Q^1N\sigma _{ij})𝒫N+2N\sigma _{im}\sigma _j^m=A_{ij}N,$$
$`(34)`$
$$h_{ij}=2Q^1N\sigma _{ij},$$
$`(35)`$
supplemented, of course, by Eq. (27). In other words, once Eq. (34) is solved for the trace-free part of the extrinsic-curvature tensor of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$, the induced metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ is obtained from Eq. (35). This form of the coupled first-order ADM system of equations has possibly the merit of stressing the need to invert the operators $`L,Q`$ and $`S`$ to find a solution for given initial conditions. Approximate solutions, to the desired accuracy, will correspond to the construction of approximate inverse operators $`L^1,Q^1`$ and $`S^1`$. For this purpose, it can be useful to re-express Eq. (34) in the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \left[I+\frac{2}{3}S^1(L^1𝒫N)^2Q^1N\right]\sigma _{ij}\frac{2}{3}S^1\left[(Q^1N\sigma _{ij})𝒫N\right]\hfill & \\ & S^1(A_{ij}N)=2S^1\left(N\sigma _{im}\sigma _j^m\right).\hfill & (34^{})\hfill \end{array}$$

The action of the inverse operator $`L^1`$ on $`𝒫N`$ is already given by Eq. (18), but the inverses $`Q^1`$ and $`S^1`$ make it necessary to develop an algorithm for their exact or approximate evaluation. More precisely, one has

$$Q=L\left(I+\frac{2}{3}L^1NL^1𝒫N\right),$$
$`(31^{})`$
$$S=L\left(I\frac{1}{3}L^1NL^1𝒫N\right),$$
$`(32^{})`$
and hence

$$Q^1=\left(I+\frac{2}{3}L^1NL^1𝒫N\right)^1L^1,$$
$`(36)`$
$$S^1=\left(I\frac{1}{3}L^1NL^1𝒫N\right)^1L^1,$$
$`(37)`$
by virtue of the operator identity $`(AB)^1=B^1A^1`$. From this point of view, two levels of approximation seem to emerge: (i) The degree of accuracy in the evaluation of $`Q^1`$ and $`S^1`$. It is clear from Eqs. (36) and (37) that this reduces to finding

$$\left(I+\rho L^1NL^1𝒫N\right)^1$$

where $`\rho =\frac{2}{3}`$ or $`\frac{1}{3}`$. A series expansion will be, in general, only of formal value. However, on using the norms defined in section 7.4 of Ref. , which relies on well known properties of Sobolev spaces, if the operator

$$T_\rho \rho L^1NL^1𝒫N$$
$`(38)`$
is a bounded operator on a Banach space $`X`$ with norm $`T_\rho <1`$, the inverse of $`I+T\rho `$ exists and the series $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}(1)^n(T_\rho )^n`$ converges uniformly to $`(I+T_\rho )^1`$ with respect to the norm on the set of bounded maps from $`X`$ into $`X`$, and one can write

$$(I+T_\rho )^1=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^n(T_\rho )^n.$$
$`(39)`$
Equation (39) can be therefore used if $`L^1`$ is such that $`T_\rho `$ is a bounded operator with $`T_\rho <1`$. (ii) The way in which the non-linear term $`\sigma _{im}\sigma _j^m`$ is dealt with. For example, one may regard the right-hand side of Eq. (34’) as the “known term”, and hence consider the equation

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& \sigma _{ij}dx^idx^j\frac{2}{3}F^1S^1\left[(Q^1N\sigma _{ij})𝒫N\right]dx^idx^j\hfill & \\ & F^1S^1(A_{ij}N)dx^idx^j=2F^1S^1\left(N\sigma _{im}\sigma _j^m\right)dx^idx^j,\hfill & (40)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`F^1`$ is the inverse of the operator

$$FI+\frac{2}{3}S^1(L^1𝒫N)^2Q^1N.$$
$`(41)`$
Equation (40) is an integral equation for $`\sigma _{ij}`$, for which a perturbation approach might be useful if one takes

$$2F^1S^1\left(N\sigma _{im}\sigma _j^m\right)dx^idx^j$$

as the known term mentioned before. Note that we have resorted to the use of the tensor product $`dx^idx^j`$ because in the resulting equation (40) one has a well defined integration of a “symmetric two-form” over the space-time manifold, here taken to be diffeomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t\times 𝐑`$. Strictly, also Eq. (35) should be written as

$$h_{ij}dx^idx^j=2(Q^1N\sigma _{ij})dx^idx^j,$$
$`(35^{})`$
and in all such equations only the symmetric part of the tensor product survives, because both $`h_{ij}`$ and $`\sigma _{ij}`$ are symmetric rank-two tensor fields.

Note once more that it would be wrong to regard Eq. (27) as independent of the solution of Eqs. (28) and (29), because $`L^1𝒫N`$ is only known at all times when the time evolution of $`h_{ij}`$ and $`K_{ij}`$ has been determined for given initial conditions. Our equations (35’)–(37) and (40), although not obviously more powerful than previous schemes, prepare the ground for an operator approach to the ADM equations for general relativity, and hence might contribute to the understanding of structural properties of general relativity. In particular, our way of writing the coupled system of non-linear evolution equations might lead to a better understanding of the interplay between elliptic operators on the spacelike surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ and hyperbolic equations on the space-time manifold. As far as we can see, this expectation is supported by the closed Friedmann–Lemaitre–Robertson–Walker model discussed before (where $`\sigma _{ij}`$ vanishes), and further examples of cosmological interest might be found, e.g. Bianchi IX models describing a closed but anisotropic universe. For open universes or asymptotically flat space-times, however, we are not aware of theorems that make it possible to expand the lapse as in (14). In such cases, the counterpart of the elliptic theory on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ advocated in our paper is therefore another open problem. Acknowledgments. We are grateful to Gabriele Gionti and Giuseppe Marmo for several enlightening conversations, and to Luca Lusanna for very useful comments.

REFERENCES

1. R. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. W. Misner, in Gravitation: an Introduction to Current Research, edited by L. Witten (Wiley, New York, 1962).

2. C. W. Misner, K. P. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, Gravitation (Freeman, S. Francisco, 1973).

3. G. Esposito, Quantum Gravity, Quantum Cosmology and Lorentzian Geometries, Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. m12, Second Corrected and Enlarged Edition (Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 1994).

4. P. A. M. Dirac, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics, Belfer Graduate School (Yeshiva University, New York, 1964).

5. P. B. Gilkey, Invariance Theory, the Heat Equation and the Atiyah–Singer Index Theorem (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1995).

6. D. Christodoulou and S. Klainerman, The Global Nonlinear Stability of the Minkowski Space (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1993).

7. E. M. Lifshitz and I. M. Khalatnikov, Adv. Phys. 12, 185 (1963).

8. J. W. York, Found. Phys. 16, 249 (1986).

9. J. B. Hartle and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 28, 2960 (1983).

10. D. Christodoulou, Class. Quantum Grav. 16, A23 (1999).

11. A. Anderson and J. W. York, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4384 (1999).

12. A. Anderson, Y. Choquet-Bruhat and J. W. York, “Einstein’s Equations and Equivalent Hyperbolic Dynamical Systems” (GR-QC 9907099).

13. H. Friedrich and A. Rendall, in Einstein’s Field Equations and their Physical Interpretation, edited by B. G. Schmidt (Springer–Verlag, Berlin, 2000; GR-QC 0002074).

