MHB Direct sum of free abelian groups

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the direct sum of a family of free abelian groups is itself a free abelian group. It begins with the idea that since each group has a non-empty basis, one can take the direct sum of these bases to form a basis for the direct sum of the groups. However, it is clarified that the statement about isomorphism to the direct sum of integers only holds for finitely generated groups. Participants suggest proving that the disjoint union of the bases serves as a basis for the direct sum. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the structure of free abelian groups in this context.
mathgirl1
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Show the direct sum of a family of free abelian groups is a free abelian group.

My first thought was to just say that since each group is free abelian we know it has a non empty basis. Then we can take the direct sum of the basis to be the basis of the direct sum of a family of free abelian groups. But not sure it makes sense to say direct sum of basis.

Is it just as simple that the direct sum of a family of free abelian groups is isomorphic to the direct sum of the additive group of integers?

I am probably making this way harder than it is but I am not sure how to state the obvious either. Any help is appreciated. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi mathgirl,

mathgirl said:
Is it just as simple that the direct sum of a family of free abelian groups is isomorphic to the direct sum of the additive group of integers?

No, this is only true when your groups are finitely generated.

Try to prove that the disjoint union of the basis of your groups is a basis for the direct sum. (Probably you meant some like that when talking abaout "direct sum of basis")
 
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 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
770
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K