Boorglar
- 210
- 10
Homework Statement
Prove or disprove the following assertion. Let G, H, and K be groups. If G × K \cong H × K, then G \cong H.
Homework Equations
G × H = \left\{ (g,h): g \in G, h \in H \right\}
The Attempt at a Solution
I don't even know whether the statement is true or false... I tried looking in both directions but to no avail.
For a counterexample, I figured that at least one of the sets would have to be infinite, otherwise G and H would have the same number of elements and it would be harder for them not to be isomorphic. I considered the sets:
\left\{0\right\} × Z and Z_{2} × Z with the isomorphism being:
\phi( 0, 2n ) = ( 0, n ) and \phi( 0, 2n + 1 ) = ( 1, n ). Then it is well-defined, one-to-one and onto. But it does not preserve the operation because \phi( 0, 1 ) + \phi( 0, 1 ) = ( 1, 0 ) + ( 1, 0 ) = ( 0, 0 ) while \phi( (0,1) + (0,1) ) = \phi(0,2) = (0,1).
I still think someone could tweak the definition a bit to make it an isomorphism, but of course I am not sure.
As for proving the theorem is true, I don't even know how to start. I considered the following mapping \phi : G → H defined as \phi( g ) = h where (g,e_{K}) → (h, k') under the isomorphism between G × K and H × K.
Then I proved \phi is well-defined and preserves the operation. But I cannot prove that it is one-to-one, nor onto. The problem is that I have no reason to believe that if g_{1} ≠ g_{2} then (g_{1},e_{K}) → (h_{1}, k_{1}) and (g_{2}, e_{K} ) → (h_{2}, k_{2}) where h_{1}≠h_{2}.
On the other hand, no other natural candidate for an isomorphism comes to mind, so I am completely stuck here. If someone could, not give me the whole answer, but just point to the right direction? Because I may be looking somewhere completely unrelated :(