14. S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large-Scale Structure of Space-Time (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973).


format: text

text:
# Decompositions of Reflexive Modules This work is supported by the project No. G-545-173.06/97 of the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research & Development AMS subject classification: primary: 13C05, 13C10, 13C13, 20K15,20K25,20K30 secondary: 03E05, 03E35 Key words and phrases: almost free modules, reflexive modules, duality theory, modules with particular monomorphism GbSh 716 in Shelah’s list of publications

## 1 Introduction

Let $`R`$ be a countable principal ideal domain with $`10`$ and $`S`$ a multiplicative closed subset of $`R\{0\}`$ containing $`1`$. If $`S=\{s_n:n\omega \},s_0=1`$ and $`q_n=\underset{i<n}{}s_i`$, then

$`q_{n+1}=q_ns_n\text{ and }{\displaystyle \underset{n\omega }{}}q_nR=0.`$ (1.1)
The condition (1.1) requires that $`R`$ is not a field, but then we may choose $`S=R\{0\}`$ or any other ‘classical example’. The right ideals $`q_nR`$ form a basis of the S-topology on $`R`$ which is Hausdorff by (1.1). The S-adic completion of $`R`$ under the $`S`$-topology is the ring $`\widehat{R}`$ which has the size $`2^\mathrm{}_0`$, see Göbel, May  for properties on $`\widehat{R}`$. Similar consideration carry over to (free) $`R`$-modules which we will use in the next sections. If $`F`$ is a free $`R`$-module then the $`S`$-topology is generated by $`Fq_n(n\omega )`$ and if $`\widehat{F}`$ denotes the S-adic completion of $`F`$ then $`F\widehat{F}`$ and $`F`$ is pure and dense in $`\widehat{F}`$. Recall that $`F_{}\widehat{F}`$ is pure (w.r.t. $`S`$) if and only if

$$\widehat{F}sFFs\text{ for all }sS.$$

Also $`F`$ is dense in $`\widehat{F}`$ if and only if $`\widehat{F}/F`$ is $`S`$-divisible (in the obvious sense). Note that an element $`e`$ of an $`R`$-module $`G`$ is pure, we write $`e_{}G`$ if $`eR_{}G`$. If $`XG`$, then $`X`$ denotes the submodule generated by $`X`$ and $`X_{}`$ denotes the submodule purely generated by $`X`$. The following observation is well-known and can be looked up in .

###### Observation 1.1

If $`0r_nR`$ infinitely often ($`n\omega `$), then we can find $`ϵ_n\{0,1\}`$ such that

$$\underset{n\omega }{}r_nq_nϵ_n\widehat{R}R.$$

If $`G`$ is any $`R`$-module then $`G^{}=\mathrm{Hom}(G,R)`$ denotes its dual module, and $`G`$ is a dual module if $`GD^{}`$ for some $`R`$-module $`D`$. Particular dual modules are reflexive modules $`D`$ introduced by Bass \[1, p. 476\]. We need the evaluation map

$$\sigma =\sigma _D:DD^{}(d\sigma (d))$$

where $`\sigma (d)D^{}`$ is defined by evaluation

$$\sigma (d):D^{}R(\phi \phi (d)).$$

The module $`D`$ is reflexive if the evaluation map $`\sigma _D`$ is an isomorphism. Obviously $`D(D^{})^{}`$ is a dual module if $`D`$ is reflexive. However, there are very many $`\mathrm{}_1`$-free modules $`G`$ with $`G^{}=0`$, see . An $`R`$-module is $`\mathrm{}_1`$-free if all countable submodules are free. Using the special continuum hypothesis CH the existence of many reflexive modules (Section 3) will follow from considerations of free modules with bilinear form in Section 2. Classical examples are due to Specker and Łos and it follows from Specker’s theorem that reflexive modules must be $`\mathrm{}_1`$-free, see Fuchs . Hence it is not too surprising that we will deal with free $`R`$-modules first in Section 2. The bilinear form is needed to control their duals when passing from $`\mathrm{}_0`$ to size $`\mathrm{}_1`$ in Section 3.

In order to find reflexive groups $`G`$ of cardinality $`\mathrm{}_1`$ with $`G\cong ̸RG`$ we must discard all possible monomorphisms

$`\phi :GG\text{ with }G\phi eR=G.`$ (1.2)
This will be established with the help of an $`\mathrm{}_1`$-filtration

$$G=\underset{\alpha \omega _1}{}G_\alpha \text{ of countable, pure, free submodules }G_\alpha $$

such that $`G_\alpha `$ is a summand with $`R`$-free complement of any $`G_\beta `$ for $`\alpha <\beta `$ if $`\alpha `$ does not belong to a fixed stationary subset $`E`$ of $`\omega _1`$. Given $`\phi `$ as in (1.2) by a back and forth argument there is a cub $`C\omega _1`$ such that $`G_\alpha \phi G_\alpha `$ and $`eG_\alpha `$ for all $`\alpha C`$.

If $`\alpha EC`$ then

$`G_\alpha \phi eR=G_\alpha .`$ (1.3)
And if $`\phi G_\alpha `$ is predicted by a function $`\phi _\alpha `$ as under the assumption of the diamond principle $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{}_1`$, then we construct $`G_{\alpha +1}`$ by a Step-Lemma from $`G_\alpha `$ and $`\phi _\alpha `$ such that $`\phi _\alpha `$ does not extend to $`G_{\alpha +1}`$. Moreover $`G_{\alpha +1}`$ is the $`S`$-adic closure of $`G_\alpha `$ in $`G`$ by the summand property mentioned above. Hence $`\phi `$ coincides with $`\phi _\alpha `$ on $`G_\alpha `$ and maps $`G_{\alpha +1}`$ into itself, a contradiction. However assuming CH only weaker prediction principles like weak diamond $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{}_1`$ are available, see Devlin and Shelah  or Eklof and Mekler \[8, p. 143, Lemma 1.7\]. If we discard $`\phi _\alpha `$ in the construction as before, then $`\phi G_\alpha `$ might extend because it does not entirely agree with $`\phi _\alpha `$. In this case $`\phi `$ will show up at some $`\alpha <\beta EC`$ and we have a new chance to discard $`\phi G_{\alpha +1}`$ at level $`\beta `$ \- provided we know $`\phi G_{\alpha +1}`$ when constructing $`G_{\beta +1}`$.

This time we need a stronger algebraic algebraic Step-Lemma: Note that $`G_{\alpha +1}F_\beta =G_\beta `$. Now we have a partial map $`\phi _\beta :=\phi G_{\alpha +1}`$ with domain $`\mathrm{Dom}\phi _\beta =G_{\alpha +1}`$ a summand of $`G_\beta `$ and the splitting property (1.3) for the new map $`\phi _\beta `$:

$`(G_{\alpha +1}\phi _\beta eR)F_\beta =G_\beta .`$ (1.4)
In order to proceed we must discard these partial maps and indeed we are able to prove a generalized Step-Lemma taking care of partial maps (1.4) in Section 2. Moreover, a counting argument also shows that a list of such partial maps

$$\{\phi _\beta :\beta E\}$$

exists which predict any given map $`\phi :GG`$ such that the following holds.

###### Lemma 1.2

 Let $`G=_{\alpha \omega _1}G_\alpha `$ be an $`\mathrm{}_1`$-filtration of $`G`$ and $`E\omega _1`$ be a stationary subset of $`\omega _1`$. Then there is a list of predicting partial maps

$$\{\phi _\alpha :G_\alpha G_\alpha :\alpha E\}$$

such that for any countable subset $`A`$ of $`G`$ there is an ordinal $`\beta E`$ (in fact an unbounded set of such ordinals) with

$$\phi A=\phi _\beta (G_\beta A).$$

For a suitable $`A=G_{\alpha +1}`$ and $`\phi A`$ we choose $`\beta E`$ by Lemma 1.2 with $`\phi G_{\alpha +1}=\phi _\beta G_{\alpha +1}`$ and $`G_\beta =G_{\alpha +1}F_\beta `$. Then we construct $`G_{\beta +1}`$ from $`G_\beta `$ and the given $`\phi _\beta G_{\alpha +1}`$ such that $`\phi _\beta G_{\alpha +1}`$ does not extend to $`G_{\beta +1}`$. This contradiction will provide the

###### Main Theorem 1.3

(ZFC + CH) If $`R`$ is a countable domain but not a field, then there is a family of $`2^\mathrm{}_1`$ pair-wise non-isomorphic reflexive $`R`$-modules $`G`$ of cardinality $`\mathrm{}_1`$ such that $`G\cong ̸RG`$.

We also would like to draw attention to a slight modification of the proof of the Main Theorem 1.3. In addition we may assume that $`G`$ in the Main Theorem 1.3 is essentially indecomposable, that any decomposition into two summands has one summand free of finite rank. This follows from a split realization result Corollary 4.3 with $`\mathrm{End}GA\mathrm{Fin}(G)`$ where $`A`$ is any $`R`$-algebra which is free of countable rank. Recall that $`\mathrm{Fin}(G)`$ is the ideal of all endomorphisms of $`G`$ of finite rank.

