Are Z21 and C2*C6 Isomorphic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter razorg425
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Groups
razorg425
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi guys just a quick question on how I would go about showing the units of Z21 is isomorphic toC2*C6(cyclic groups).I have done out the multiplicative table but they seem to be different to me. What else can I do?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Start by proving that \mathbb{Z}_{21} \simeq \mathbb{Z}_3 \times \mathbb{Z}_7. What are the groups of units of \mathbb{Z}_3 and \mathbb{Z}_7?

(Hint: it's important that GCD(3,7)=1.)
 
Sorry Rochfor,
I actually can't prove that, I know it should be true as gcd(3,7)=1.
A little more help please?
Thanks.
 
Try proving that the group on the right is cyclic.
 
Jeez i can't even do that.
Im having a terrible day with this.
 
So we want to show that every element of \mathbb{Z}_3 \times \mathbb{Z}_7 is of the form n \cdot ( [1]_3, [1]_7 ). So for x, y \in \mathbb{Z}, we want ( [x]_3, [y]_7 ) = n \cdot ( [1]_3, [1]_7 ) = ( [n]_3, [n]_7 ). So we need to find a number n so that x \equiv n \mod 3 and y \equiv n \mod 7. The http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ChineseRemainderTheorem.html" is your friend.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
592
Replies
5
Views
3K
Back
Top