9

2
0


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7


Result.Math. 99 (9999), 112
1422-6383/990001-12, DOI 10.1007/s00025-006-xxxx-y
c 2009 Birkh auser Verlag Basel/Switzerland
Results in Mathematics

n
-Free Modules With Trivial Duals
R udiger Gobel and Saharon Shelah
Abstract. In the rst part of this paper we introduce a simplied version of a
new Black Box from Shelah [11] which can be used to construct complicated
n-free abelian groups for any natural number n N. In the second part
we apply this prediction principle to derive for many commutative rings R
the existence of n-free R-modules M with trivial dual M

= 0, where M

=
Hom(M, R). The minimal size of the n-free abelian groups constructed below
is n, and this lower bound is also necessary as can be seen immediately if
we apply GCH.
Mathematics Subject Classication (2000). Primary 13C05, 13C10, 13C13,
20K20, 20K25, 20K30; Secondary 03E05, 03E35.
Keywords. prediction principles, almost free abelian groups, dual groups.
1. Introduction
The existence of almost free R-modules M over countable principal ideal domains
(but not elds) with trivial dual M

:= Hom(M, R) = 0 is a well-known fact

by results using strong prediction principles like diamonds in V = L. Only note
that any (non-trivial) R-module with endomorphism ring EndM = R is such an
example. For every regular cardinal > [ R[ (which is not weakly compact) we
can nd (strongly) -free R-modules M of size with EndM = R. But from
the singular compactness theorem follows, that such modules M do not exist for
singular cardinals, see e.g. [4] or [8]. Thus we want to get rid of additional set
theoretic restrictions and work exclusively with ZFC:
If we restrict to
1
-free R-modules (meaning that all countable submodules
are free) and do not care about the size of M, then we have an abundance of such
modules and those of minimal cardinal 2
0
can be constructed by applications of
This is GbSh 920 in the second authors list of publications.
The collaboration was supported by an NSF-Grant DMS-0100794 and by the project No. I-
963-98.6/2007 of the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientic Research & Development and the
Minerva Foundation.
9
2
0


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7


2 R udiger Gobel and Saharon Shelah Result.Math.
the (ordinary) Black Box, see for example [8]. However, it is much harder to nd
examples like this of size
1
(recall that
1
may be much smaller than 2
0
and hence
we do not have that many possible extension of a module to eliminate unwanted
homomorphisms. A rst example of an
1
-free R-module M of size
1
with trivial
dual was given in Eda [3]. Some years later we improved this result showing the
existence of such modules with endomorphism ring R, see [7, 2] or [8]. If we want to
replace
1
by
2
or any higher cardinal, then we necessarily encounter additional
set theoretic restriction, see [6]. If we require only the existence of indecomposable
abelian groups, then their -freeness is restricted to small cardinals; see [10]. Thus,
in order to construct
n
-free R-modules M with trivial dual we must relax the
restriction on the size of M. Clearly (note that GCH is not excluded, in which
case
n
=
n
), the size of M must be at least
n
. These cardinals are dened
inductively as
0
= 2
0
and
n+1
= 2
n
; see Jech [9]. Using a recent rened
Black Box from Shelah [11] which takes care of additional freeness of the module,
we can give a reasonably short proof of the existence of
n
-free R-modules M
with trivial dual M

= 0 of cardinality [ M [ =
n
for any natural number n;
see Theorem 4.3 and Corollary 4.4. It remains an open question if we can go any
further and pass

or possibly replace M

= 0 by EndM = R. In this context

it is also worthwhile to recall (from [10]) that there are models of ZFC in which

2
+1
-free implies

2
+2
-free.
We would like to thank Daniel Herden for several very useful suggestions and
some corrections.
2. The Combinatorial Black Box for
The new Black Box depends on a nite sequence of cardinals satisfying some
cardinal conditions. Thus let k

< and =
1
, . . . ,
k
) be a sequence of
cardinals such that for
l
:=
0
l
(l k

) the following -conditions holds.

l
l+1
=
l+1
(l < k

). (2.1)
We will also say that is a -sequence and note that
l
=
0
l
<
l+1
.
Condition (2.1) is used to enumerate all maps which we want to predict before
constructing the modules. If is any cardinal, then we can dene inductively a
-sequence: Let
1
=
0
and if
l
is dened for l < k