The formal proof for the prediction Lemma 1.2 is not complicated and uses repeatedly often the weak diamond prediction $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{}_1`$. It is also clear from what we said that the underlying module theory is not essential for proving Lemma 1.2 and that it should be possible to replace modules by many other categories like non-commutative groups, fields or Boolean algebras. In order to cover all these possibilities, the prediction principle is formulated in terms of model theory and will appear in this setting in a forth coming book by Shelah \[14, Chapter IX, Claim 1.5\].

We close this introduction with some historical remarks. Using a theorem of Łos̀ (see Fuchs ) on slender groups, the first ‘large’ reflexive abelian groups are free groups or (cartesian) products of $``$ \- assuming for a moment that all cardinals under consideration are $`<\mathrm{}_m`$, the first measurable cardinal. Also the members of the class of groups generated by $``$ and taking direct sums and products alternatively are reflexive, called Reid groups. Using a generalized ‘Chase Lemma’, which controls homomorphisms from products of modules into direct sums of modules, Dugas and Zimmermann-Huisgen  showed that the class of Reid groups is ‘really large’. Nevertheless there are more reflexive groups - Eda and Otha  applied their ‘theory of continuous functions on $`0`$-dimensional topological spaces’ to find reflexive groups not Reid-groups. As a by-product we also get dual groups which are not reflexive, see also . All these groups $`G`$ have the property that they are either free of finite rank or

$`GG.`$ (1.5)
As indicated in the abstract, we applied $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{}_1`$ to find examples $`G`$ of size $`\mathrm{}_1`$, where (1.5) is violated. The obvious question to replace $`\mathrm{}_\mathrm{}_1`$ by CH was the main goal of this paper. The question whether the Main Theorem 1.3 holds in any model of ZFC remains open. On the other hand we are able to show that the conclusion of the Main Theorem 1.3 also follows in models of ZFC and Martin’s axiom MA, see . Hence CH is not necessary to derive the existence of these reflexive modules.

## 2 Free modules with bilinear form and partial dual maps

###### Definition 2.1

Let $`(\mathrm{\Phi },𝔉_0,𝔉_1)`$ be a triple of a bilinear map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:F_0F_1R`$ for some countable, free $`R`$-modules $`F_i`$ of infinite rank, $`𝔉_iF_i^{}(i=0,1)`$ families of dual maps subject to the following conditions

1. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is not degenerated. This is to say if $`\mathrm{\Phi }(e,)F_1^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Phi }(,f)F_0^{}`$ is the trivial map then $`e=0`$ or $`f=0`$, respectively.
2. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ preserves purity, that is $`\mathrm{\Phi }(e,)_{}F_1^{}`$ if $`e_{}F_0`$ and dually $`\mathrm{\Phi }(,f)_{}F_0^{}`$ if $`f_{}F_1.`$
3. $`𝔉_i`$ is a countable, non-empty family of homomorphisms $`\phi :F_\phi R`$ such that $`\mathrm{Dom}\phi =F_\phi _{}F_i`$. The set $`\mathrm{Dom}𝔉_i=\{F_\phi :\phi 𝔉_i\}`$ is well-ordered by inclusion, for $`i\{0,1\}.`$
4. For any $`0xF_1`$ and any finite subset $`E𝔉_0`$ we have $`\mathrm{ker}E\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }(,x)`$, and dually for any $`0yF_0`$ and any finite subset $`E𝔉_1`$, we have $`\mathrm{ker}E\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }(y,).`$

Here, and in the subsequent parts we use the following

###### Notation 2.2

1. $`𝔉`$ is the collection of all triples $`(\mathrm{\Phi },𝔉_0,𝔉_1)`$ as in Definition 2.1.
2. If $`E\mathrm{Hom}(G,H)`$ then $`\mathrm{ker}E=\underset{\phi E}{}\mathrm{ker}\phi .`$
3. Similarly $`\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }(,E)=\underset{eE}{}\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }(,e)`$ and dually.

Next we define a partial order on $`𝔉`$.

###### Definition 2.3

1. $`(\mathrm{\Phi },𝔉_0,𝔉_1)(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},𝔉_0^{},𝔉_1^{})`$
2. $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{(a) }\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\text{ and }\mathrm{Dom}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\mathrm{Dom}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\text{ is a pure submodule.}\hfill & \\ \text{(b) }\text{ If }\phi 𝔉_i\text{ then there is a unique }\phi ^{}𝔉_i^{}\text{ such that }\phi \phi ^{}\text{ and }\hfill & \\ \mathrm{Dom}\phi _{}\mathrm{Dom}\phi ^{}.\hfill & \end{array}`$

We will construct the reflexive modules of size $`\mathrm{}_1`$ by using an order preserving continuous map and let

$`p:{}_{}{}^{\omega _1>}2𝔉(\eta p_\eta )`$ (2.1)
from the tree $`𝐓`$ of all branches of length $`\mathrm{lg}(\eta )=\alpha `$

$$\eta :\alpha 2=\{0,1\}\text{for all}\alpha <\omega _1.$$

The order on $`𝐓`$ is defined naturally by extensions, i.e. if $`\eta ,\eta ^{}`$ T, then $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ if and only if $`\eta \eta ^{}`$ as maps. Hence $`\mathrm{lg}(\eta )\mathrm{lg}(\eta ^{})`$ and $`\eta ^{}\mathrm{lg}(\eta )=\eta `$, and we will require that $`p_\eta p_\eta ^{}`$ by the ordering of $`𝔉`$ as defined in Definition 2.3. If $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\omega _1}2`$, then $`p_{\eta \alpha }(\alpha \omega _1)`$ is linearly ordered and the triple

$`p_\eta ={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \omega _1}{}}p_{\eta \alpha }`$ (2.2)
is well-defined. In details we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta :F_{0\eta }F_{1\eta }R`$ is defined by continuity such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta =\underset{\alpha \omega _1}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\eta \alpha }`$ and $`F_{i\eta }=\underset{\alpha \omega _1}{}F_{i\eta \alpha }`$. The bilinear forms $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta :F_{0\eta }F_{1\eta }R`$ will be our candidates for modules $`G`$ as in the Main Theorem 1.3. First we will show that $`𝔉\mathrm{}`$ and the arguments will be refined for Lemma 2.5.

###### Lemma 2.4

The partially ordered set $`𝔉`$ is non-empty.

Proof. Choose $`F_0=F_1=\underset{n\omega }{}e_nR`$ and extend

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(e_i,e_j)=\delta _{ij}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 0& \hfill if& \hfill ij\\ \hfill 1& \hfill if& \hfill i=j\end{array}$$

linearly to get a bilinear map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:F_0F_1R.`$ The map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ satisfies Definition 2.1 for $`𝔉_0=𝔉_1=\mathrm{}`$. Next we want find $`𝔉_0=\{\phi _0\}`$ and $`𝔉_1=\{\phi _1\}`$. If $`\phi _i(i2)`$ satisfy Definition 2.1 $`(iv)`$ and $`\mathrm{Dom}\phi _i=F_i`$ then obviously

$$(\mathrm{\Phi },𝔉_0,𝔉_1)𝔉.$$

We will work for $`\phi =\phi _0:F_0R`$ and enumerate $`F_1\{0\}=\{x_i:i\omega \}`$. If $`\phi _i=\mathrm{\Phi }(,x_i)`$ then $`\phi _i0`$ by $`(i)`$ and for $`(iv)`$ we must show that

$`\mathrm{ker}\phi \mathrm{ker}\phi _i\text{for all}i\omega `$ (2.3)
Write $`F_0=\underset{i\omega }{}L_i`$ such that each $`L_i=e_iRe_i^{}R`$ is free of rank 2 and let $`L_i^{}=\underset{ji}{}L_j`$ be a complement of $`L_i`$ . If $`L_i\phi _i=0`$ then we use $`\phi _i0`$ to find some $`0y_{}L_i^{}`$ such that $`y\phi _i0.`$ Choose a new complement of $`L_i^{}`$ and rename it $`L_i=(e_i+y)Re_i^{}R`$.

