Corollary 7
If
$h:{\mathbb{Z}}^{A}\to \mathbb{Z}$
is a homomorphism, then there are only finitely many
$a\in A$
such that the standard unit vector
${e}_{a}$
is mapped to a nonzero value by
$h$
.
Proof For
$h\left({e}_{a}\right)$
to be nonzero, one of the
${\mathcal{U}}_{i}$
in the theorem must be the principal ultrafilter at
$a$
.
$\square $
We wish to apply this information to the homomorphisms
${j}_{\nu}$
, whose domain is only
$\Pi (\kappa ,<\alpha )$
, not all of
${\mathbb{Z}}^{\kappa}$
. Fortunately, the preceding corollary carries over to the desired context, thanks to our assumption above that
$\alpha $
is uncountable.
Corollary 8
For each
$\nu \in \lambda $
, there are only finitely many
$\xi \in \kappa $
such that
${j}_{\nu}\left({e}_{\xi}\right)\ne 0$
.
Proof Suppose not. Then there is a countably infinite set
$A\subseteq \kappa $
such that, for each
$\xi \in A$
,
${j}_{\nu}\left({e}_{\xi}\right)\ne 0$
. View
${\mathbb{Z}}^{A}$
as a subgroup of
${\mathbb{Z}}^{\kappa}$
, simply by extending functions by 0 on
$\kappa A$
. Since
$\alpha $
is uncountable, we have made
${\mathbb{Z}}^{A}$
a subgroup of
$\Pi (\kappa ,<\alpha )$
, the domain of
${j}_{\nu}$
. So we can apply Corollary 7 to (the restriction to
${\mathbb{Z}}^{A}$
of )
${j}_{\nu}$
and conclude that
${j}_{\nu}\left({e}_{\xi}\right)\ne 0$
for only finitely many
$\xi \in A$
. This contradicts our choice of
$A$
.
$\square $
For each
$\nu \in \lambda $
, let
$${F}_{\nu}=\{\xi \in \kappa :{j}_{\nu}({e}_{\xi})\ne 0\}.$$
So each
${F}_{\nu}$
is finite. On the other hand, since
$j$
is an embedding, we have, for each
$\xi \in \kappa $
, that
$j\left({e}_{\xi}\right)\ne 0$
and therefore
$\xi \in {F}_{\nu}$
for at least one
$\nu \in \lambda $
.
Thus,
$\kappa $
is the union of the
$\lambda $
finite sets
${F}_{\nu}$
, which implies that
$\kappa \le \lambda $
. This proves the first part of condition 1 of the theorem.
Before turning to the second part, we note, since we shall need it later, that the preceding argument shows not only that
$\kappa \le \lambda $
but that
$$\kappa \le \left\right\{\nu \in \lambda :{F}_{\nu}\ne \mathbb{\varnothing}\left\}\right.$$
To complete the proof of condition 1 of the theorem, it remains to show that
$\alpha \le \beta $
. Suppose, toward a contradiction, that
$\beta <\alpha $
. So
${\beta}^{+}\le \alpha \le {\kappa}^{+}$
and therefore
$\beta \le \kappa $
. Therefore (by the first part of this proof ),
${\mathbb{Z}}^{\beta}=\Pi (\beta ,<{\beta}^{+})$
embeds in
$\Pi (\kappa ,<\alpha )$
, which in turn embeds in
$\Pi (\lambda ,<\beta )$
.
So instead of dealing with an embedding
$\Pi (\kappa ,<\alpha )\to \Pi (\lambda ,<\beta )$
, we can deal with an embedding
$j:{\mathbb{Z}}^{\beta}\to \Pi (\lambda ,<\beta )$
. In other words, we can assume, without loss of generality, that
$\kappa =\beta $
and
$\alpha ={\beta}^{+}$
.
We record for future reference that we have already reached a contradiction if
$\beta =\omega $
, for then
$\Pi (\lambda ,<\beta )$
is the free abelian group on
$\lambda $
generators while, by a theorem of Specker [
7]
,
${\mathbb{Z}}^{\beta}$
is not free. So the latter cannot be embedded into the former. Thus, we may assume, for the rest of this proof, that
$\beta $
is uncountable.
As before, we write
${j}_{\nu}$
for the homomorphism
${\mathbb{Z}}^{\beta}\to \mathbb{Z}$
given by the
${\nu}^{\text{th}}$
component of
$j$
, for each
$\nu \in \lambda $
. Also as before, we write
${F}_{\nu}$
for the set of
$\xi \in \beta $
such that
${j}_{\nu}\left({e}_{\xi}\right)\ne 0$
. It will be useful to write the Balcerzyk formula for
${j}_{\nu}$
with the principal and nonprincipal ultrafilters separated. Note that the principal ultrafilters that occur here are concentrated at the points of
${F}_{\nu}$
.
Thus, we have
$$\begin{array}{c}{j}_{\nu}\left(x\right)={\sum}_{\xi \in {F}_{\nu}}{a}_{\xi}^{\nu}\cdot x\left(\xi \right)+{\sum}_{\mathcal{U}\in {\mathbb{U}}_{\nu}}{b}_{\mathcal{U}}^{\nu}\cdot \mathcal{U}\text{}limx\end{array}$$ 
(2)

