Only homomorphism from rationals to integers

  • Thread starter Thread starter vikas92
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integers
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of homomorphisms between the groups and , specifically focusing on the assertion that the only homomorphism from to is the zero homomorphism. Participants are examining the validity of a proof presented in an image, which is noted to be unclear.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning the steps in the proof, particularly the transition from f(x) to xf(1) and the implications of the homomorphism's definition. There are discussions about potential counterexamples and the validity of the proof's assumptions.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the proof's correctness, with some participants expressing skepticism about its validity. Suggestions of alternative definitions and counterexamples have been raised, indicating a productive dialogue about the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants note discrepancies in the problem statement, such as the difference between and , which may affect the interpretation of the homomorphism. The quality of the proof's presentation is also a concern, impacting the clarity of the discussion.

vikas92
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Kindly see the attached image.i can't understand the step where he write f(x)=f(1+1+...+1)=xf(1).But the homomorphism is from <Q,.> to <Z,+>
 

Attachments

  • 06062012(003).jpg
    06062012(003).jpg
    19.2 KB · Views: 1,048
Physics news on Phys.org
Sorry, but this is unreadable
Cheers...
 
Sorry for bad image quality.
Show that only homomorphism from the group <Q*,.> to <Z,+> is the zero homomorphism where Q*=Q-{0}
Solution
Let 0≠f be a homomorphism from <Q*,.> to <Z,+>
Let f(1)=n[itex]\in[/itex]Z. Suppose f(1)=0
Then f(x)=f(1+1+...+1) if x>0,x[itex]\in[/itex]Z
=x f(1)=0
This is the step I couldn't understand as the homomorphism is from <Q*,.> to <Z,+> not from <Q*,+> to <Z,+> .
Also,0=f(x)=f(-1χ(-x))=f(-1)+f(-x)
[itex]\Rightarrow[/itex]f(-1)=-1f(-x)
Thus f(-x)=f(-1χx)=f(-1)+f(x)=f(-1)+0=-f(-x) [itex]\Rightarrow[/itex] f(-x)=0

Further he proved that f(r/s)=0
 
Hi,
Indeed something is very fishy about this proof.
Furthermore I think he is trying to prove something which is wrong.
Unless I miss something,
define for any x of Q being a multiple of a power of 2 f(x)= said power
for instance, f(-1/2)=f(15/2)=-1
f(4)=f(-4/17)=2
f(0)=1
and fx)=0 otherwise, than it looks to me that this is a counter example, but I could miss something...

Cheers...
 
Thanks for your reply.Perhaps it is serving as counterexample to what the question was given.In some other book the same question was there with <Q,+> instead of <Q,.>
.Maybe the solution provided by the author is wrong
 
Well i,n fact Q+ sounds like a much better candidate to do the job, so my counter example would be even simpler, but I probably miss something.
Anyway, the proof you linked to is completely bogus as far as I can tell, and, just think about exp(x) ln(x); if we were to talk about R+ -> R (or the other way around, pick one) you would have a perfect example of the same idea, so I think the proof should be a lot more involved than that and.

Cheers..
 

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K