Proving 2Z is Non-Isomorphic to 3Z

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sihag
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Argument
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that the group 2Z is non-isomorphic to 3Z using ring homomorphisms. The initial approach attempted a proof by contradiction, asserting that if a ring homomorphism f exists from 2Z to 3Z, then certain properties must hold. However, participants pointed out that the proof incorrectly applied multiplicative notation instead of additive notation, leading to contradictions regarding the injectivity of f. The final conclusion confirms that the initial proof is flawed, reinforcing the necessity of proper definitions in homomorphism proofs.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ring homomorphisms
  • Familiarity with additive and multiplicative notation in algebra
  • Knowledge of isomorphism concepts in group theory
  • Basic principles of proof by contradiction
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of ring homomorphisms in detail
  • Learn about the structure and properties of isomorphic groups
  • Explore additive versus multiplicative notation in algebraic proofs
  • Review examples of non-isomorphic groups to solidify understanding
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, algebra students, and anyone studying group theory and ring theory who seeks to deepen their understanding of isomorphisms and homomorphisms.

sihag
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
I was proving 2Z is non-isomorphic to 3Z
I tried it by contradiction, of course.
If possible there exists a ring homomorphism f : 2Z ---> 3Z
Then,
f (x.y) = f(x).f(y) must hold
x,y belong to 2Z
So x = 2a, f.s. a belonging to Z
y = 2b, f.s. b belonging to Z
so x.y = 2z, f.s. z belonging to Z
Also, f(x) belongs to 3Z, and so does f(y)
=> f(x).f(y) = 3n , f.s. n belonging to Z
So,
f(2z) = 3n
f(2).f(z) = 3n, (since f is a ring homomorphism)
which is a meaningless statement, since f is not defined for all z belonging to Z, but only for elements of the form 2z.

Is it correct ? Someone got something neater ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
no

f(2z) = 3n, then you said f(2)f(z) = 3n, you can't do this because you don't where z lives and f is a ring homo on 2Z, what if z is in 5Z, etcyou need to use the fact you have an isomorphism, in your proof you are only using the fact you have a homomorphism but those do exist, so what you are trying to do is not going to be enough

edit: also you should be using additive notation here, ie, f(x) + f(y) = f(x + y)
 
Last edited:
let f(2) = 3n , f.s. n in Z
f(2 + 2) = f(4) , and f(2.2) = f(4)

f(2 + 2) = f(2) + f(2) = 6n
f(2.2) = f(2)f(2) = 9n^2

=> 6n = 9n^2
=> n = 0 (contradiction as f is an isomorphism, so must be injective, so only 0 maps to 0)
or, n = 2/3 (contradiction as n belongs to Z)

Q.E.D.

thanks for the help
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
967
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
990
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K