Is R under addition isomorphic to R\{0} under multiplication?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion confirms that the set of real numbers \(\mathbb{R}\) under addition is not isomorphic to the set of non-zero real numbers \(\mathbb{R}\backslash{0}\) under multiplication. While \(\mathbb{R}\) is isomorphic to the positive reals \(\mathbb{R}_{>0}\) via the bijection \(\phi(x) = e^x\), this mapping fails for \(\mathbb{R}\backslash{0}\) due to the exponential function being positive for all real inputs. The inability to map inverses correctly further supports the conclusion that no isomorphism exists between these two structures.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of group theory concepts, specifically isomorphisms.
  • Familiarity with the properties of the real numbers \(\mathbb{R}\) under addition and multiplication.
  • Knowledge of bijective functions and their implications in mathematical mappings.
  • Basic understanding of the exponential function and its properties.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of group isomorphisms in detail.
  • Explore the implications of bijections in algebraic structures.
  • Investigate the relationship between \(\mathbb{R}\) and \(\mathbb{R}_{>0}\) through the exponential function.
  • Examine counterexamples in group theory to understand non-isomorphic structures.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying abstract algebra, group theory, or anyone interested in the properties of real numbers and their algebraic structures.

3029298
Messages
56
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Is [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] under addition isomorphic to [tex]\mathbb{R}\backslash{0}[/tex] under multiplication?

The Attempt at a Solution


It is true that [tex]\mathbb{R}[/tex] under addition is isomorphic to [tex]\mathbb{R}_{>0}[/tex] under multiplication, by using the bijection [tex]\phi : \mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}_{>0}[/tex] with [tex]\phi\left(x\right)=e^x[/tex]. But we cannot use this isomorphism for [tex]\mathbb{R}\backslash{0}[/tex] since the exponential is positive everywhere, and if we define it to be negative for [tex]x<0[/tex] then we cannot map to the interval [tex](0,1)[/tex]. Intuitively this gives a hint that there is no isomorphism possible... Can I do something with the fact that we know that if there is an isomorphism, it must map inverses to inverses, therefore [tex]\phi(0)=1[/tex]? I really need a hint to be able to find the answer... Thanks for any help!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Let [itex]\varphi : (\mathbb{R},+) \to (\mathbb{R}\setminus \{0\},\times)[/itex] be such an isomorphism. For an arbitrary element [itex]x \in \mathbb{R}[/itex] we have:
[tex]\varphi(x) = \varphi(x/2 + x/2) = \varphi(x/2)^2 \geq 0[/tex]
 
Beautiful argument! Didn't think of that... thanks!
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K