MHB Direct product of abelian groups. Isomorphism.

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that if finite abelian groups A, B, and C satisfy A×B is isomorphic to A×C, then B must be isomorphic to C. A participant notes that the quotient groups (A×B)/(A×{e}) and (A×C)/(A×{e}) are isomorphic, leading to the need to show their isomorphism through an isomorphism ψ. However, there is a challenge in demonstrating that the kernel of the defined map φ is A×{e}, as it requires showing that the image of elements under ψ does not contradict this assumption. The conversation highlights the necessity of leveraging the structure theorem for finite abelian groups to resolve the issue effectively.
caffeinemachine
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
799
Reaction score
15
Let $A,B,C$ be finite abelian groups. Assume that $A\times B\cong A\times C$. Show that $B\cong C$.

I observed that $(A\times B)/(A\times\{e\})\cong B$ and $(A\times C)/(A\times\{e\})\cong C$.

So I need to show that $(A\times B)/(A\times\{e\})\cong (A\times C)/(A\times\{e\})$.

Let $\psi:A\times B\rightarrow A\times C$ be an isomorphism.

Define $\phi:A\times B \rightarrow (A\times C)/(A\times\{e\})$ as $\phi(a,b)=(\psi(a,b))(A\times\{e\})$.

If I could show that $\ker \phi=A\times\{e\}$ then I'd be done.

For that I need $\psi(a,e)\in A\times\{e\}$ for all $a\in A$, which I am unable to show and this might not even be true.

Please help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i don't have an answer, but i can tell you your approach is doomed.

let A = B = C = Z2.

we have the automorphism:

(1,0)-->(1,1)
(0,1)-->(1,0)

note that is is NOT true that the image of Z2x{0} is Z2x{0}, it is:

{(0,0),(0,1)}.

i feel that the assumption that G is finite abelian has to be used in some essential way, and your approach does not do that.
 
Opalg said:
I am no expert on group theory, but my feeling is that maybe you need to use the structure theorem for finite abelian groups for this problem.
I never thoroughly read he structure theorem. So I think now is the time to do that.
 
Deveno said:
i don't have an answer, but i can tell you your approach is doomed.

let A = B = C = Z2.

we have the automorphism:

(1,0)-->(1,1)
(0,1)-->(1,0)

note that is is NOT true that the image of Z2x{0} is Z2x{0}, it is:

{(0,0),(0,1)}.

i feel that the assumption that G is finite abelian has to be used in some essential way, and your approach does not do that.
Thank you.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
810
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K