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.

For showing that two groups (Q,+) and (R,+) are not isomorphic, can we use the fact that Q/Z is a torsion qroup while R/Z is a mixed one wherein, Z is group of integers? :)

share|improve this question
7  
Sure, but why not make a cardinality argument? –  t.b. Apr 29 '11 at 12:51
    
Expanding Theo's comment: an isomorphism is first of all a bijection and there are no bijections between $\mathbb Q$ and $\mathbb R$. –  lhf Apr 29 '11 at 12:55
2  
Actually to make this kind of argument, you must show Z gets mapped to Z under any such isomorphism, which isn't true. –  user641 Apr 29 '11 at 12:57
1  
@Steve: that's not necessary. Given a prospective isomorphism $\phi : \mathbb{Q} \to \mathbb{R}$ you just need to consider the image of $\mathbb{Z}$, which is certainly a group isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}$. –  Qiaochu Yuan Apr 29 '11 at 13:00
3  
@Qiaochu: Yes, but it need not be $\mathbb{Z}$ itself. So she would have to argue that $\mathbb{R}/C$ is not torsion for any infinite cyclic subgroup $C$ of $\mathbb{R}$. –  Arturo Magidin Apr 29 '11 at 13:23
show 2 more comments

1 Answer 1

up vote 8 down vote accepted

You are essentially trying to use the fact that if $f\colon G\to K$ is an isomorphism, and $N\triangleleft G$, then $G/N$ is isomorphic to $K/f(N)$. But you have no warrant for assuming that the image of $\mathbb{Z}$ under a putative isomorphism $f\colon \mathbb{Q}\to\mathbb{R}$ would necessarily be equal to $\mathbb{Z}$. In fact, you cannot make such an assertion, because it is false even in $\mathbb{Q}$: there are isomorphisms from $\mathbb{Q}$ to itself as an abelian group that does not map $\mathbb{Z}$ to $\mathbb{Z}$ (e.g., $q\mapsto \frac{q}{2}$).

So your argument cannot work as written. Now, if you could show that for any infinite cyclic subgroup $C$ of $\mathbb{R}$ you have $\mathbb{R}/C$ not torsion, then you'd be done. But the cardinality argument is by far the simplest here.

share|improve this answer
1  
Thanks. What I had not consider was really what Steve D and you pointed above. Your three last sentences were really essential. I just thought the concept of torsion could help me considering this simple elementary problem. :) –  Nancy Rutkowskie Apr 29 '11 at 14:53
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.