Hence $`L_i\phi _i0`$ and there is a pure element $`y_iL_i`$ with $`y_i\phi _i0`$. We found an independent family $`\{y_i:i\omega \}`$ with $`F_0=\underset{i\omega }{}y_iRC`$ for some $`0CF_0`$. Choose $`\phi \mathrm{Hom}(F_0,R)`$ such that $`y_i\phi =0`$ for all $`i\omega `$ and $`\phi C0`$. Hence

$$y_i\mathrm{ker}\phi \mathrm{ker}\phi _i\text{for all}i\omega $$

and (2.3) holds. Hence Definition 2.1 holds and $`𝔉_1`$ can be chosen dually. $`\mathrm{}`$

The crucial step in proving the next result is again verification of Definition 2.1 $`(iv)`$, this time for $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(,x)`$. The proof is similar to the last one, hence we can be less explicit and just refine the old arguments.

###### Lemma 2.5

Let $`p=(\mathrm{\Phi },𝔉_0,𝔉_1)𝔉`$ be with $`\mathrm{Dom}\mathrm{\Phi }=F_0F_1`$ and $`\phi L^{}`$ for some pure submodule $`L`$ of finite rank in $`F_0`$. Then we find $`pp^{}=(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},𝔉_0,𝔉_1)𝔉`$ with $`\mathrm{Dom}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=F_0F_1^{},F_1^{}=F_1xR`$ and $`\phi \mathrm{\Phi }^{}(,x).`$

Proof. First we want to extend $`\phi `$ to $`\phi ^{}:F_0R`$ such that

$`\mathrm{ker}E\mathrm{ker}\phi ^{}\text{ for all finite }E𝔉_0.`$ (2.4)
Enumerate all $`\mathrm{ker}E`$ for $`E𝔉_0`$ finite by $`\{K_i:0i\omega \}`$. Hence $`K_i=\underset{\phi E_i}{}\mathrm{ker}\phi `$ is a pure submodule of $`F_0`$ with $`F_0/K_i`$ free of rank $`|E_i|`$. As in the proof of (2.5) we can choose inductively $`\underset{i\omega }{}L_i=F_0`$ and $`0y_i_{}L_iK_i`$ for $`i>0`$ and $`L_0=L.`$ For some $`CF_0`$ we have $`F_0=\underset{i\omega }{}y_iRLC`$. Now we extend $`\phi L^{}`$ such that $`y_i\phi ^{}=1`$ and $`\phi C=0.`$ Hence

$$y_iK_i\mathrm{ker}\phi ^{}\text{ for all }0i\omega $$

and (2.4) holds. Finally we extend $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}:F_0(F_1xR)R`$ by taking $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(,x)=\phi ^{}`$. Condition (2.4) carries over to

$$\mathrm{ker}E\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }(,x)\text{ for all finite }E𝔉_0.$$

From this it is immediate that $`\mathrm{ker}E\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }(,y)`$ for all $`0yF_1^{}`$ and finite sets $`E𝔉_0`$. Hence Definition 2.1$`(iv)`$ holds, $`p(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},𝔉_0,𝔉_1)𝔉`$ and $`\phi \mathrm{\Phi }(,x)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Next we move elements from $`\mathrm{Hom}(F_\phi ,R)`$ for some $`\phi 𝔉_i`$ to $`𝔉_i`$.

###### Lemma 2.6

Let $`p=(\mathrm{\Phi },𝔉_0,𝔉_1)𝔉`$ be with $`\mathrm{Dom}\mathrm{\Phi }=F_0F_1`$. If $`\psi \mathrm{Hom}(F_\phi ,R)`$ for some $`\phi 𝔉_0`$ such that

$$\mathrm{ker}\psi \mathrm{ker}E\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }(,x)\text{for all finite}E𝔉_0\text{and}xF_1,$$

then

$$pp^{}=(\mathrm{\Phi },𝔉_0^{},𝔉_1)𝔉\text{ for }𝔉_0^{}=𝔉_0\{\psi \}$$

Proof. We only have to check Definition 2.1$`(iv)`$ for finite subsets of $`𝔉_0^{}=𝔉_0\{\psi \}.`$ But this follows by hypothesis on $`\psi `$.

The proof of the following observation is obvious.

###### Observation 2.7

If $`p_n=(\mathrm{\Phi }_n,𝔉_{0n},𝔉_{1n})(n\omega )`$ is an ascending chain of elements $`p_n𝔉`$ and elements in $`𝔉_i`$ are unions of extensions in $`𝔉_{in}𝔉_{in+1}(n\omega )`$, then $`p=(\underset{n\omega }{}\mathrm{\Phi }_n,𝔉_0,𝔉_1)𝔉.`$

###### Definition 2.8

If $`(\mathrm{\Phi },𝔉_0,𝔉_1)𝔉`$ with $`\mathrm{Dom}\mathrm{\Phi }=F_0F_1`$ then $`\phi F_0^{}`$ is essential for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ if for any finite rank summand $`L`$ of $`F_0`$ and any finite subset $`E`$ of $`F_1`$ there is $`gF_0L`$ with $`g\phi 0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(g,e)=0`$ for all $`eE`$.

The notion ‘$`\phi F_1^{}`$ is essential for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ ’ is dual.

If $`g\phi =0=\mathrm{\Phi }(g,e)`$ for $`eE`$ and some $`E𝔉_1`$ then $`g\mathrm{\Phi }(,e):eEF_0^{}`$ by induction on $`|E|`$. Hence $`\phi F_0^{}`$ is essential for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is equivalent to say that $`\phi `$ is not in $`\mathrm{\Phi }(,F_1)`$ modulo summands of finite rank. This leads to the following

###### Observation 2.9

Let $`(\mathrm{\Phi },𝔉_0,𝔉_1)𝔉`$ with $`\mathrm{Dom}\mathrm{\Phi }=F_0F_1`$. If $`EF_1`$ is a finite subset and $`\phi F_0^{}`$ inessential for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with $`\mathrm{ker}\phi \mathrm{ker}E`$ i.e.

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }(x,e)=0\text{ for all }eE)x\phi =0,$$

then there is $`e_0EF_1`$ such that $`\phi =\mathrm{\Phi }(,e_0)`$.

Proof. By induction on $`|E|`$.

###### First Killing-Lemma 2.10

Suppose $`\phi F_0^{}`$ is essential for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with $`\mathrm{Dom}\mathrm{\Phi }=F_0F_1`$ and $`p=(\mathrm{\Phi },𝔉_0,𝔉_1)𝔉`$. Then we find $`pp^{}𝔉`$ with $`p^{}=(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},𝔉_0^{},𝔉_1^{}),\mathrm{Dom}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=F_0^{}F_1`$ and $`F_0^{}=F_0,y_{}\widehat{F}_0`$ for some $`y\widehat{F}_0`$ such that $`\phi `$ does not extend to $`\phi ^{}:F_0^{}R`$.

Remark A dual lemma holds for $`\phi F_1^{}`$.

Proof. Let $`F_0=\underset{i\omega }{}e_iR`$ and $`F_1=\underset{n\omega }{}f_nR`$. First we apply that $`\phi `$ is essential. It is easy to find inductively elements $`g_nF_0F^n`$ with $`F^n=e_i,g_i:i<n_{}F_0`$ such that the following holds

1. $`\mathrm{\Phi }(g_n,f_i)=0`$ for all $`i<n.`$
2. $`\underset{i<n}{}g_iR`$ is a direct summand - also $`\underset{i\omega }{}g_iR`$ is a summand of $`G`$.
3. $`g_n\phi 0`$ for all $`n\omega `$.

Decompose $`\omega `$ into a disjoint union of infinite subsets $`S_i(i\omega )`$ and let $`\{E_i:0i\omega \}`$ be an enumeration of all finite subsets of $`𝔉_1`$ and write $`K_i=\mathrm{ker}E_i`$ for all $`i>0`$. In order to get $`K_i\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }(x,)`$ for all $`i>0,xF_0^{}F`$, we choose for each $`nS_i`$ an element $`k_nK_i`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(g_n,k_n)0`$. This is possible as $`F_1/K_i`$ is free of finite rank $`|E_i|`$, hence $`K_i`$ is ‘quite large’.

