What is the Isomorphism between Groups and its Implications?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the assertion regarding the isomorphism between groups, specifically whether the condition G × K ≅ H × K implies G ≅ H for groups G, H, and K. Participants explore the validity of this statement and its implications in group theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster expresses uncertainty about the truth of the assertion and attempts to find counterexamples. They explore the properties of specific groups and question the conditions under which isomorphisms can be established. Other participants contribute by providing examples and clarifying concepts related to group orders and mappings.

Discussion Status

Participants have engaged in a productive exploration of the topic, with some suggesting counterexamples and others confirming the original poster's doubts about the assertion. A potential mapping has been proposed, but the original poster still seeks further clarification and guidance on proving the isomorphism.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing discussion about the nature of the groups involved and the implications of their structures, particularly regarding infinite sets and their properties. The original poster is constrained by their current understanding and seeks to refine their approach to the problem.

Boorglar
Messages
210
Reaction score
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 :(
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The group ##\mathbb{Z}_2\times \mathbb{Z}## has an element of order ##2##, the group ##\{0\}\times \mathbb{Z}## doesn't. So the groups are not isomorphic.

You're however correct that the statement is false. Take the following group as ##K##

\mathbb{Z}^{\mathbb{N}} = \{(x_n)_n~\vert~x_n\in \mathbb{Z}\}

with the usual operations. Can you find the right ##G## and ##H##?
 
Is that the set of all infinite sequences of integers?
 
Yes.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Ok yes! I finally got it:

Let G be {0} and let H be Z. Then define \phi to be:

\phi( (0, (a_{1}, a_{2}, ... ) ) ) = ( a_{1}, (a_{2}, a_{3}, ... ) ) obtained by left-shifting the sequence. It is obviously well-defined. It is one-to-one because if two left-shifted sequences are equal, then adding a zero in front keeps them equal. And any sequence can have a zero added to it so the mapping is onto. The operation is preserved because:

\phi( (0, (a_{1}+b_{1}, a_{2}+b_{2}, ... ) ) ) = ( a_{1}+b_{1}, (a_{2}+b_{2}, a_{3}+b_{3}, ... ) ) = ( a_{1}, (a_{2}, a_{3}, ... ) ) + ( b_{1}, (b_{2}, b_{3}, ... ) ) = \phi( ( 0, ( a_{1}, a_{2}, ... ) ) ) + \phi( 0, ( b_{1}, b_{2}, ... ) ) )

Thanks for the help. I don't think I would have thought of that anytime soon :P
 
By the way, are you really 19? Because that's my age too but you seem so much more knowledgeable!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
9K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K