MHB Exact Sequences - extending or lifting homomorphisms

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
Dummit and Foote open their section (part of section 10.5) on projective modules as follows:View attachment 2463D&F then deal with the issue of obtaining a homomorphism from D to M given a homomorphism from D to L and then move to the more problematic issue of obtaining a homomorphism from D to M given a homomorphism from D to N. (Strangely they refer to N as "the quotient N?). The relevant text reads as follows:

View attachment 2464
D&F then give an example ... and my question pertains to this example ... the example reads as follows:
View attachment 2465In this example, D&F make the following statement:

"Any homomorphism $$F$$ of $$D$$ into $$M = \mathbb{Z} $$must map $$D$$ to $$0$$ (since $$D$$ has no elements of order $$2$$)"

Can someone please explain why this statement is true?

I am aware that isomorphisms map elements of a given order onto elements of the same order, but here we are only dealing with a homomorphism.

Also $$0$$ does not have order $$2$$ anyway!

Can someone please clarify these issues?

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It appears that when D&F say "order" they mean "additive order".

Now, while it is true that homomorphisms of additive groups do not PRESERVE order, the image's order always DIVIDES the order of any pre-image. Since 2 is prime, if an image of an element of order 2 from $\Bbb Z/2 \Bbb Z$ (that is to say 1, the only element which HAS order 2) does not have order 2, it must have order 1 (that is, is the additive identity).

So the only possible abelian group homomorphism (that is, $\Bbb Z$-module homomorphism) $\Bbb Z/2 \Bbb Z \to \Bbb Z$ is the 0-map (the integers under addition only contains ONE finite cyclic subgroup, the trivial one).

Try to keep in mind that modules are "mostly abelian groups" with a little ring action mixed in for spice. The addition is the DOMINANT operation (we'll pretend we don't know about tensor products for this discussion, where the scalar multiplication makes a BIG difference).
 
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
5
Views
933
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
728
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
687
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K