where
${\mathbb{U}}_{\nu}$
is a finite set of nonprincipal, countably complete ultrafilters on
$\beta $
. As before, we assume, without loss of generality, that all the
$a$
and
$b$
coefficients are nonzero.
We recall that we showed, in the proof of
$\kappa \le \lambda $
, that
${F}_{\nu}\ne \mathbb{\varnothing}$
for at least
$\beta $
values of
$\nu $
(since the
$\kappa $
of that proof is now equal to
$\beta $
). So we can apply Theorem 2 to find an
$X\subseteq \beta $
with the following properties.

1.
There are
$\beta $
values of
$\nu $
, which we call the special values, such that
$X\cap {F}_{\nu}$
is a singleton.

2.
$\leftX\right$
is one of 1,
$\text{cf}\left(\beta \right)$
, and
$\beta $
.

3.
Every subset of
$X$
of the same cardinality as
$X$
shares with
$X$
the property in item 1 above.

4.
Each
$\xi \in X$
is, for at least one
$\nu $
, the unique element of
$X\cap {F}_{\nu}$
.
It will be useful to select, for each
$\xi \in X$
, one
$\nu $
as in item 4 and to call it
$\nu \left(\xi \right)$
. Notice that
$\nu \left(\xi \right)$
is always special (as defined in item 1).
In the course of the proof, we will occasionally replace
$X$
by a subset of the same cardinality, relying on property 3 of
$X$
to ensure that all the properties listed for
$X$
remain correct for the new
$X$
. To avoid an excess of subscripts, we will not give these
$X$
's different names. Rather, at each stage of the proof,
$X$
will refer to the current set, which may be a proper subset of the original
$X$
introduced above.
The basic idea of the proof is quite simple, so we present it first and afterward indicate how to handle all the issues that arise in its application.
Consider any
$x\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{\beta}$
whose support is exactly
$X$
. Then for each special
$\nu $
the first sum in 2 reduces to a single term, because exactly one
$\xi \in {F}_{\nu}$
has
$x\left(\xi \right)\ne 0$
. So this formula reads
$$\begin{array}{c}{j}_{\nu}\left(x\right)={a}_{\xi}^{\nu}\cdot x\left(\xi \right)+{\sum}_{\mathcal{U}\in {\mathbb{U}}_{\nu}}{b}_{\mathcal{U}}^{\nu}\cdot \mathcal{U}\text{}limx\end{array}$$ 
(3)

