MHB Understanding the Chinese Remainder Theorem for $\mathbb{Z}^{\times} _{20}$

NoName3
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
How do I show that $\mathbb{Z}^{\times} _{20} ≅ \mathbb{Z}_{2} \times \mathbb{Z}_{4}$?

I read that the chinese remainder theorem is the way to go but there are many versions and I can't find the right one. Most versions that I have found are statements between multiplicative groups, not from multiplicative group to additive product like we have here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
NoName said:
How do I show that $\mathbb{Z}^{\times} _{20} ≅ \mathbb{Z}_{2} \times \mathbb{Z}_{4}$?

I read that the chinese remainder theorem is the way to go but there are many versions and I can't find the right one. Most versions that I have found are statements between multiplicative groups, not from multiplicative group to additive product like we have here.

Hi NN!

Indeed, the Chinese Remainder Theorem says that:
$$\mathbb Z^\times_{20} \simeq \mathbb Z^\times_{2^2} \times \mathbb Z^\times_{5}$$
Is $\mathbb Z^\times_{2^2}$ isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$? (Wondering)
 
I like Serena said:
Hi NN!

Indeed, the Chinese Remainder Theorem says that:
$$\mathbb Z^\times_{20} \simeq \mathbb Z^\times_{2^2} \times \mathbb Z^\times_{5}$$
Is $\mathbb Z^\times_{2^2}$ isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_{2}$? (Wondering)
Hi, I like Serena,

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I think they're isomorphic.
 
NoName said:
Hi, I like Serena,

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I think they're isomorphic.

So?

Oh, and why do you think they are isomorphic? (Wondering)
 
I like Serena said:
So?

Oh, and why do you think they are isomorphic? (Wondering)
So $\mathbb Z^{\times}_{20} \simeq \mathbb Z_{2} \times \mathbb Z^\times_{5}$? As for why, two groups of the same order are isomorphic if $\gcd(n, \phi(n)) = 1$. This satisfies that.
 
NoName said:
So $\mathbb Z^{\times}_{20} \simeq \mathbb Z_{2} \times \mathbb Z^\times_{5}$?

Yep!

As for why, two groups of the same order are isomorphic if $\gcd(n, \phi(n)) = 1$. This satisfies that.

Huh? :confused:
I didn't know that yet, but it seems to be true.
Can you provide a reference?
 
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...
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...
##\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...
Back
Top