Is 2Z isomorphic to 4Z? (Abstract algebra)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the isomorphism between the groups (2Z, +) and (4Z, +) within the context of abstract algebra. Participants explore the implications of this isomorphism and the properties of infinite cyclic groups, particularly focusing on whether every infinite cyclic group has a subgroup that is isomorphic to itself.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a map f: 2Z → 4Z defined by f(n) = 2n, claiming it is surjective and injective, thus suggesting that (2Z, +) is isomorphic to (4Z, +).
  • Another participant notes that every infinite cyclic group is isomorphic to the integers and discusses the transitive property of isomorphism, indicating that if an infinite cyclic group has an infinite cyclic subgroup, they must be isomorphic.
  • A later reply suggests that proving every infinite cyclic group has such a subgroup is challenging, but offers a method involving the generation of subgroups from a specific element.
  • One participant confirms the earlier claims, stating that any infinite cyclic group G = is isomorphic to , which is a subgroup, and aligns with the previous proof provided.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the properties of infinite cyclic groups and the implications of isomorphism, but the initial claim regarding the isomorphism between (2Z, +) and (4Z, +) is presented as a point of exploration rather than settled fact.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the properties of cyclic groups and the nature of isomorphisms, but does not resolve the complexities involved in proving the existence of isomorphic subgroups within infinite cyclic groups.

Physics news on Phys.org
Consider that every infinite cyclic group is isomorphic to the integers, and that isomorphism is an equivalence relation.
If an infinite cyclic group has an infinite cyclic subgroup, then they must be isomorphic (by transitivity); now just prove that every infinite cyclic group has such a subgroup. You might try using the fact (as you're doing here) than the set of all multiples of an integer n is an infinite subgroup, and since isomorphism maps subgroups to subgroups...
 
Last edited:
Number Nine said:
Consider that every infinite cyclic group is isomorphic to the integers, and that isomorphism is an equivalence relation.
If an infinite cyclic group has an infinite cyclic subgroup, then they must be isomorphic (by transitivity); now just prove that every infinite cyclic group has such a subgroup.

Actually proving that every infinite cyclic group has such a group is a bit hard, I could prove it in an easier way.

If G is cyclic, then all elements of G can be generated by a specific element like a. so we have G=<a> iff g = an for any g in G. Now, every subgroup of G is cyclic too, this can be proved easily, therefore there must be a power of a that generates S (S being a subgroup of G). so the only thing I need to do is to map a to am where m is the power of a that generates the subgroup and everything is just like before in integers.
It's very easy to verify that f: G → S defined by f(a)=am is an isomorphism.

So the statement is true?
 
Yep.

Any infinite cyclic group G=<a> is isomorphic to <a2>, which is a subgroup.
Same proof as the one you already gave.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K