A note on a paper of Paul Hill and Charles Megibben

Abstract

This note deals with the correction of a small flaw in the proof of a theorem (and a lemma) in [2]. Also a simpler proof of the theorem in question is given. In the proof of Theorem 2.3 in [2], the statement distinct L's cannot belong to a common pure subgroup HL follows immediately from the fact that no two L's generate with [p] the same subgroup of G is false as it stands. One has to exercise a little more care in the selection of HL. For example, since the union [xa, Xa]aEA of all the L's (in Lemma 2.1 in [2]) is still linearly independent, there exists according to [1] a pure subgroup H of supported by S such that HDL for each L. Hence one could choose HL=H for each L. However, all goes well if HL is chosen such that HLn [Xa, XTg aEA =L, as can easily be done. Similar remarks hold for Lemma 3.8 in [2]. A short alternate proof of Theorem 2.3 in [2] is given. In what follows let c be the cardinality of the continuum and Q be the first ordinal whose cardinality is c. The notation and terminology will be the same as that in [2].