where
$\xi $
is the unique element of
$X\cap {F}_{\nu}$
. If we knew that none of the ultrafilters
$\mathcal{U}\in {\mathbb{U}}_{\nu}$
contain
$X$
, then all the corresponding limits
$\mathcal{U}\text{}limx$
would vanish, since
$\mathcal{U}$
contains a set (namely the complement of
$X$
) on which
$x$
is identically 0. In this case, we would have
$${j}_{\nu}\left(x\right)={a}_{\xi}^{\nu}\cdot x\left(\xi \right)\ne 0.$$
If this happened for
$\beta $
distinct values of
$\nu $
, then all these values would be in the support of
$j\left(x\right)$
, contradicting the fact that
$j\left(x\right)\in \Pi (\lambda ,<\beta )$
.
This is the basic idea; the rest of the proof is concerned with the obvious difficulty that we do not immediately have
$\beta $
values of
$\nu $
for which the ultrafilters
$\mathcal{U}\in {\mathbb{U}}_{\nu}$
do not contain
$X$
.
Of course, this difficulty cannot arise if
$\leftX\right=1$
, as the ultrafilters in question are nonprincipal. So the proof is complete if there is some
$\xi $
that lies in
$\beta $
of the sets
${F}_{\nu}$
, for then
$\left\{\xi \right\}$
could serve as
$X$
. From now on, we assume that there is no such
$\xi $
.
More generally, the difficulty cannot arise, and so the proof is complete, if
$\leftX\right$
is smaller than all measurable cardinals, because then there are no nonprincipal, countably complete ultrafilters to contribute to the second sum in 2 . So we may assume that there is at least one measurable cardinal
$\le \leftX\right$
.
There remain the cases that
$\leftX\right=\beta $
and that
$\leftX\right=\text{cf}\left(\beta \right)<\beta $
. It turns out to be necessary to subdivide the former case according to whether
$\text{cf}\left(\beta \right)=\omega $
or not. We handle the three resulting cases in turn.
Case 1:
$\leftX\right=\beta $
and
$\text{cf}\left(\beta \right)>\omega $
.
Recall that we chose, for each
$\xi \in X$
, some
$\nu \left(\xi \right)$
such that
$X\cap {F}_{\nu \left(\xi \right)}=\left\{\xi \right\}$
.
Thus, equation
3 holds when we put
$\nu \left(\xi \right)$
in place of
$\nu $
.
There are only countably many possible values for
$\left{\mathbb{U}}_{\nu \left(\xi \right)}\right$
because these cardinals are finite. Since
$\leftX\right$
has, by the case hypothesis, uncountable cofinality,
$X$
must have a subset, of the same cardinality
$\beta $
, such that
$\left{\mathbb{U}}_{\nu \left(\xi \right)}\right$
has the same value, say
$l$
, for all
$\xi $
in this subset. Replace
$X$
with this subset; as remarked above, we do not, with this replacement, lose any of the properties of
$X$
listed above. Now we can, for each
$\xi $
in (the new)
$X$
, enumerate
${\mathbb{U}}_{\nu \left(\xi \right)}$
as
$\left\{{\mathcal{U}}_{k}\right(\xi ):k<l\}$
.
Next, apply Theorem
3
$l$
times in succession, starting with the current
$X$
. At step
$k$
(where
$0\le k<l$
), replace the then current
$X$
with a subset, still of cardinality
$\beta $
, such that, for each
$\xi $
in (the new)
$X$
,
${\mathcal{U}}_{k}\left(\xi \right)$
does not contain
$X$
. Thus, for the final
$X$
, after these
$l$
shrinkings, we have that, for all
$\xi \in X$
, and all
$\mathcal{U}\in {\mathbb{U}}_{\nu \left(\xi \right)}$
,
$X/\in \mathcal{U}$
. This is exactly what we need in order to apply the basic idea, explained above, to all the
$\nu $
's of the form
$\nu \left(\xi \right)$
for
$\xi \in X$
. Since the function
$\xi \mapsto \nu \left(\xi \right)$
is obviously onetoone, there are
$\beta $
of these
$\nu $
's, and so we have the required contradiction.
Notice that the case hypothesis that
$\beta $
has uncountable cofinality was used in order to get a single cardinal
$l$
for
$\left{\mathbb{U}}_{\nu \left(\xi \right)}\right$
, independent of
$\xi $
, which was used in turn to fix the number of subsequent shrinkings of
$X$
. Without a fixed
$l$
, there would be no guarantee of a final
$X$
to which the basic idea can be applied. This is why the following case must be treated separately. It is the only case where the actual values of
$x$
, not just its support, will matter.
Case 2:
$\leftX\right=\beta $
and
$\text{cf}\left(\beta \right)=\omega $
.
Recall that we have already obtained a contradiction when
$\beta =\omega $
, so in the present case
$\beta $
is a singular cardinal. Fix an increasing
$\omega $
sequence
$({\beta}_{n}{)}_{n\in \omega}$
of uncountable regular cardinals with supremum
$\beta $
. Partition
$X$
into countably many sets
${X}_{n}$
with
$\left{X}_{n}\right={\beta}_{n}$
. As in the proof of Case 1, we can shrink each
${X}_{n}$
, without decreasing its cardinality, so that:

∙
The cardinality of
${\mathbb{U}}_{\nu \left(\xi \right)}$
depends only on
$n$
, not on the choice of
$\xi \in {X}_{n}$
; call this cardinality
$l\left(n\right)$
.

