Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I'm trying to show $2\mathbb{Z}\not\cong 3\mathbb{Z}$ as rings. Suppose $\phi$ is an isomorphism. Then $\phi(2+2)=\phi(2\cdot 2)$, which implies $2\phi(2)=\phi(2)\phi(2)$. Then $2=\phi(2)$, which is impossible since $2\not\in 3\mathbb{Z}$. Is it this simple, or am I over stepping something?

share|improve this question
    
It is perfectly clear in this context, but is a good practice to explicitely say “non-unital ring” (or “rng” or something) at least once when you talk about rings without 1. –  PseudoNeo Jul 26 '12 at 8:51
2  
It's OK, just don't forget to say why $\varphi(2)\neq 0$ (since for example, it is $1-1$ and $\varphi(0)=0$ –  Belgi Jul 26 '12 at 8:53
    
We can remark that the same proof shows that there is as few isomorphisms between the $n \mathbb Z$ as possible: $n\mathbb Z$ is isomorphic to $m\mathbb Z$ if and only if $|n|=|m|$ and the only automorphism of $n\mathbb Z$ is the identity. –  PseudoNeo Jul 26 '12 at 9:06

1 Answer 1

your proof is correct, here I am writing in step by step,,Suppose their is a ring isomorphism $f:2\mathbb{Z}\rightarrow 3\mathbb{Z}$. Then $f(2)=3n$ for some in integer $n$. Now use the ring isomomorphism property that $f(a+b)=f(a)+f(b)$ and $f(a.b)=f(a).f(b)$ so $f(4)=f(2+2)=f(2)+f(2)=3n+3n$. Also $f(4)=f(2)f(2)=3n\times3n=9n^2$ But then comparing the two expressions we have for $f(4)$, we obtain $3n+3n=9n^2$ but this implies $n=0$ and we have $f(2)=0$ (since $f(2)=3n$ for some $n$ as we said above), however, we have $f(0)=0$ for ring ismorphism,so no such $f$ can exist and we must conclude that $2\mathbb{Z}$ is NOT isomorphic to $3\mathbb{Z}$.

share|improve this answer
    
The question was “is my proof correct?” and not “can you provide an answer?”... –  PseudoNeo Jul 26 '12 at 8:58
    
do you want me to delet my answer? and for your kind info your quotation does not exist in the question :) –  El Angel Exterminador Jul 26 '12 at 9:01
    
It's a journalist-style quote :-) And no, but it is interesting to note that your proof is essentially a rewriting of the OP's one, as you did in your last edit. –  PseudoNeo Jul 26 '12 at 9:04
1  
This is a asomewhat different solution than the one the PO gave –  Belgi Jul 26 '12 at 9:05

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.