, then choose a suitable

l+1
>
l
with (2.1), e.g. put
l+1
=

l
l
. The sequence
1
, . . . ,
k
) is an example
of such a -sequence.
If is a cardinal, then

will denote all order preserving maps :
(which we also call innite branches) on , while
>
denotes the family of all
order preserving nite branches : n on , where the natural number n,
and (the rst innite ordinal) are considered as sets, e.g. n = 0, . . . , n 1,
thus the nite branch has length n.
9
2
0


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7


Vol. 99 (9999) n-free modules with trivial duals 3
For the sake of generality we rst consider any sequence =
1
, . . . ,
k
)
of cardinals such that
0
l
=
l
(l k

) (which later will be strengthened to a

-sequence). Moreover, we associate with two sets and

. Thus let
=

k
.
For the second set we replace the m-th (and only the m-th) coordinate

m
by
the nite branches
>

m
, thus

m
=

1

>

k
for m k

and let

=
_
mk

m
. (2.2)
The elements of ,

will be written as sequences = (

1
, . . . ,
k
) with

l


or
l

>
, respectively. Using these s as support of elements of
the module will make enough room for linear independence which will then give

n
-freeness.
With each member of we can associate a subset of

:
Denition 2.1. If = (
1
, . . . ,
k
) and m k

, n < , then let m, n) be

the following element in
m
(thus in

)
( m, n))
l
=
_

l
if m ,= l k

m
n if l = m.
We associate with its support [] = m, n) [ m k

, n < which is a
countable subset of

. Similarly, for m k

also let [ m] = m, n) [ n <

[].
Denition 2.2. Let C = C
1
, . . . , C
k
) be a sequence of sets C
m
satisfying [ C
m
[

m
for all m k

. We let C =

mk
C
m
and dene a set-trap (for , C) as a
map

: [] C with a label .
The following lemma will be used for the inductive proof of our next theorem.
Lemma 2.3. Let be an innite cardinal, =
0
and P a set of size [ P[ = .
Then there is a sequence

[

) such that
(a)

=
n
[ n < ), with
n
P,
(b) If f = f

[ f

P,
>
, and
>
, then there is

such that 0 = , and

n
= f
n
for all n < .
Proof. Since [ P[ = =
0
= [

[, we can x an embedding
: P

.
And since [
>
[ = there is also a list
>
=

[ < ) with enough

repetitions for each
>
:
< [

= is unbounded.
Moreover we dene for each n < a coding map

n
:
n
P
n
2

>

9
2
0


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7


4 R udiger Gobel and Saharon Shelah Result.Math.
=
0
, . . . ,
n1
)
n
= (
0
n)

. . .

(
n1
n).
Finally let X

be the collection of all order preserving maps : such
that the following holds.
=
i
[ i < )

P and < with ( n)
n
=
n
for all n > k. (2.3)
By denition of
n
it follows that is uniquely determined by (2.3). (Just
note that,
n
determines
m
n for all n > k, m.)
We now prove the two statements of the lemma. For (a) we consider any


. If / X, then we can choose arbitrary members
n
P, and if X,
then choose the uniquely determined sequence from (2.3) and let
n
=
n
, so

= .
For (b) we consider some f = f

[ f

P,
>
and
>
. In
this case we must dene an extension =
n
[ n < )

of . Thus put
0 = ,
n
= n for n < lg(). And if n lg(), then using the above and
that the list of

s is unbounded, we can choose inductively

n
>
n1
with
f
m
[ m < n)
n
=
n
.
Finally we check statement (b). Using (2.3) it will follow that the sequence
belongs to X:
If = f
i
[ i < )

P and k = lg(), then we have
( n)
n
= f
m
[ m < n)
n
=
n
=
n
for all n > k
and
n
=
n
= f
n
for all n < is immediate.
The -Black Box 2.4. Let
1
, . . . ,
k
) be a -sequence satisfying (2.1), ,

as
above and C as in Denition 2.2. Then there is a family of set-traps

[ )
satisfying the following
prediction principle: If :

C is any map with the trap-condition

m

C
m
(m k

) and
k
, then for some there is a set-trap

with

and 0
k
= .
Proof. The proof of Theorem 2.4 will follow by induction on k

. Temporarily
we will attach parameters k

to the above symbols like

k
, C
k
,
k

,
k
, . . . .
The rst step is k

= 1. In this case the claim is a special case of Lemma 2.3.