∙
For all
$\xi \in {X}_{n}$
, no ultrafilter in
${\mathbb{U}}_{\nu \left(\xi \right)}$
contains
${X}_{n}$
.
Here and below, when we shrink the
${X}_{n}$
's, it is to be understood that
$X$
is also shrunk, to the union of the new
${X}_{n}$
's. As long as the cardinality of each
${X}_{n}$
remains
${\beta}_{n}$
, the cardinality of
$X$
remains
$\beta $
.
As before, we use the notation
$\left\{{\mathcal{U}}_{k}\right(\xi ):k<l(n\left)\right\}$
for an enumeration of
${\mathbb{U}}_{\nu \left(\xi \right)}$
when
$\xi \in {X}_{n}$
.
Notice that each
${\mathcal{U}}_{k}\left(\xi \right)$
, being countably complete, must concentrate on one
${X}_{m}$
or on the complement of
$X$
. Shrinking each
${X}_{n}$
again without reducing its cardinality, we arrange that for each fixed
$n$
and each fixed
$k<l\left(n\right)$
, as
$\xi $
varies over
${X}_{n}$
, all the ultrafilters
${\mathcal{U}}_{k}\left(\xi \right)$
that contain
$X$
also contain the same
${X}_{m}$
. We write
$m(n,k)$
for this
$m$
. (If none of these
${\mathcal{U}}_{k}\left(\xi \right)$
contain
$X$
, define
$m(n,k)\in \omega \left\{n\right\}$
arbitrarily.) Also, define
$S\left(n\right)=\left\{m\right(n,k):k<l(n\left)\right\}$
. Thus, when
$\xi \in {X}_{n}$
, every ultrafilter in
${\mathbb{U}}_{\nu \left(\xi \right)}$
that contains
$X$
contains
${X}_{m}$
for some
$m\in S\left(n\right)$
. Note that our previous shrinking of the
${X}_{n}$
's ensures that
$n/\in S\left(n\right)$
.
(A technical comment: When we shrink
$X$
by shrinking all the
${X}_{n}$
's, the property of an ultrafilter that “
${X}_{m}\in \mathcal{U}$
” may be lost, since
${X}_{m}$
may shrink to a set not in
$\mathcal{U}$
. But, if this happens, then
$X$
also shrinks to a set not in
$\mathcal{U}$
. Thus, the property “if
$X\in \mathcal{U}$
then
${X}_{m}\in \mathcal{U}$
” persists under such shrinking. This fact was tacitly used in the shrinking process of the preceding paragraph. It ensures that we can base our decision of how to shrink the
${X}_{n}$
's on our knowledge of which
${X}_{m}$
's are in which ultrafilters, without worrying that the shrinking will alter that knowledge in a way that requires us to revise the shrinking.) Obtain an infinite subset
$Y$
of
$\omega $
by choosing its elements inductively, in increasing order, so that whenever
$n<{n}^{\prime}$
are in
$Y$
then
${n}^{\prime}/\in S\left(n\right)$
. This is trivial to do, since each
$S\left(n\right)$
is finite. Shrink
${X}_{n}$
to
$\mathbb{\varnothing}$
for all
$n/\in Y$
, but leave
${X}_{n}$
unchanged for
$n\in Y$
. Unlike previous shrinkings, this obviously does not maintain
$\left{X}_{n}\right={\beta}_{n}$
in general but only for
$n\in Y$
. That is, however, sufficient to maintain
$\leftX\right=\beta $
, since
$Y$
is cofinal in
$\omega $
and so the
${\beta}_{n}$
for
$n\in Y$
have supremum
$\beta $
. As a result of this last shrinking, we have that, for each
$n\in Y$
and each
$\xi \in {X}_{n}$
, each of the ultrafilters
${\mathcal{U}}_{k}\left(\xi \right)\in {\mathbb{U}}_{\nu \left(\xi \right)}$
that contains
$X$
also contains
${X}_{m}$
with
$m=m(n,k)<n$
.
Shrinking the surviving
${X}_{n}$
's further, without reducing their cardinalities, we can arrange that in formulas 2 and 3 the coefficient
