Group Isomorphism: Proving f: Us(st)->U(t) is Onto

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mehtamonica
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Groups
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the function f: U_{s}(st) → U(t) is onto, where U_{s}(st) and U(t) are defined as groups of units modulo st and t, respectively. Participants explore definitions, properties of the groups, and the nature of the mapping involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines U_{s}(st) as the set of elements in U(st) that are congruent to 1 modulo s.
  • Another participant questions the definitions of U(t) and U(st), asking for clarification on whether s is an integer and how the function f is defined.
  • A subsequent post clarifies that U(n) represents the multiplicative group modulo n, consisting of integers that are relatively prime to n, and states that s and t are integers such that (s, t) = 1.
  • One participant suggests that the function f could be an isomorphism, asserting that for any group G, the function f_s(t) = st is both one-to-one and onto, proposing that proving onto involves finding an x such that sx = y.
  • Another participant speculates that the question may concern a mapping between the multiplicative groups of integers mod st and mod t, rather than a self-mapping of integers.
  • A later reply mentions that U(st) is isomorphic to U(s) x U(t) via the mapping x → (x mod s, x mod t), and notes that Us(st) is a subgroup of U(st), with its image being isomorphic to U(t).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and implications of the mappings involved. There is no consensus on the approach to proving that f is onto, and multiple interpretations of the problem exist.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the need for clarity on the definitions of the groups involved and the nature of the function f. There are unresolved questions regarding the assumptions about the integers s and t and the properties of the groups.

mehtamonica
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
To prove that : f : U[itex]_{s}[/itex] (st) [itex]\rightarrow[/itex] U(t) is an onto map.

Note that

Us(st)= {x [itex]\in[/itex] U(st): x= 1 (mod s)}

Let x [itex]\in[/itex]U(t)

then (x, t)=1 and 1<x< t

How to proceed beyond point ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't understand what you're saying. How do you define the sets (groups?) U(t) and U(st) and? Is s an integer? How is the function f defined?
 
Fredrik said:
I don't understand what you're saying. How do you define the sets (groups?) U(t) and U(st) and? Is s an integer? How is the function f defined?

1) U ( n) is a multiplication group modulo n, for any integer n.

( U(n) is group contains all the non zero units of Zn, that is , all the integers belonging to Zn that are relatively prime to n.

2) s and t are integers such that (s, t) =1.( rel prime)

3) f (x) = x mod s, where x belongs to Us(st)
 
Last edited:
But why are you limiting yourself like that? For any group, G, the function [itex]f_s(t)= st[/itex] (or in "additive" notation, [itex]f_s(t)= s+ t[/itex]) is an isomorphism- and so both one-to-one and onto.

To prove it is onto, suppose y is a given member of the group. You merely need to show that there exist x such that sx= y- and that is easy.
 
This might be a question about a mapping between the multiplicative group of integers mod st to the multiplicative group of integers mod t rather than a question about mapping the multiplicative of integers into itself. In fact, from the definition of [itex]U_s[/itex] in the original post, it might be a question about mapping subsets of the group of integers mod st onto the group of integers mod t.
 
Do you know U(st) is isomorphic to U(s)xU(t) though the map x->(x mod s, x mod t)?

Then Us(st) is a subgroup of U(st). Images of subgroups are subgroups, and in this case the image is {1} x U(t) which is isomorphic to U(t).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K