Indeed, we have
k
=

k
and
k

=
>

k
and m, n) =
k
n holds. We
put P = C
k
= C
k
k
and note that [ P[
k
=
0
k
. The trap functions

are
dened by
( m, n))

k
n
and with f

= condition (b) of Lemma 2.3 reads as

( m, n))

k
n
= f

k
n
= ( m, n))
and the prediction principle in Theorem 2.4 is clear.
The induction step k

= k + 1:
Suppose that Theorem 2.4 is shown for k. We must nd a family of traps
k

[
9
2
0


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7


Vol. 99 (9999) n-free modules with trivial duals 5

k
for
k
, C
k
and verify the prediction principle in Theorem 2.4. By induction
hypothesis there is such a family
k

[
k
for
k
, C
k
.
Let
k
= ,
k
= and recall that =
0
. Moreover, by assump-
tion

C
k

. We now consider P = map(

k
, C
k
k
) which has size [ P[ =

C
k
k

[
k
[

k
= by condition (2.1) of the -sequence.
If
k
, then let
k

: [] C
k
be the following map in (2.4). Recall that
=
1
, . . . ,
k
) and thus
k


and

k
n
map(
k
, C
k
k
) by Lemma 2.3.
If

=
1
, . . . ,
k
)
k
, then

k
n
is a well-dened element of C
k
k
and
k

is
given by induction hypothesis. We can now dene
( m, n))
k

=
_

k
n
if m = k

m, n))
k

if m < k

.
(2.4)
In order to show the prediction principle we consider an arbitrary map :

C
k
satisfying the trap-condition
m
C
m
for all m k

. We want to
nd
k
and

such that

)
k
satises [

] =
k

and
0

k
= (which is the claim of Theorem 2.4).
First we search for and dene for each
>
a map f

:
k
C
k
k
from P depending on . If
k
, then

)
k

, thus
f

:= (

)) (2.5)
is well-dened. By the Lemma 2.3 we nd

such that
0 = and f
n
=
n
:
k
C
k
k
for all n .
By Lemma 2.3(b), (2.4) and (2.5) we have for any and

) that
(

, n))
k

=
n
= f
n
= (

n)) = (

, n))
and 0 = which is the prediction as required for m = k

.
Now we consider the case when m < k

and dene a map

:
k

C
k
depending on and . If

, then

)
k

(because

), thus

:= (

))
is well-dened and by induction hypothesis on the traps
k

there is some
k
such that
( m, n))
k

= ( m, n))

for m k and n < .

Now let

)
k
. By the last displayed equation and (2.4) we have
for m < k

that
(

m, n))
k

= ( m, n))
k

= ( m, n))

= (

m, n)).
Thus
k

predicts with 0

k
= 0 = as suggested above.
9
2
0


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7


6 R udiger Gobel and Saharon Shelah Result.Math.
Denition 2.5. Let F :

be a given map. A subset is free (with respect

to F) if there is an enumeration

[ <

) of (we write

[ < )
and there are

, n

< ( <

) such that for <

and n

, n) /

, n) [ <

F.
Moreover, is -free (with respect to F) for some cardinal if the above holds for
all subsets of of cardinality < .
This is to say, that every newly chosen element

picks up some unused

element from

in its support. Note that the enumeration of in Denition 2.5

does not permit repetitions. We want to show the following
Freeness-Proposition 2.6. With the notions from Theorem 2.4 and Denition 2.5
the set is
k
-free with respect to any function F :

. For any k < k

,
of cardinality [ [
k
and u

1, . . . , k

[ [ u

[ > k, ) we can
nd an enumeration

[ <
k
) of ,

and n

< ( <
k
) such that

, n) /

, n) [ <

F for all n n

.
Proof. The proof follows by induction on k. We begin with k = 0, hence we
may assume that [ [ =
0
. Let =