Now we use $`g_n\phi 0(n\omega )`$ and apply Observation 1.1 (for $`S_0`$) and choose a sequence $`ϵ_n\{0,1\}(n\omega )`$ and suitable $`q_nS`$ as in (1.1) such that

$`r={\displaystyle \underset{n\omega }{}}(g_n\phi )q_nϵ_n\widehat{R}R`$ (2.5)
$`\text{If }nS_i,\text{ then }{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{\Phi }(g_j,k_i)q_jϵ_j0modq_{n+1}`$ (2.6)
If $`s\omega `$ and $`ϵ_s=1`$, then let

$$y_s=\underset{sn\omega }{}(q_s)^1q_ng_nϵ_n\widehat{F}_0$$

and consider the $`R`$-module $`F_0^{}=F_0,y_0_{}\widehat{F}_0`$, which can be generated by

$$F_0^{}=F_0,y_sR:s\omega ,ϵ_s=1.$$

Note that $`F_0^{}`$ is a countable $`R`$-module. It is easy to see that $`F_0^{}`$ is free - either apply Pontryagin’s theorem (Fuchs \[9, p. 93\]) or determine a free basis. The bilinear form $`\mathrm{\Phi }:F_0F_1R`$ extends uniquely to $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}:F_0^{}F_1\widehat{R}`$ by continuity and density. We want to show that

$`(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},𝔉_0,𝔉_1)𝔉.`$ (2.7)
First we claim that Im $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}R`$. By (i) we have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(y_0,f_j)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\underset{n\omega }{}ϵ_nq_ng_n,f_j)=\underset{n\omega }{}\mathrm{\Phi }(g_n,f_j)q_nϵ_n=\underset{n<j}{}\mathrm{\Phi }(g_n,f_j)q_nϵ_nR$$

and $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}R`$ follows.

We also must check $`(iv)`$ from Definition 2.1 for the new elements $`yF_0^{}F_0`$. It is enough to consider

$$\mathrm{ker}E\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }(y_s,)\text{ for all }s\omega \text{ with }ϵ_s=1.$$

By definitions and enumerations this is equivalent to say that

$$K_i\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }(y_s,)\text{for each}i>0.$$

If $`nS_i`$ and $`n>s`$ by (2.6) we have that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(y_s,k_i)=\underset{j\omega }{}\mathrm{\Phi }(g_j,k_i)q_jϵ_j\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }(g_j,k_i)q_jϵ_j0modq_{n+1}$$

Hence $`k_i\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }(y_s,)`$ but $`k_iK_i`$ and (2.7) follows. Finally we must show that $`\phi F_0^{}`$ does not extend to $`(F_0^{})^{}`$. By continuity $`\phi :F_0R`$ extends uniquely to $`\phi ^{}:F_0^{}\widehat{R}`$. However

$$y_0\phi =(\underset{n\omega }{}g_nq_nϵ_n)\phi ^{}=\underset{n\omega }{}(g_n\phi )q_nϵ_n=r\widehat{R}R$$

by (2.5), hence $`\phi `$ does not extend to $`F_0^{}R`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Second Killing-Lemma 2.11

Let $`p=(\mathrm{\Phi },𝔉_0,𝔉_1)𝔉`$ and $`\eta :F_\phi F_\phi `$ be some monomorphism with $`F_\phi =x_0RF_\phi \eta `$ for some $`\phi 𝔉_0`$ with $`x_0F_\phi =\mathrm{ker}\phi `$. Then there is $`pp^{}=(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},𝔉_0^{},𝔉_1^{})𝔉`$ with $`\mathrm{Dom}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=F_0^{}F_1^{},\phi \phi ^{}𝔉_0^{}`$ such that $`\eta `$ does not extend to a monomorphism

$$\eta ^{\prime \prime }:F_\phi ^{}F_\phi ^{}_{}F_0^{\prime \prime }\text{ with }F_\phi ^{}^{\prime \prime }=x_0RF_\phi ^{}^{\prime \prime }\eta ^{\prime \prime }$$

where $`p^{}p^{\prime \prime }:=(\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime },𝔉_0^{\prime \prime },𝔉_1^{\prime \prime })`$ and $`\mathrm{Dom}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }=F{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{0}{}^{}F_1^{\prime \prime }`$.

Proof. In order to satisfy Definition 2.1 $`(iv)`$ for the new $`p^{}𝔉`$ we argue similar to the First Killing Lemma 2.10. Let $`\omega =\underset{i\omega }{}S_i`$ be a decomposition into infinite subsets $`S_i`$ and $`\{K_i:0i\omega \}`$ be all kernels $`K_i=\mathrm{ker}E_i`$ for an enumeration of finite subsets $`E_i`$ of $`𝔉_1`$. The set $`S_0`$ will be used for killing $`\eta `$ and the $`S_i(i>0)`$ are in charge of $`K_i`$ and $`(iv)`$ above. Extending $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ we must ensure $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}R`$. Hence we construct an increasing sequence $`s_n\omega (n\omega )`$ and pose more conditions on $`s_n`$ later on. If $`F^{}=\mathrm{Dom}\phi `$ then $`F^{}=x_0RF^{}\eta `$ and if $`x_i=x_0\eta ^i`$ we get

$`F^{}={\displaystyle \underset{i<n}{}}x_iRF^{}\eta ^n\text{ for all }n\omega .`$ (2.8)
Note that $`\underset{i<n}{}x_iR`$ is pure of finite rank, hence $`F_0=\underset{i<n}{}x_iRC_n`$ for some $`C_nF_0`$. Now we construct $`T_n=\underset{s_ni<s_{n+1}}{}e_iR`$ from $`F_0=\underset{i\omega }{}e_iR`$ and refine an argument from Göbel, Shelah . Obviously $`F_0=\underset{n\omega }{}T_n`$ and let $`e^n\mathrm{Hom}(F_0,R)(n\omega )`$ be defined by

$$e_ie^n=\delta _{i,n}=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 0& \hfill if& \hfill in\\ \hfill 1& \hfill if& \hfill i=n\end{array}$$

for all $`i\omega `$. If $`i<n`$ then $`\pi _i:F_0R`$ denotes the projection modulo $`\underset{ij<n}{}x_jRC_n`$, moreover let $`F_1=\underset{j\omega }{}f_jR`$ be as before. We now seek for elements $`w_nF_0(n\omega )`$ subject to the following four conditions

1. $`0w_nT_n`$ and $`w_n\eta T_n`$.
2. $`\mathrm{\Phi }(w_n,f_n)=w_ne^k=w_n\eta e^k=0`$ for all $`k<s_n`$
3. If $`nS_0,`$ then let $`\pi _n^{}`$ be the projection $`\pi _i`$ with $`i`$ maximal such that

$$w_n\pi _i=0w_n\eta \pi _i,s_ni<s_{n+1}$$
4. If $`nS_i,i>0`$, there is $`y_nK_i`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(w_n,y_n)0.`$

Suppose $`s_0,\mathrm{},s_n,w_0\mathrm{},w_{n1}`$ are constructed and we want to choose $`w_n,s_{n+1}`$. Then pick $`s_n<s_{n+1}`$ such that

$$\{x_{s_n},\mathrm{},x_{4s_n+1}\}\underset{is_{n+1}}{}e_iR.$$

We want to choose $`w_n=\underset{i=s_n}{\overset{4s_n}{}}x_ia_i^n`$ for some $`a_i^nR`$. If $`w_ne^k=0`$ for $`k<s_n`$, then $`w_nT_n`$. Moreover

$$w_n\eta =\underset{i=s_n}{\overset{4s_n}{}}x_ia_i^n\eta =\underset{i=s_n}{\overset{4s_n}{}}x_{i+1}a_i^n=\underset{i=s_n+1}{\overset{4s_n+1}{}}x_ia_{i1}^n$$

and $`x_n\eta T`$ because $`x_{4s_n+1}\underset{is_{n+1}}{}e_iR`$ as well.

Hence $`(i)`$ follows provided $`w_n0`$ is generated by those $`x_i^{}s`$. The conditions $`(ii)`$ can be viewed as a system of $`3s_n`$ homogeneous linear equations in $`4s_n+1s_n=3s_n+1`$ unknowns $`a_i^nR`$. We find a non-trivial solution $`w_n0`$ by linear algebra. Hence $`(i)`$ and $`(ii)`$ hold. Condition $`(iii)`$ follows by hypothesis on $`𝔉_1`$ for $`E_i`$ and $`K_i=\mathrm{ker}E_i`$. Condition $`(iii)`$ finally follows by the action of $`\eta `$ on $`w_n0`$ and the maximality of $`i`$ with $`s_n<i4s_n`$ and $`w_n\pi _i=0`$ for $`\pi _n^{}=\pi _i`$. Hence $`(i),\mathrm{},(iv)`$ follow.

