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 only recently learned about the tensor product of modules and came across the following exercise:

Show that $$\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{Z} / m \mathbb{Z} \cong \mathbb{Z}/\gcd(n,m)$$ where $n,m\in\mathbb{N}$ and $\gcd(n,m)$ denotes the greatest common divisor of $m$ and $n$.

I proceeded by showing that

  • any element of $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{Z} / m \mathbb{Z}$ has the form $k\otimes 1$, hence the tensor product is a cyclic group generated by $1\otimes 1$
  • any element has at most order $\gcd(n,m)$

which leads to $$\left| \mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{Z} / m \mathbb{Z} \right|\leq \left| \mathbb{Z}/\gcd(n,m)\mathbb{Z} \right|.$$

I went on by constructing a surjective bilinear map $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}\times \mathbb{Z} / m \mathbb{Z}\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}/\gcd(n,m)$, namely $$\left([a], [b]\right)\mapsto ab + \gcd(n,m)\mathbb{Z} $$ and using the universal property of the tensor product to get a surjective homomorphism of abelian groups $$\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{Z} / m \mathbb{Z} \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}/\gcd(n,m)\mathbb{Z},$$ which shows that $\left| \mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{Z} / m \mathbb{Z} \right|\geq \left| \mathbb{Z}/\gcd(n,m)\mathbb{Z} \right|$. Hence both groups are cyclic and have the same order, so they are isomorphic. $\;\square$

Showing directly that $k(1\otimes 1) \neq 0$ when $k<\gcd(n,m)$ seems more elegant, but in fact I could not even manage to prove that $1\otimes 1 \neq 0$ (if $\gcd(n,m)\neq 1$) without using the universal property, let alone showing it for all the relevant multiples $k (1\otimes 1)$.

Is there an easy way to show directly that $ k(1\otimes 1) \neq 0 \text{ when } k<\gcd(n,m)$, that is, without using the universal property?

share|improve this question
3  
First of all,I don't know but I highly doubt there is something that isn't more or less, or closely, equivalent to the universal property which, by the way, I don't find that awful to use... –  DonAntonio Jan 10 '13 at 17:33
    
Thanks for your assessment. Actually, I don't mind the universal property at all, it seems to be a very useful tool to have. It's just that I still feel rather unfamiliar with tensor products so it seems kind of odd that even the simple question "is something equal to 0?" may not have a straightforward answer. –  Andy Brandi Jan 10 '13 at 17:55

1 Answer 1

You've got the right candidate map. Let $g=gcd(m,n)$. Call the biadditive map p you gave $B:\Bbb Z/(n)\times \Bbb Z/(m)\rightarrow \Bbb Z/(g)$ given by $(x,y)\rightarrow xy$. Let the tensor map be $\tau$.

To answer your question about $1\otimes 1$ being nonzero, notice that $B(1,1)=1$. So, it is impossible for $1\otimes 1=0$, because there must be an $f$ making the diagram commute, and that would say that $0=f(0)=f(\tau((1,1)))=B(1,1)=1$. This shows that $1\otimes 1\neq 0$, and furthermore that the map is onto.

Let's show that it's also injective. Find $p,q$ such that $pn+qm=g$. If $(a,b)$ is sent to 0 by the map, this means that $g|ab$, say $gx=ab$. Then $xpn+xqm=ab$. Now

$$ a\otimes b=ab(1\otimes 1)=(xpn+xqm)(1\otimes 1)=xpn(1\otimes 1)+xqm(1\otimes 1)=0\otimes 0 $$

share|improve this answer
    
That wasn't exactly what I've been looking for as it still makes explicit use of the universal property, but you gave a nice alternate proof by showing directly that the induced homomorphism must be an isomorphism. I tried that approach before but failed at showing that the map is injective. This makes your answer very helpful, thanks! –  Andy Brandi Jan 10 '13 at 18:28
1  
@AndyBrandi Ah, crap, yeah I didn't read it correctly that you didn't want to use the UP. I think Don's right though: the definition of the tensor is intimately tied up with the UP, so you can't avoid using it. –  rschwieb Jan 10 '13 at 18:30
    
You're probably right. I was hoping that an explicit construction of the tensor product would give an obvious answer, but things seem to get messy there. I'll have to get used to it. –  Andy Brandi Jan 10 '13 at 18:40

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.