[ < be an enumeration without

repetitions. From 0 = k < [ u

[ follows u

,= and we can choose any

for
all < . To be denite we may choose

= min u

. If ,= < , then

,=

and there is n
,
such that

, n) , =

, n) for all n n

. Since

F is nite, we may enlarge n

,
, if necessary, such that

, n) /

F for
all n n
,
. If n

= max
<
n
,
, then

, n) /

, n) [ <

F
for all n n

. Hence case k = 0 is settled and we let k

= k + 1 and assume that

the proposition holds for k.
Let [ [ =
k
and choose an
k
-ltration =

<
k

with
0
= and
[
1
[ =
k
. The crucial idea comes from [11]: We can also assume that this chain
is closed, meaning that for any <
k
, ,

and with

m
[ m k

m
,

m
, (F)
m
, (

F)
m
[ m k

follows

. Thus, if
+1

, then the set

u

= k

[ n < ,

such that , n) = , n) or , n) = F
is empty or a singleton. Otherwise there are n, n

< and distinct ,

with
, n) , n), F and

, n

, n

),

F for certain ,

.
Hence
m
[ m k

m
,

m
, (F)
m
, (

F)
m
[ m k

, and the closure

property implies the contradiction

.
If <
k
, then let D

=
+1

and u

:= u

must have size

> k

1 = k. Thus the induction hypothesis applies and we nd an enumeration

( <
k
) of D

as in the proposition. Finally we put these chains for each

<
k
together with the induced ordering to get an enumeration

[ <
k
)
of satisfying the proposition.
9
2
0


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7


Vol. 99 (9999) n-free modules with trivial duals 7
3. The Black Box for
n
-free modules
Let R be a commutative ring with S a countable multiplicatively closed subset
such that the following holds.
(i) The elements of S are not zero-divisors, i.e. if s S, r R and sr = 0, then
r = 0.
(ii)

sS
sR = 0.
We also say that R is an S-ring. If (i) holds, then R is S-torsion-free and if (ii) holds,
then R is S-reduced, see [8]. To ease notations we use the letter S only if we want
to emphasize that the argument depends on it. If M is an R-module, then these
denitions naturally carry over to M. Finally we enumerate S = s
n
[ n < , let
s
0
= 1 and put q
n
=

in
s
i
, thus q
n+1
= q
n
s
n+1
.
Similar to the Black Box in [1], we rst dene the basic R-module B, which
is
B =

Re

.
Denition 3.1. If U

, then we get a canonical summand B

U
=

U
Re

of
B, and in particular, let B

= B
[]
and B
m
= B
[ m]
be the canonical summand
of and m ( ), respectively.
We have several Rfree summands
B
m
=

n<
Re
m,n
and B

mk
B
m
.
The S-topology (generated by the basis sB (s S)) of neighbourhoods of 0 is
Hausdor on B and (as usual) we can consider the S-completion

B of B; see [8] for
elementary facts on the elements of

B. Let

B =

Re

. Every element b

B
has a natural

-support [b]

which are those

which contribute to
the sum-representation b =

with coecients 0 ,= b

R. Thus let
[b]

[ b

,= 0. Note that [b]

is at most countable and b

B i [b]

is nite. As in the earlier Black Boxes (see [8]) we use conditions on the support
(given by the prediction) to select (carefully) elements from

B added to B to get
the nal structure M, such that
B M

B
which is an S-pure submodule of

B, thus satisfying
M s

B sM
for all s S. Thus S-topological arguments can be used carelessly switching be-
tween these three modules.
We will now use B,

, to dene the Black Box for

n
-free R-modules. As
in [1] we will also use the notion of a trap.
9
2
0


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7


8 R udiger Gobel and Saharon Shelah Result.Math.
Denition 3.2. Let G be any R-module. A trap (for B, G) is a partial R-homomor-
phism of B into G with a label , say

: Dom(

) G, such that B

Dom(

) B.
The -Black Box 3.3. Given a -sequence =
1
, . . . ,
k
) with (2.1) and an
R-module G of size [ G[
1
, let ,

be as above. Then there is a family of

traps

( ) with the following property:

The prediction: If : B G is an R-homomorphism and
k
, then there
is with 0
k
= and

.
Proof. The theorem is an immediate consequence of Theorem 2.4. We view
the set maps in Theorem 2.4 as the restrictions of the R-homomorphisms in The-
orem 3.3 to the canonical R-basis e

of B. There is a one-to-one
correspondence between these maps and thus Theorem 3.3 follows.
4. The R-modules
Let R be an S-torsion-free and S-reduced commutative ring of size [ R[ < 2
0
,

k
=
0
k
=
k
be as before, B =

Re

the R-module freely generated by

e

and

=
_

[] with [] = m, n) [ m k

, n < .
We also choose any bijection
:
k

.
Thus we can write the basis elements of B in the form e
()
for any
k
.
From [5] follows that the S-adic completion

