Why a group is not a direct or semi direct product

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of the group \(\mathbb{Z}_4\) and its relationship to the group \(\mathbb{Z}_2\). The original poster is exploring why \(\mathbb{Z}_4\) cannot be expressed as a direct or semidirect product of two copies of \(\mathbb{Z}_2\), despite having a subgroup isomorphic to \(\mathbb{Z}_2\) and a quotient that is also isomorphic to \(\mathbb{Z}_2\).

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to establish that \(\mathbb{Z}_4\) is not isomorphic to \(\mathbb{Z}_2 \oplus \mathbb{Z}_2\) based on the relative primality of the orders. They also mention the intersection of subgroups in the context of semidirect products. Other participants question the properties of elements in \(\mathbb{Z}_4\) that are not reproduced in the products, focusing on cardinality and element orders.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring various properties of the groups involved. Some guidance has been offered regarding the definitions and characteristics of isomorphisms, but there is no explicit consensus on the reasoning presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants have noted issues with formatting in LaTeX and clarified the original question regarding the subgroup structure of \(\mathbb{Z}_4\).

DeldotB
Messages
117
Reaction score
8

Homework Statement


Good day all!

(p.s I don't know why every time I type latex [ tex ] ... [ / tex ] a new line is started..sorry for this being so "spread" out)

So I was wondering if my understanding of this is correct:

The Question asks: "\mathbb{Z}_4 has a subgroup is isomorphic to \mathbb{Z}_2 The quotient \mathbb{Z}_4/ \mathbb{Z}_2 is also isomorphic to \mathbb{Z}_2Nevertheless, \mathbb{Z}_4 is not a direct or semidirect product of two copies of \mathbb{Z}_2. Why?

Homework Equations


None

The Attempt at a Solution


Well: Its pretty easy to see that \mathbb{Z}_{4}\neq \mathbb{Z}_{2}\oplus \mathbb{Z}_{2} because 2 is not relatively prime to 2. Thus, Z4 isn't a direct product.

For the semi direct product: since \mathbb{Z}_{2}\cap \mathbb{Z}_{2}\neq e (where e is the identity), Z4 is not a semi direct produt of two copies of Z2. Is this correct? (and sufficient?)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
DeldotB said:
(p.s I don't know why every time I type latex [ tex ] ... [ / tex ] a new line is started..sorry for this being so "spread" out)
Because this is the definition of that tag. Use [ itex] or double hashes instead if you want to write equations in text.

##\mathbb Z_4## is not isomorphic to ##\mathbb Z_2##. You cannot have a bijection between sets of different cardinality.

Can you think of a property of any element in ##\mathbb Z_4## which none of the products reproduce?
 
Orodruin said:
Because this is the definition of that tag. Use [ itex] or double hashes instead if you want to write equations in text.

##\mathbb Z_4## is not isomorphic to ##\mathbb Z_2##. You cannot have a bijection between sets of different cardinality.

Can you think of a property of any element in ##\mathbb Z_4## which none of the products reproduce?
[1] in Z4 has order 4
 
Last edited:
DeldotB said:
<1>
Orodruin said:
Because this is the definition of that tag. Use [ itex] or double hashes instead if you want to write equations in text.

##\mathbb Z_4## is not isomorphic to ##\mathbb Z_2##. You cannot have a bijection between sets of different cardinality.

Can you think of a property of any element in ##\mathbb Z_4## which none of the products reproduce?

I miss typed the question. I meant to say Z4 has a subgroup isomorphic to Z2 (obviously subgroup generated by [2])
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K