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 was thinking that the product of groups $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z} \times\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$ is not cyclic, but $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z} \times\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$ is cyclic if p is an odd prime. Then I found logic that $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z} \times\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$ is certainly cyclic if $m$ and $n$ are coprimes.

I searched on google a proof of that, to compare with mine and the answer is that $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z} \times\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}/mn\mathbb{Z}$ (which is clearly cyclic) $\iff$ $m$ and $n$ are coprimes.

But I got another proof and I want to know what you think about it :

I claim that $([1]_m,[1]_n)$ generates $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ $\times\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$, where $[a]_d$ is the canonical projection of $a\in \mathbb{Z}$ into $\mathbb{Z}/d\mathbb{Z}$.

Let's take multiples of $([1]_m,[1]_n)$ until we get $m \cdot$ $([1]_m,[1]_n) = ([0]_m,[m]_n)$ (where I suppose $m=\min(m,n)$... otherwise, consider $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$ $\times\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ and $\min(m,n)=n$).

The next step is $([1]_m,[m+1]_n)$. This pair is not equal to $([1]_m,[1]_n)$, since $m+1 \not\equiv1$ mod $n$ ($m$ and $n$ are supposed to be coprimes). We can now continue adding $([1]_m,[1]_n)$ to the results.

The last step is precisely reached when you got $([mn]_m,[mn]_n)=([0]_m,[0]_n)$. At this point, the fact that $m$ and $n$ are coprimes is absolutely necessary because if they are not coprimes, $lcm(m,n)\ne m\cdot n$ and $([lcm(m,n)]_m,[lcm(m,n)]_n)=([0]_m,[0]_n)$ but all the $m \cdot n$ possible pairs are not reached, only the $lcm(m,n)$ are !

share|improve this question
    
Edited after the comment of Andreas Blass –  Alan Simonin Jan 7 '13 at 20:17
    
I think now my proof is complete –  Alan Simonin Jan 9 '13 at 14:14
add comment

1 Answer

This argument begins reasonably but jumps to a conclusion at "The last step is reached precisely ..." Notice that your only use of the "coprime" hypothesis is where you said $m+1\not\equiv 1\pmod n$, and this uses only that $n$ doesn't divide $m$, which is less than the full strength of coprimeness. Try a pair of numbers like 4 and 6 that are not coprime but neither divides the other, to see where your proof needs more justification.

share|improve this answer
1  
Yes you are right, I'm trying to change what you say. Thanks for your opinion ! –  Alan Simonin Jan 7 '13 at 20:02
add comment

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.