R of R has 2
0
algebraically
independent elements over R, and in particular

= 2
0
.
Next we dene particular elements in

B. If , then let
y
k
=

nk
q
n
q
k
(
k

m=1
e
m,n
+b
n
e
(0
k
)
)
where b
n
R. Moreover let y

= y
0
. We will choose

R and write

n<
q
n
b
n
and let
k
=

nk
qn
q
k
b
n
. Thus
y
k
=

nk
q
n
q
k
(
k

m=1
e
m,n
) +
k
e
(0
k
)
and from
s
k+1
y
k+1
=

nk+1
q
n
q
k
(
k

m=1
e
m,n
+b
n
e
(0
k
)
)
9
2
0


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7


Vol. 99 (9999) n-free modules with trivial duals 9
and y
k
s
k+1
y
k+1
=

k
m=1
e
m,k
+b
k
e
(0
k
)
, follows
s
k+1
y
k+1
= y
k

k

m=1
e
m,k
b
k
e
(0
k
)
. (4.1)
We want to dene an R-module M with B M

B which is S-pure in

B. Thus M/B is S-torsion-free and S-divisible. It follows that for any non-trivial
homomorphism : M R there is

with e

,= 0. If , then we will
adjoin to B for some suitable

R the element y

n<
q
n
(

k
m=1
e
m,n
)+

e
(0
k
)
. This will follow with the help of the next
Proposition 4.1. Let R be an S-torsion-free and S-reduced commutative ring of size
< 2
0
. Then for any there are

R and
y

n<
q
n
(
k

m=1
e
m,n
) +

e
(0
k
)
(4.2)
with no homomorphism : B, y

R such that B
[]
=

and e
(0
k
)
,=
0.
Proof. Let e = e
(0
k
)
and choose pairwise distinct elements

R ( <
2
0
). Moreover let y =

n<
q
n
(

k
m=1
e
m,n
) and put y

= y +

e. Sup-
pose that for each < 2
0
there is a homomorphism

: B, y

R
with

B
[]
=

and e

,= 0. By a pigeon hole argument there are distinct

, < 2
0
with the same images y

= y

and also e

= e

=: c ,= 0. But
this implies
0 = y

= (y +

e)

(y +

e)

= y

= (

)c.
And from

,= 0 follows c = 0, a contradiction.
Finally we dene the R-module
M = B, y

[ )

B. (4.3)
Here we let y

be as in (4.2) and apply Proposition 4.1.

First we will take care of the freeness of M by applying the set-theoretic
version of freeness, i.e. Proposition 2.6. In order to apply our results to rings
which are not necessarily PIDs, we more generally say that an R-module M is
-free if any subset of size < is contained in a free R-submodule of M.
Freeness-Proposition 4.2. The module M as dened in (4.3) is
k
-free.
9
2
0


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7


10 R udiger Gobel and Saharon Shelah Result.Math.
Proof. Besides the

-support [g]

(discussed at the beginning of the last

section) any element g of the module M = B, y

[ )

has a rened natural

nite support [g] arriving from the denition (4.3). It consists of all those elements
of and

contributing to g. We observe that g is generated by elements y

and e
m,n
and simply collect the s and m, n) needed. Clearly [g] is a nite
subset of

. Hence any submodule H of M has a natural support [H] taking

the union of supports of its elements and if [ H [ < for any cardinal > [ R[,
then there is a subset of size [ [ < such that H is a submodule of the
pure R-submodule
M

= e
m,n
, e
(0
k
)
, y

[ , m k

, n < )

B,
which also has size < . Thus, in order to show
k
-freeness of M, we only must
consider any of size [ [ <
k
and show the freeness of the module M

.
We may assume that [ [ =
k1
. Let F :

be the map which assignes to

the element F = (0
k
)

