Direct Sum/Product of Groups Clarification?

  • Thread starter Thread starter shallumstuart
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Groups
shallumstuart
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I have a pretty basic question about direct sum/product of groups.

Say you were given the group (Z4 x Z2, +mod2). Now I know that Z4 x Z2 is given by { (0,0), (0,1), (1,0), (1,1), (2,0), (2,1), (3,0), (3,1) }. So now if you were going to add together two of the elements using the binary operation +mod2, e.g. doing (1,1) +mod2 (2,1). Does this give you:

(1,1) +mod2 (2,1) = (1+2,1+1) = (3,2) = (1,0)?
I'm pretty sure that this is correct, but I thought another possibility might have been that you add the first two elements in mod4 and the second two in mod 2

e.g. (1,1) + (2,1) = (3,2) = (3,0).

Help clarifying would be super.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The definition of the direct product of two groups G and H is that you multiply (or add in the abelian case) componentwise using the operation in the given component. So in Z4 x Z2 the operation is the second one you did, e.g. (1,1) + (2,1) = (3,0). Of course to get the first thing you had (e.g. (1,1) + (2,1) = (1,0)) you could redefine the operation in Z4 to be addition mod 4, but then you would really have Z2 (so the direct product would be Z2 x Z2). For example with this operation on Z4 we are forced for 3 and 1 to be the same element since 3 - 1 = 2 = 0.
 
thanks that's helpful.

although i still don't quite get the meaning of the +mod2 part. When the group is defined as (Z4 x Z2, +mod2), doesn't the +mod2 tell you the binary operation by which you combine elements of the set? if that's the case, when you add componentwise how come you are adding the first two together in mod4 but the second two in mod2?
 
Last edited:
never mind, i don't actually think it makes any sense to say (Z4 x Z2, +mod2)
 
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

Back
Top