${b}_{{\mathcal{U}}_{k}\left(\xi \right)}^{\nu \left(\xi \right)}$
depends only on
$n$
and
$k$
, not on the choice of
$\xi \in {X}_{n}$
. We call this coefficient
$b(n,k)$
.
We shall now define a certain
$x\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{\beta}$
with support (the current)
$X$
. It will be constant on each
${X}_{n}$
with a value
${z}_{n}$
to be specified, by induction on
$n$
. (Here
$n$
ranges over
$Y$
, since
${X}_{n}=\mathbb{\varnothing}$
for
$n/\in Y$
.) Suppose that integers
${z}_{m}$
have already been defined for all
$m<n$
. Then for
$\xi \in {X}_{n}$
the sum in formula 3 for
$\nu =\nu \left(\xi \right)$
is
$${\sum}_{\mathcal{U}\in {\mathbb{U}}_{\nu \left(\xi \right)}}{b}_{\mathcal{U}}^{\nu \left(\xi \right)}\cdot \mathcal{U}\text{}limx={\sum}_{k<l\left(n\right)}b(n,k)\cdot {\mathcal{U}}_{k}\left(\xi \right)\text{}limx={\sum}_{k<l\left(n\right)}b(n,k)\cdot \left({z}_{m(n,k)}\right0).$$
Here
$\left(z\right0)$
means
$z$
or 0, according to whether
${\mathcal{U}}_{k}\left(\xi \right)$
contains
$X$
(and therefore
${X}_{m(n,k)}$
) or not. So this sum has only finitely many (at most
${2}^{l\left(n\right)}$
) possible values. Choose
${z}_{n}$
to be an integer greater than the absolute values of these finitely many possible sums. This choice ensures that, in formula 3 for
$\nu =\nu \left(\xi \right)$
and
$\xi \in {X}_{n}$
, the first term
${a}_{\xi}^{\nu \left(\xi \right)}x\left(\xi \right)$
exceeds in absolute value the sum over nonprincipal ultrafilters. Therefore,
${j}_{\nu \left(\xi \right)}\left(x\right)\ne 0$
.
But this happens for all
$\xi \in X$
, so
$\text{supp}\left(j\right(x\left)\right)$
has cardinality
$\beta $
, contrary to the fact that
$j\left(x\right)\in \Pi (\lambda ,<\beta )$
. This contradiction completes the proof for Case 2.
Case 3:
$\leftX\right=\text{cf}\left(\beta \right)<\beta $
. We already observed that the basic idea suffices to complete the proof if
$\leftX\right$
is smaller than all measurable cardinals. So in the present situation, we may assume that
$\text{cf}\left(\beta \right)$
is greater than or equal to the first measurable cardinal; in particular it is uncountable.
Let
$\mu =\text{cf}\left(\beta \right)$
and let
$({\beta}_{i}{)}_{i\in \mu}$
be an increasing
$\mu $
sequence of regular, uncountable cardinals with supremum
$\beta $
.
For each
$i\in \mu $
, there is some
${\xi}_{i}\in X$
such that
$$\left\right\{\nu :X\cap {F}_{\nu}=\left\{{\xi}_{i}\right\}\left\}\right\ge {\beta}_{i}.$$
Indeed, if there were no such
${\xi}_{i}$
, then
$\{\nu :X\cap {F}_{\nu}=1\}$
would be the union of
$\leftX\right=\mu $
sets each of size
$<{\beta}_{i}$
, so it would have cardinality at most
$\mu \cdot {\beta}_{i}<\beta $
, contrary to our original choice of
$X$
.
Fix such a
${\xi}_{i}$
for each
$i\in \mu $
. Note that
$\left\right\{\nu :X\cap {F}_{\nu}=\left\{{\xi}_{i}\right\}\left\}\right$
, though at least
${\beta}_{i}$
by definition, cannot be as large as
$\beta $
, as we remarked when we disposed of the case
$\leftX\right=1$
long ago. So, although the same element can serve as
${\xi}_{i}$
for several
$i$
's, it cannot do so for cofinally many
$i\in \mu $
. So there are
$\mu $
distinct
${\xi}_{i}$
's. Passing to a subsequence and reindexing, we henceforth assume that all the