As in the proof of the First Killing Lemma 2.10 inductively we choose a strictly increasing sequence $`m_j\omega (j\omega )`$. If $`m_j`$ is defined up to $`jn`$ we must choose $`m_{n+1}`$ large enough such that

$$\underset{jn}{}q_{m_j}\mathrm{\Phi }(w_j,y_n)0modq_{m_{n+1}}.$$

This needs inductively the hypothesis that $`\underset{jn}{}q_{m_j}\mathrm{\Phi }(w_j,y_n)0`$. If $`n+1S_i`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }(w_{n+1},y_{n+1})0`$ by $`(iv)`$ and we may assume

$$\underset{jn+1}{}p_j^m\mathrm{\Phi }(w_j,y_{n+1})0$$

hence the inductive hypothesis follows and we can proceed. By Observation 1.1 and $`(iii)`$ we also find $`ϵ_j\{0,1\}(jS_0)`$ such that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{jS_0}{}}(w_j\eta )\pi _j^{}q_{m_j}ϵ_j\widehat{R}R.`$ (2.9)
Now we are ready to extend $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Choose new elements

$$z_k=\underset{jk}{}w_jq_{m_j}(q_{m_k})^1\widehat{F}_0$$

for all $`k\omega `$. Hence the submodule $`F_0^{}=F_0,z_0_{}\widehat{F}_0`$ purely generated by adding $`z=z_0`$ is generated by

$$F_0^{}=F_0,z_k:k\omega .$$

Again we see that $`F_0^{}`$ is a countable, free $`R`$-module. The map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:F_0F_1R`$ by continuity extends uniquely to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}:F_0^{}F_1\widehat{R}.$$

Recall that $`F_0^{}/F_0`$ is S-divisible, hence $`F_0`$ is S-dense in $`F_0^{}`$ in the S-adic topology. First we must show that $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}R`$. We apply $`(ii)`$ and continuity to see that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(z,f_k)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(\underset{n\omega }{}q_{m_n}w_n,f_k)=\underset{n\omega }{}q_{m_n}\mathrm{\Phi }(w_n,f_k)=\underset{nk}{}q_{m_n}\mathrm{\Phi }(w_n,f_k)R,$$

hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}:F_0^{}F_1R`$.

We also must show Definition 2.1 $`(iv)`$ for the new elements $`z_tF_0^{}`$. We have $`K_i=\mathrm{ker}E_i`$ and $`S_i`$ is unbounded. Hence we find $`nS_i,n>t`$ and $`y_nK_i`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(w_n,y_n)0.$$

We apply $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ to $`(z_t,y_n)`$ and get

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(z_t,y_n)\underset{tjn}{}q_{m_j}(q_{m_t}^1\mathrm{\Phi }(w_j,y_n)0modq_{m_{n+1}}q_{n_t}^1$$

hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z_t,y_n)0`$ and $`y_nK_i`$. This is equivalent to say that $`\mathrm{ker}E_i\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }(z_t,)`$ and Definition 2.1 $`(iv)`$ follows. Hence $`(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},𝔉_0,𝔉_1)𝔉`$ with $`\mathrm{Dom}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=F_0^{}F_1.`$

Next we extend $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ under the name $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$. Let $`F_1^{}=F_1fR`$ be a free rank-1 extension. We want $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}:F_0^{}F_1^{}R`$ and must define $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(,f):F_0^{}R`$. Put $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(,f)T_n=ϵ_n\pi _n^{}T_n`$ if $`nS_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(,f)T_n=0`$ otherwise. By linear extension and $`F_0=\underset{n\omega }{}T_n`$ the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(,f):F_0R`$ is well-defined. It extends further by continuity to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}:F_0^{}F_1^{}\widehat{R}.$$

Again we must show that $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}R`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(w_n,f)=w_nϵ_n\pi _n^{}=0`$ for $`nS_0`$ from (iii), and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(w_n,f)=0`$ for $`n\omega S_0`$ by the above, hence

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(z,f)=\underset{n\omega }{}q_{m_n}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(w_n,f)=0$$

and $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}R`$ follows.

We also must check condition $`(iv)`$ of Definition 2.1 for the new element $`fF_1^{}`$. Recall $`K_i(i\omega )`$ is a list of all kernels $`\mathrm{ker}E_i`$ for finite sets in $`𝔉_0`$. Also enumerate all $`T_n`$’s with $`nS_0`$ and $`r_n=1`$ as, say $`T^i=T_{n_i}(i\omega )`$. Choosing the ranks of the $`T^i^{}s`$ large enough we can find (as before) $`y_i^{}K_iT^i`$ with $`y_i^{}\pi _{n_i}^{}0`$. Then

$$y_i^{}\mathrm{ker}E_i\text{ but }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(y_i^{},f)=y_i^{}\pi _{n_i}^{}0,$$

hence $`y_i^{}\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }(,f)`$ as desired for $`(iv)`$ above.

Finally we must get rid of $`\eta `$ by showing that there is no extension $`\eta ^{\prime \prime }\eta `$ as stated in the Lemma. Otherwise we have $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }:F_0^{\prime \prime }RR`$ and

$$x_0RF^{\prime \prime }\eta ^{\prime \prime }=F^{\prime \prime }$$

for $`\mathrm{Dom}\eta ^{\prime \prime }=F^{\prime \prime }_{}F_0^{\prime \prime }`$ with $`z\mathrm{Dom}\eta ^{}F^{\prime \prime }`$. Hence $`r=\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }(z\eta ^{\prime \prime },f)R`$. On the other hand

$$r=\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }(z\eta ^{\prime \prime },f)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }(\underset{j\omega }{}q_{m_j}(w_j\eta ^{}),f)=\underset{j\omega }{}q_{m_j}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(w_j\eta ^{},f)=\underset{jS_0}{}q_{m_j}ϵ_j(w_j\eta \pi _j^{})\widehat{R}R$$

is a contradiction. The lemma follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Construction of reflexive modules assuming CH

Let $`\{S_0,\mathrm{},S_5\}`$ be a decomposition of the set of all limit ordinals in $`\omega _1`$ into stationary sets. Using CH we can enumerate sets of cardinality $`2^\mathrm{}_0`$ by any of these stationary sets of size $`\mathrm{}_1`$.
Let

$`𝐓={}_{}{}^{\omega _{1>}}2=\{\eta _\alpha :\alpha \omega _1\}`$ (3.1)
be an enumeration of the tree with countable branches such that

$`\eta _\alpha \eta _\beta \alpha <\beta `$ (3.2)
We are working in the ‘universe’ $`\omega _1`$ and let

$`\mathrm{Map}(\omega _1,R)=\{\phi _i:iS_0\}=\{\phi _i:iS_1\}=\{\phi _i:iS_2\}=\{\phi _i:iS_3\}`$ (3.3)
be four lists of all partial functions $`\phi :\delta R`$ for $`\delta \omega _1`$ any limit ordinal with $`\mathrm{}_1`$ repetitions $`\phi _i`$ for each $`\phi `$. Similarly let

$$\mathrm{Map}(\omega _1,\omega _1)=\{\mu _i:iS_4\}=\{\mu _i:iS_5\}$$

be two lists of all partial maps $`\mu :XX\omega _1`$ with countable domains $`X`$ given by the prediction Lemma 1.2 for $`E\{S_4,S_5\}`$.