.
By Proposition 2.6 we can express the generators of M

of the form
M

= e

m,n
, e

F
, y

n
[ <
k1
, m k

, n < )
and nd a sequence of pairs (

, n

) (k

+ 1) such that for n n

, n) /

, n) [ <

F [ < . (4.4)
Let M

= e

m,n
, e

F
, y

n
[ < , m k

, n < ) for any <

k1
;
thus
M
+1
= M

+e

m,n
, e

F
, y

n
[ m k

, n < )
= M

+e

,n
[ n < n

) +y

n
[ n n

)
+e

F
, e

m,n
[

,= m k

, n < ).
Hence any element in M
+1
/M

can be represented in M
+1
modulo M

of
the form

nn
r
n
y

n
+

n<n
r

n
e

,n
+re

F
+

n<

=mk
r

mn
e

m,n
.
Moreover, the summands involving the e

m,n
s have disjoint supports.
Now condition (4.4) applies recursively. And by the disjointness (identifying e

F
with one of the e

m,n
s if possible) it also follows that all coecients r, r

n
, r

mn
must be zero, showing that the set
e

,k
, e

F
, e

m,n
[ k < n

,= m k

, n < M

freely generates M
+1
/M

. Thus M

has an ascending chain with only free

factors; it follows that M

is free.
We can nally show the
9
2
0


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7


Vol. 99 (9999) 11
Theorem 4.3. Let R be an S-torsion-free and S-reduced commutative ring of size
< 2
0
. Then for any -sequence =
1
, . . . ,
k
) with (2.1) there exists an
k
-
free R-module M of size
k
with trivial dual Hom(M, R) = 0. In particular, if R
is a principal ideal domain but not a eld of size < 2
0
, then there is an
k
-free
R-module M of size
k
with trivial dual.
Proof. If M is the R-module above, then M is
k
-free by Proposition 4.2.
Obviously M has size
k
. If : M R is a non-trivial homomorphism, then
there is

such that for some basis element e

,= 0. By the Black Box 3.3

there is with (0
k
) = and B
[]
=

. We apply Proposition 4.1 to

see that this is a contradiction. Hence Hom(M, R) = 0 follows.
Corollary 4.4. If n is a natural number, then we nd
n
-free abelian groups of size

n
with trivial dual.
References
[1] A. L. S. Corner and R. Gobel, Prescribing endomorphism algebras A unied treat-
ment, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 50 (1985), 447 479.
[2] A. L. S. Corner and R. Gobel, Small almost free modules with prescribed topological
endomorphism rings, Rendiconti Sem. Mat. Univ. Padova 109 (2003) 217 234.
[3] K. Eda, Cardinality restrictions on preradicals. pp. 277283 in Abelian group theory
(Perth, 1987), Contemp. Math. 87, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1989.
[4] P. Eklof and A. Mekler, Almost Free Modules, Set-theoretic Methods, North-Holland,
2002.
[5] R. Gobel and W. May, Independence in completions and endomorphism algebras,
Forum mathematicum 1 (1989), 215 226.
[6] R. Gobel and S. Shelah, G.C.H. implies the existence of many rigid almost free
abelian groups, pp. 253 271 in Abelian Groups and Modules, Marcel Dekker New
York 1996.
[7] R. Gobel and S. Shelah, Indecomposable almost free modules the local case, Cana-
dian J. Math. 50 (1998), 719 738.
[8] R. Gobel and J. Trlifaj, Endomorphism Algebras and Approximations of Modules,
Expositions in Mathematics 41, Walter de Gruyter Verlag, Berlin (2006).
[9] T. Jech, Set Theory, Monographs in Mathematics, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg
(2002).
[10] M. Magidor and S. Shelah, When does almost free imply free? (For groups, transver-
sals, etc.), J. Amer. Math. Soc. 7 (1994), 769830.
[11] S. Shelah, n-free abelian groups with no non-zero homomorphisms to Z, Cubo - A
Mathematical Journal 9 (2007), 59 79.
9
2
0


r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7







m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
:
2
0
0
9
-
0
6
-
0
7


12 R udiger Gobel and Saharon Shelah Result.Math.
R udiger Gobel
Fachbereich Mathematik,
Universitat Duisburg Essen
Campus Essen, D 45117 Essen, Germany
e-mail: ruediger.goebel@uni-due.de
Saharon Shelah
Institute of Mathematics,
Hebrew University, Einstein Institute of Mathematics,
Givat Ram, Jerusalem 91904, Israel and
Rutgers University,
Department of Mathematics, Hill Center, Busch Campus
Piscataway, NJ 08854 8019, U.S.A
e-mail: shelah@math.huji.ac.il
Received: September 12th, 2007