AdrianZ
- 318
- 0
Actually I'm stupid today, it happens once in a while that I get extremely lazy and stupid in mathematics, but today I came up with a bizarre thing in abstract algebra that I couldn't find my mistake on my own and I'm not sure whether what I've concluded is true or wrong, I was proving another theorem that one of my assumptions implied: (\Bbb{2Z},+)\cong (\Bbb{4Z},+). This is the story:
Consider the map f: 2\Bbb{Z} \to 4\Bbb{Z} defined by f(n)=2n. It's obvious that f is surjective and it's easy to verify that f is injective because if f(m)=f(n) then 2m=2n and we obtain: m=n. This map is a homomorphism of groups because:
f(m+n)=2(m+n)=2m+2n=f(m)+f(n)
so it implies that (\Bbb{2Z},+)\cong (\Bbb{4Z},+). Is that really true? I guess it must be but it sounds a bit weird to me. This result implies that every infinite cyclic group has a subgroup of it which is isomorphic to itself! sounds weird and counter-intuitive to me :( Although I must admit that it's just as weird as N and Z having the same cardinal numbers so maybe it's OK? Anyway, is it true that every infinite cyclic group has a subgroup of it which is isomorphic to itself?
Consider the map f: 2\Bbb{Z} \to 4\Bbb{Z} defined by f(n)=2n. It's obvious that f is surjective and it's easy to verify that f is injective because if f(m)=f(n) then 2m=2n and we obtain: m=n. This map is a homomorphism of groups because:
f(m+n)=2(m+n)=2m+2n=f(m)+f(n)
so it implies that (\Bbb{2Z},+)\cong (\Bbb{4Z},+). Is that really true? I guess it must be but it sounds a bit weird to me. This result implies that every infinite cyclic group has a subgroup of it which is isomorphic to itself! sounds weird and counter-intuitive to me :( Although I must admit that it's just as weird as N and Z having the same cardinal numbers so maybe it's OK? Anyway, is it true that every infinite cyclic group has a subgroup of it which is isomorphic to itself?