Inductively we want to construct an order preserving continuous map

$$p:{}_{}{}^{\omega _1>}2=𝐓𝔉,(\eta p_\eta )$$

subject to certain conditions $`(a),\mathrm{},(d)`$ dictated by the proof of the main theorem and stated below. Some preliminary words are in order. Using the enumeration (3.1) we may write

$`p_{\eta _\alpha }=p_\alpha =(\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha ,𝔉_{0\alpha },𝔉_{1\alpha })\text{ and }\mathrm{Dom}\mathrm{\Phi }_\alpha =F_{0\alpha }F_{1\alpha }`$ (3.4)
If $`p`$ is order preserving then $`(\eta _\alpha \eta _\beta p_\alpha p_\beta )`$ and continuity applies. If $`\eta {}_{}{}^{\alpha }2`$ has length $`\mathrm{lg}(\eta )=\alpha `$ and $`\alpha <\omega _1`$ is a limit ordinal, then $`\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}\eta \beta =\eta `$ and $`\eta \beta \eta `$, hence

$`\eta {}_{}{}^{\alpha }2p_\eta ={\displaystyle \underset{\beta <\alpha }{}}p_{\eta \beta }`$ (3.5)
If all $`p_{\eta \beta }𝔉`$ then $`p_\eta 𝔉`$ by Observation 2.7. Hence we have no problem in defining $`p`$ at limit stages by continuity. It remains to consider inductive steps for $`p`$. If $`\eta ,\eta ^{}{}_{}{}^{\omega _1>}2`$ then $`\gamma =\mathrm{br}(\eta ,\eta ^{})`$ denotes the branching point of $`\eta ,\eta ^{}`$, this is to say that

1. $`\gamma <\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{lg}(\eta ),\mathrm{lg}(\eta ^{})\}`$
2. $`\eta \gamma =\eta ^{}\gamma `$
3. $`\eta (\gamma )\eta ^{}(\gamma ).`$

If $`\eta `$ is a branch of length $`\alpha `$ and $`i\{0,1\}`$ then $`\eta ^{}=\eta \{i\}`$ is a branch of length $`\alpha +1`$ with $`\eta ^{}\alpha =\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}(\alpha )=i.`$ Now we continue defining $`p:{}_{}{}^{\omega _1>}2𝔉`$. Generally we require

(a) If $`\phi 𝔉_{i\alpha }`$ then $`\mathrm{Dom}\phi =F_{i\beta }`$ for some $`\eta _\beta \eta _\alpha .`$

(b) The set $`\{\mathrm{Dom}\phi :\phi 𝔉_{i\alpha }\}`$ is a well ordered set of pure submodule of $`F_{i\alpha }`$.

(c) If $`\gamma =\mathrm{br}(\eta _\alpha ,\eta _\beta )`$ and $`\eta _\alpha \gamma =\eta _\beta \gamma =\eta _ϵ`$ for some $`ϵ<\omega _1`$, and $`yF_{1\beta }F_{1ϵ}`$ then $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\beta (y,)F_{0ϵ}𝔉_{0\alpha }.`$ Dually, if $`yF_{0\beta }F_{1\beta }`$ then $`\mathrm{\Phi }^\beta (y,)F_{1ϵ}𝔉_{1\alpha }.`$

(d) If $`\nu {}_{}{}^{\gamma }2`$ is a branch of length $`\gamma ,i\{0,1\}`$ and $`\eta =\nu \{i\}`$ then we want to define $`p_\eta `$ depending on $`\gamma `$.

1. For $`\nu =\mathrm{}`$ choose $`p_{\{i\}}`$ by Lemma 2.5.
2. If $`\gamma S_0`$ then we want to enlarge $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu `$ to make the evaluation map injective: If $`\phi _\gamma F_\phi `$ for some $`\phi 𝔉_{0\nu }`$ is a partial $`R`$-homomorphism $`F_\phi R`$ with $`\mathrm{Dom}(\phi _\gamma F_\phi )`$ a pure $`R`$-submodule of finite rank of $`F_\phi `$, then we apply Lemma 2.6 such that $`p_\nu p_\eta `$ with $`F_{1\eta }=F_{1\nu }x_\eta R,F_{0\eta }=F_{0\nu }`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_\eta `$ and $`\phi _\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (,x_\eta ).`$ If $`\phi _\gamma `$ does not satisfy the requirements, then we choose any $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_\eta `$.
3. If $`\gamma S_1`$ then we argue as in $`(ii)`$ but dually. A dual version of Lemma 2.6 provides $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }_\eta `$ and $`\phi _\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (x_\eta ,)`$ if $`\phi _\gamma `$ meets the requirements.
4. If $`\gamma S_2`$ then we want to kill bad dual maps to make the evaluation map surjective. If $`\phi _\gamma F_{0\nu }`$ is an $`R`$-homomorphism $`F_{0\nu }R`$ which is essential for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu `$ then we apply the First Killing Lemma 2.10 to find $`p_\gamma p_\eta `$ such that $`F_{0\eta }=F_{0\nu },y_{}\widehat{F}_{\nu 0}`$ for some $`y\widehat{F}_{\nu 0}`$ and $`\phi _\gamma F_{0\nu }`$ does not extend to $`F_{0\eta }R.`$
5. If $`\gamma S_3`$ and $`\phi _\gamma F_{1\nu }`$ is an essential $`R`$-homomorphism for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu `$ then we argue as in $`(iv)`$ but dually.
6. If $`\gamma S_4`$ then we want to get rid of potential monomorphisms $`\eta `$ of the final module $`G`$ with $`G\eta xR=G.`$ If $`\phi 𝔉_{0\nu },\mu =\phi _\gamma F_\phi `$ and $`\mu :F_\phi F_\phi `$ is an $`R`$-monomorphism such that $`F_\phi =x_\phi RF_\phi \mu `$, then we apply the Second Killing Lemma 2.11 to find $`p_\nu p_\eta `$ such that $`\mu `$ does not extend to a monomorphism $`\mu ^{}`$ of an extension $`F_0^{}`$ of $`F_{0\eta }`$ with

$$p_\eta p^{}=(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},𝔉_0^{},𝔉_1^{}),\mathrm{Dom}\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=F_0^{}F_1^{}\text{ and }F_0^{}=x_\phi RF_0^{}\mu ^{}.$$
7. If $`\gamma S_5`$, then we argue dually for some partial monomorphism $`\mu `$ with domain and range some $`F_\phi _{}F_{1\nu }`$.
8. If $`\gamma \omega _1`$ is not a limit ordinal, then we are free to choose any ‘trivial’ extension $`p_\nu p_\eta `$.

## 4 Proof of the Main Theorem

Recall from Section 3 that we are given an order preserving continuous map

$$p:\text{ }\text{}𝔉.$$

By continuity we may extend $`p`$ to

$$p_\eta =(\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta ,𝔉_{0\eta },𝔉_{1\eta })\text{ for all }\eta {}_{}{}^{\omega _1}2.$$

It is immediate that

$`F_{i\eta }\text{ is }\mathrm{}_1\text{-free and }\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta :F_{0\eta }F_{1\eta }R\text{ is a bilinear form,}`$ (4.1)
where $`i\{0,1\},\eta {}_{}{}^{\omega _1}2.`$ Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta `$ preserves purity and is not degenerated in the sense of Definition 2.1. $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta :F_{0\eta }F_{1\eta }R`$ is our candidate for a reflexive modules, expressed in an unusual way.

To see that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta `$ preserves purity we must show that each pure element $`e_{}F_{0\eta }`$ induces $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (e,)_{}F_{1\eta }^{}`$ (and dually). We may restrict to the first case. If $`e_{}F_{0\eta }`$ then $`e_{}F_{0\eta \alpha }`$ for any $`\alpha \omega _1`$ large enough, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\eta \alpha }(e,)_{}F_{1\eta \alpha }^{}`$ by $`(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\eta \alpha },𝔉_{0\eta \alpha },𝔉_{1\eta \alpha })𝔉`$ and Definition 2.1 $`(ii)`$. It follows that $`\underset{\alpha \omega _1}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\eta \alpha }(e,)_{}F_{1\eta }^{}.`$

To see that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta `$ is not degenerated we consider $`0eF_{0\eta }`$. Hence $`ee^{}R_{}F_{0\eta \alpha }`$ for a pure element $`e^{}`$ and any $`\alpha \omega _1`$ large enough. The partial homomorphism $`\phi :e^{}RR`$ defined by $`e^{}\phi =1`$ has a number $`iS_0`$ in the list and $`\phi =\phi _i`$ . By construction there is $`yF_{1\eta \gamma }`$ with

$$\phi \mathrm{\Phi }_{\eta \gamma }(,y).$$

Hence $`0e\phi =\mathrm{\Phi }_{\eta \gamma }(e,y)=\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (e,y)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta `$ is not degenerated. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Definition 4.1

We will say that $`(\mathrm{\Phi },F_0,F_1)`$ with $`\mathrm{Dom}\mathrm{\Phi }=F_0F_1`$ is fully represented if $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (F_{0\eta },)=F_{1\eta }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (,F_{1\eta })=F_{0\eta }^{}`$.

