Is 2Z isomorphic to 4Z? (Abstract algebra)

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of isomorphism in abstract algebra, specifically in relation to infinite cyclic groups. It is stated that every infinite cyclic group has a subgroup that is isomorphic to itself, which may seem counter-intuitive. However, it is proven that this is indeed true by showing that every subgroup of an infinite cyclic group is also cyclic, and can be generated by a specific element of the group. This element can then be mapped to a power of itself, creating an isomorphism between the group and its subgroup. The concept is compared to the fact that the set of all multiples of an integer is an infinite subgroup of the integers, and since isomorphism maps subgroups to subgroups, the statement is true
  • #1
AdrianZ
319
0
Actually I'm stupid today, it happens once in a while that I get extremely lazy and stupid in mathematics, but today I came up with a bizarre thing in abstract algebra that I couldn't find my mistake on my own and I'm not sure whether what I've concluded is true or wrong, I was proving another theorem that one of my assumptions implied: [itex](\Bbb{2Z},+)\cong (\Bbb{4Z},+)[/itex]. This is the story:
Consider the map [itex] f: 2\Bbb{Z} \to 4\Bbb{Z}[/itex] defined by f(n)=2n. It's obvious that f is surjective and it's easy to verify that f is injective because if f(m)=f(n) then 2m=2n and we obtain: m=n. This map is a homomorphism of groups because:
f(m+n)=2(m+n)=2m+2n=f(m)+f(n)
so it implies that [itex](\Bbb{2Z},+)\cong (\Bbb{4Z},+)[/itex]. Is that really true? I guess it must be but it sounds a bit weird to me. This result implies that every infinite cyclic group has a subgroup of it which is isomorphic to itself! sounds weird and counter-intuitive to me :( Although I must admit that it's just as weird as N and Z having the same cardinal numbers so maybe it's OK? Anyway, is it true that every infinite cyclic group has a subgroup of it which is isomorphic to itself?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Consider that every infinite cyclic group is isomorphic to the integers, and that isomorphism is an equivalence relation.
If an infinite cyclic group has an infinite cyclic subgroup, then they must be isomorphic (by transitivity); now just prove that every infinite cyclic group has such a subgroup. You might try using the fact (as you're doing here) than the set of all multiples of an integer n is an infinite subgroup, and since isomorphism maps subgroups to subgroups...
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Number Nine said:
Consider that every infinite cyclic group is isomorphic to the integers, and that isomorphism is an equivalence relation.
If an infinite cyclic group has an infinite cyclic subgroup, then they must be isomorphic (by transitivity); now just prove that every infinite cyclic group has such a subgroup.

Actually proving that every infinite cyclic group has such a group is a bit hard, I could prove it in an easier way.

If G is cyclic, then all elements of G can be generated by a specific element like a. so we have G=<a> iff g = an for any g in G. Now, every subgroup of G is cyclic too, this can be proved easily, therefore there must be a power of a that generates S (S being a subgroup of G). so the only thing I need to do is to map a to am where m is the power of a that generates the subgroup and everything is just like before in integers.
It's very easy to verify that f: G → S defined by f(a)=am is an isomorphism.

So the statement is true?
 
  • #4
Yep.

Any infinite cyclic group G=<a> is isomorphic to <a2>, which is a subgroup.
Same proof as the one you already gave.
 
  • #5


I can confirm that your proof is correct and it is indeed true that (\Bbb{2Z},+)\cong (\Bbb{4Z},+). This may seem counter-intuitive at first, but it is a fundamental concept in abstract algebra that is known as isomorphism. Isomorphism is a way of showing that two groups or structures are essentially the same, even though they may look different on the surface.

In this case, you have shown that the groups \Bbb{2Z} and \Bbb{4Z} are isomorphic, meaning that they have the same structure and behave in the same way under addition. This is not limited to just infinite cyclic groups, but can be applied to any groups that have the same structure.

So, to answer your question, yes, it is true that every infinite cyclic group has a subgroup of it which is isomorphic to itself. This may seem strange, but once you understand the concept of isomorphism, it becomes easier to grasp. It is also important to note that this is not limited to just cyclic groups, but can be applied to other groups as well.

In conclusion, your proof is correct and your conclusion is true. It may sound weird or counter-intuitive, but it is a fundamental concept in abstract algebra that allows us to better understand the structure of groups and how they behave. Keep exploring and questioning, as that is how we make new discoveries and push the boundaries of our understanding.
 

Related to Is 2Z isomorphic to 4Z? (Abstract algebra)

1. What is abstract algebra?

Abstract algebra is a branch of mathematics that studies algebraic structures such as groups, rings, and fields. It uses symbols and rules to manipulate these structures and understand their properties and relationships.

2. What is an isomorphism?

An isomorphism is a bijective map between two algebraic structures that preserves the structure and operations of those structures. In abstract algebra, two structures are said to be isomorphic if there exists an isomorphism between them.

3. What is 2Z and 4Z in abstract algebra?

2Z and 4Z are two algebraic structures called cyclic groups. 2Z is the group of even integers under addition, and 4Z is the group of multiples of 4 under addition.

4. How can we determine if 2Z is isomorphic to 4Z?

We can determine if 2Z is isomorphic to 4Z by finding a bijective map between the two groups that preserves their structure and operations. In this case, we can see that the map f: 2Z -> 4Z defined by f(x) = 2x is a valid isomorphism.

5. What does it mean for 2Z and 4Z to be isomorphic?

If 2Z and 4Z are isomorphic, it means that these two groups have the same algebraic structure and operations. This means that any properties or theorems that hold for one group will also hold for the other group, making them essentially equivalent in the realm of abstract algebra.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top