${\xi}_{i}$
are distinct.
Next, fix for each
$i\in \mu $
a set
${N}_{i}\subseteq \lambda $
of size
${\beta}_{i}$
such that all elements
$\nu $
of
${N}_{i}$
have
$X\cap {F}_{\nu}=\left\{{\xi}_{i}\right\}$
. Note that the sets
${N}_{i}$
are pairwise disjoint.
Shrink
$X$
to
$\{{\xi}_{i}:i\in \mu \}$
. This still has cardinality
$\mu $
and thus has all the properties originally assumed for
$X$
.
For each
$i$
, shrink
${N}_{i}$
, without reducing its cardinality
${\beta}_{i}$
, so that as
$\nu $
varies over
${N}_{i}$
, the cardinality of
${\mathbb{U}}_{\nu}$
remains constant, say
$l\left(i\right)$
. This shrinking is possible because
$\text{cf}\left({\beta}_{i}\right)>\omega $
. Since
$\mu $
is uncountable and regular, we can shrink
$X$
, without reducing its cardinality, so that
$l\left(i\right)$
is the same number
$l$
for all
${\xi}_{i}\in X$
. Again, reindex
$X$
as
$\{{\xi}_{i}:i\in \mu \}$
and reindex the
${\beta}_{i}$
and
${N}_{i}$
correspondingly. So we can, for each
$\nu \in {\cup}_{i}{N}_{i}$
, enumerate
${\mathbb{U}}_{\nu}$
as
$\left\{{\mathcal{U}}_{k}\right(\nu ):k<l\}$
.
For each
$i$
, choose a uniform ultrafilter
${\mathcal{V}}_{i}$
on
${N}_{i}$
, and define an ultrafilter
${\mathcal{W}}_{i}$
as the limit with respect to
${\mathcal{V}}_{i}$
of the ultrafilters
${\mathcal{U}}_{0}\left(\nu \right)$
. That is,
$$A\in {\mathcal{W}}_{i}\u27fa\{\nu :A\in {\mathcal{U}}_{0}(\nu \left)\right\}\in {\mathcal{V}}_{i}.$$
It is well known and easy to check that this
${\mathcal{W}}_{i}$
is indeed an ultrafilter.
Applying Theorem
3 , we obtain
$Y\subseteq X$
of cardinality
$\mu $
, such that for each
${\xi}_{i}\in Y$
,
$Y/\in {\mathcal{W}}_{i}$
. This means, by definition of
${\mathcal{W}}_{i}$
, that we can shrink
${N}_{i}$
to a set in
${\mathcal{V}}_{i}$
, hence still of size
${\beta}_{i}$
as
${\mathcal{V}}_{i}$
is uniform, so that for all
$\nu $
in the new
${N}_{i}$
,
${\mathcal{U}}_{0}\left(\nu \right)$
doesn't contain
$Y$
. Shrink
$X$
to
$Y$
and reindex as before. We have achieved that, for all
$i$
and all
$\nu \in {N}_{i}$
,
$X/\in {\mathcal{U}}_{0}\left(\nu \right)$
.
Repeat the process with the subscript 0 of
$\mathcal{U}$
replaced in turn by
$1,2,...,l1$
. At the end, we have
$X$
and
${N}_{i}$
's such that, for all
${\xi}_{i}\in X$
, all
$\nu \in {N}_{i}$
, and all
$\mathcal{U}\in {\mathbb{U}}_{\nu}$
,
$X/\in \mathcal{U}$
.
This means that, in formula
3 for
$\xi ={\xi}_{i}\in X$
and
$\nu \in {N}_{i}$
, if
$x$
has support
$X$
, then the sum over nonprincipal ultrafilters vanishes and we reach a contradiction as in the basic idea.
References

S. Balcerzyk, “On groups of functions defined on Boolean algebras,” Fund. Math. 50 (1962) 347–367.

A. Blass and J. Irwin, “Special families of sets and BaerSpecker groups,” to appear in Communications in Algebra.

K. Eda, “A Boolean power and a direct product of abelian groups,” Tsukuba J. Math. 6 (1982) 187–193.

L. Fuchs, Infinite Abelian Groups, vol. 2, Academic Press (1973).

T. Jech, Set Theory, Academic Press (1978).

G. Nöbeling, “Verallgemeinerung eines Satzes von Herrn E. Specker,” Invent. Math. 6 (1968) 41–55.

E. Specker, “Additive Gruppen von Folgen ganzer Zahlen,” Portugaliae Math. 9 (1950) 131–140.