We claim that

$`(\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta ,F_{0\eta },F_{1\eta })\text{ is fully represented for almost all }\eta {}_{}{}^{\omega _1}2`$ (4.2)
There are at most $`\eta W{}_{}{}^{\omega _1}2`$ exceptions with $`|W|<2^\mathrm{}_1`$.

Suppose for contradiction that $`|W|=2^\mathrm{}_1`$ and

$`\phi _\eta F_{1\eta }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (F_{0\eta },)\text{for all}\eta W`$ (4.3)
By a pigeon hole argument there are $`\eta ,\eta ^{}W`$ with $`\mathrm{br}(\eta ,\eta ^{})=\alpha `$ and

(a) $`\phi _\eta F_{1\alpha }=\phi _\eta ^{}F_{1\alpha }`$

(b) $`\phi _\eta :F_{1\eta }R`$, and $`\phi _\eta ^{}:F_{1\eta ^{}}R`$ are not represented.

Let $`\psi =\phi _\eta F_{1\alpha }=\phi _\eta ^{}F_{1\alpha }:F_{1\alpha }R`$ and recall that there is some $`\gamma S_3`$ with $`\psi =\phi _\gamma `$ and $`(d)(v)`$ of the construction applies. Hence $`\psi `$ is inessential for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma `$. There is a finite set $`EF_{0\gamma }`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (e,x)=0\text{for all}eE,x\mathrm{Dom}\psi =F_{1\alpha }\text{ implies }x\psi =0.$$

By Observation 2.9 we have some $`eEF_{0\gamma }`$ such that $`\psi =\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (,e)F_{1\alpha }`$. The same argument applies for $`\phi _\eta ^{}`$ and there are $`\gamma ^{}S_3`$ and $`e^{}F_{0\gamma ^{}}`$ such that $`\gamma <\gamma ^{}`$ and $`\psi =\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ^{}(,e^{})F_{1\alpha }`$. Hence $`\psi =\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ^{}(,e^{})F_\alpha =\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (,e)F_\alpha `$.

Finally we apply $`(c)`$ of the construction to get $`\psi 𝔉_{0\gamma ^{}}`$. Now Definition 2.1 $`(iv)`$ applies and $`\mathrm{ker}\psi \mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ^{}(,e^{})`$ is a contradiction because $`\psi =\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma ^{}(,e^{})`$. The claim (4.2) follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that we did not use $`(vi)`$ so far. Hence without the Second Killing Lemma 2.11 we are able to derive reflexivity of the modules $`G_\eta `$, which we will do next.

We will use the following notations.

$$\text{Let }I^{}=\{\eta {}_{}{}^{\omega _1}2\text{ such that }p_\eta \text{ is not fully represented} and }I={}_{}{}^{\omega _1}2I^{}$$

From (4.2) we see that $`|I^{}|<2^\mathrm{}_1`$, hence $`|I|=2^\mathrm{}_1`$ . If $`\eta I`$ and $`i\{0,1\}`$ then we also fix the evaluation map

$$\sigma _{i\eta }:F_{i\eta }F_{i\eta }^{}$$

and claim that

$`\sigma _{i\eta }:F_{i\eta }F_{i\eta }^{}\text{ is injective for all }\eta I,i\{0,1\}.`$ (4.4)
Proof.  We consider $`\sigma =\sigma _{0\eta }`$ and apply that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta `$ is not degenerated. If $`0xF_{0\eta }`$ there is $`yF_{1\eta }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (x,y)0`$. Hence $`\phi :=\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (,y)F_{0\eta }^{}`$ and $`x\phi =\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (x,y)0`$, thus $`x\sigma 0`$ and $`\sigma `$ is injective. The case $`\sigma _{1\eta }`$ is similar. $`\mathrm{}`$

Next we show that

$`\sigma _{i\eta }:F_{i\eta }F_{i\eta }^{}\text{ is surjective for all }\eta I,i\{0,1\}.`$ (4.5)
Proof. First note that

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta ^{}:F_{0\eta }F_{1\eta }^{}(x\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (x,))\text{ is bijective}`$ (4.6)
and

$`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\eta }^{}:F_{1\eta }F_{0\eta }^{}(y\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (,y))\text{ is bijective}`$ (4.7)
because $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta `$ is not degenerated and $`\eta I`$. Hence we can identify $`F_{1\eta }`$ and $`F_{0\eta }^{}`$ by $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{\eta }^{}`$ and $`F_{0\eta }^{}=\mathrm{Im}(^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta )=\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (,F_{1\eta })`$. Moreover

$$F_{0\eta }^{}=(F_{0\eta }^{})^{}=(F_{1\eta })^{}=\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta ^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (F_{0\eta },)$$

and for any $`\phi F_{0\eta }^{}`$ we find $`fF_{0\eta }`$ with $`\phi =\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (f,)`$. We consider the case $`\sigma =\sigma _{0\eta }`$, and get

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (,x)\sigma (f)=\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (f,x)=\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (,x)\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (f,)$$

for all $`xF_{1\eta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (,x)`$ runs through all of $`F_{0\eta }^{}`$. We derive $`\sigma (f)=\mathrm{\Phi }_\eta (f,)=\phi `$ and $`\sigma `$ is surjective. The case $`\sigma _{1\eta }`$ is similar. $`\mathrm{}`$

We have an immediate corollary from (4.4) and (4.5).

###### Corollary 4.2

If $`\eta I`$ and $`i\{0,1\}`$ then $`F_{i\eta }`$ is a reflexive $`R`$-module. Moreover $`I`$ is a subset of $`{}_{}{}^{\omega _1}2`$ of cardinality $`2^\mathrm{}_1`$.

For the Proof of the Main Theorem 1.3 we finally must show that

$`F_{i\eta }\cong ̸RF_{i\eta }\text{ for any }\eta I,i\{0,1\}.`$ (4.8)
We consider $`F_{i\eta }`$ with some monomorphism $`\xi :F_{i\eta }F_{i\eta }`$ such that $`F_{i\eta }=F_{i\eta }\xi xR`$ for any $`\eta I,i\{0,1\}`$. By a back and forth argument there is an $`\alpha <\omega _1`$ such that $`F_{i\eta \alpha }=F_{i\eta \alpha }\xi xR`$ and we take $`\psi =\xi F_{i\eta \alpha }`$ into consideration. There is some $`\gamma S_4`$ such that $`\psi =\phi _\gamma `$ and $`\phi _\gamma `$ is discarded by the construction. Hence $`\xi `$ does not exist. $`\mathrm{}`$

We would like to add a modification of our main result which can be shown using one more stationary subset $`S_6`$ after introducing inessential endomorphisms for our category of reflexive modules. Let $`\mathrm{Fin}(G)`$ be the ideal of all endomorphisms

$$\{\sigma \mathrm{End}(G):G\sigma \text{ has finite rank}\}$$

for some torsion-free $`R`$-module $`G`$. Then we can find a ‘Killing-Lemma’ in Dugas, Göbel , see also , which ‘takes care’ of all endomorphisms which are not in $`\mathrm{Fin}(F_{i\eta })`$ with $`i,\eta `$ as above. Hence we can strengthen our Main Theorem 1.3 and get with slight modification from known results the following

###### Corollary 4.3

(ZFC + CH) Let $`R`$ is a countable domain but not a field and $`A`$ be a countable $`R`$-algebra with free additive structure $`A_R`$. Then there is a family of $`2^\mathrm{}_1`$ pair-wise non-isomorphic reflexive $`R`$-modules $`G`$ of cardinality $`\mathrm{}_1`$ such that $`G\cong ̸RG`$ and $`\mathrm{End}(G)=A\mathrm{Fin}(G)`$ a split extension.

In particular $`\mathrm{End}(G)/\mathrm{Fin}(G)A`$ and if $`A`$ has only trivial idempotents like $`A=R`$ then $`G`$ in the Corollary 4.3 is reflexive, essentially indecomposable of size $`\mathrm{}_1`$ and does not decompose into $`GRG`$.

Rüdiger Göbel
Fachbereich 6, Mathematik und Informatik
Universität Essen, 45117 Essen, Germany
e–mail: R.Goebel@Uni-Essen.De
and
Saharon Shelah
Department of Mathematics
Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
and Rutgers University, Newbrunswick, NJ, U.S.A
e-mail: Shelah@math.huji.ae.il