MHB Show that G is isomorphic to G x G

  • Thread starter Thread starter oblixps
  • Start date Start date
oblixps
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Let G be the group of positive rational numbers under multiplication. Show G is isomorphic to G x G.

i'm not sure how to start this. i am trying to come up with an explicit isomorphim but i can't seem to find one.

can someone give me some hints on how to approach this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
oblixps said:
Let G be the group of positive rational numbers under multiplication. Show G is isomorphic to G x G.

i'm not sure how to start this. i am trying to come up with an explicit isomorphim but i can't seem to find one.

can someone give me some hints on how to approach this?
I think the easiest method would be to show that each of these groups is isomorphic to the direct sum of infinitely many copies of the integers.

To see that $G$ is isomorphic to $$\bigoplus_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\mathbb{Z}$$, notice that each element $g\in G$ can be uniquely expressed in the form $$g = \prod_{p\in\mathcal{P}}p^{g_p}$$, where $\mathcal{P}$ denotes the set of primes. Each $p\in\mathcal{P}$ is raised to an integer power, and all but finitely many of these powers are $0$. The map $g\mapsto (g_p)_{p\in\mathcal{P}}$ gives the required isomorphism.

If that seems a bit abstract, here's a concrete example. Suppose $g = \frac{63}{50}$. By factorising the numerator and denominator as products of primes, you see that $g = 2^{-1}3^25^{-2}7^111^013^0\ldots$. The map taking $g$ to $(-1,2,-2,1,0,0,\ldots)$ associates $g$ with an element of $$\bigoplus_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\mathbb{Z}$$.

It should be fairly obvious that if $$H = \bigoplus_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\mathbb{Z}$$ then $H$ is isomorphic to $H\times H$ (because "twice infinity is infinity"), and it follows that $G$ is isomorphic to $G\times G.$
 
i wouldn't have thought of taking the direct sum of infinitely many copies of Z. seems like an interesting example.

would the result also be true if we took an infinite direct product instead of direct sum?

thanks for your reply!
 
oblixps said:
would the result also be true if we took an infinite direct product instead of direct sum?
Direct product would not work here. The direct product of infinitely many copies of the integers is uncountable. So it could not be isomorphic to the group of positive rationals, which is countable.
 
ah i see. now forgetting about the group of rationals, if we just let G be the direct product of countably many copies of Z, we would also have G isomorphic to G x G right? it seems like it would be the same argument as in the case for a direct sum.
 
oblixps said:
ah i see. now forgetting about the group of rationals, if we just let G be the direct product of countably many copies of Z, we would also have G isomorphic to G x G right? it seems like it would be the same argument as in the case for a direct sum.
Yes, that's correct. In both cases, if you take countably many copies and then countably many more copies, you still have countably many copies.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
Back
Top