I was proving 2Z is non-isomorphic to 3Z(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

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 Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Valid argument ?

Loading...

Similar Threads - Valid argument | Date |
---|---|

I Validity of proof of Cauchy-Schwarz inequality | Nov 23, 2016 |

Is this proof of an ##\infty## norm valid? | Jan 26, 2016 |

Notation for the nabla operator arguments | Jun 27, 2014 |

Can anyone please help me to generalize and prove this if it is valid? | Apr 22, 2012 |

How can I find a solution valid for all cases? | Nov 10, 2011 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**