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've just started to learn about the tensor product and I want to show: $$(\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}) \otimes_\mathbb{Z} (\mathbb{Z} / n \mathbb{Z}) \cong \mathbb{Z}/ \gcd(m,n)\mathbb{Z}.$$

Can you tell me if my proof is right:

$\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Z} / n \mathbb{Z}$ are both finite free $\mathbb{Z}$-modules with the basis consisting of one single element $\{ 1 \}$. So $(\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}) \otimes_\mathbb{Z} (\mathbb{Z} / n \mathbb{Z})$ has the basis $\{ 1 \otimes 1 \}$.

Therefore, any element in $(\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}) \otimes_\mathbb{Z} (\mathbb{Z} / n \mathbb{Z})$ is of the form $(ab) 1 \otimes 1$ and any element in $\mathbb{Z}/ \gcd(m,n)\mathbb{Z}$ is of the form $k 1 = k$ where $k \in \{ 0, \dots , \gcd(n,m) \}$.

I would like to construct an isomorphism that maps $ab$ to some $k$. Let this map be $ab (1 \otimes 1) \mapsto ab \bmod \gcd(n,m)$.

This is a homomorphism between modules: it maps $0$ to $0$ because it maps the empty sum to the empty sum. It also fulfills $f(a + b) = f(a) + f(b)$ because there is only one element, $a = 1$.

It is surjective. So all I need to show is that it is injective. But that is clear too because if $ab \equiv 0 \bmod \gcd(m,n)$ then both $a \equiv 0 \bmod n$ and $b \equiv 0 \bmod m$ so the kernel is trivial.

Many thanks for your help!!

share|improve this question
6  
Careful: $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ is not free as $\mathbb{Z}$-module! However, you can say that the module is generated by $1 \in \mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ (though technically, $\{1\}$ is not a basis, because the module is not free). –  Shaun Ault Oct 13 '11 at 13:04
4  
Hint: If $d=mx+ny$, then $d(1\otimes 1) = x(m1 \otimes 1) + y(1\otimes n1) = 0$. –  Thomas Andrews Oct 13 '11 at 13:13
    
@ShaunAult: thanks! I'm not sure I understand why I cannot treat $1$ as a basis though... Could you tell me more please? –  Matt N. Oct 13 '11 at 14:51
4  
$\{1\}$ is not a basis because it is not linearly independent over $\mathbb{Z}$ : $m \cdot 1 = 0$. –  Ted Oct 13 '11 at 15:57
1  
@Ted is correct: To be a basis, a set has to be spanning and independent. $\{1\} \subset \mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ is spanning, but not independent. However, you can still use $1$ in the way you want to. You don't need to use linear independence; all that you need is that it generates the module. –  Shaun Ault Oct 14 '11 at 2:57

5 Answers 5

up vote 10 down vote accepted

The part that is missing is pretty much the essence of the following (incomplete) alternative proof.

Determine the kernel of $$ \begin{array}{rlrl} g: & \mathbb{Z} & \rightarrow & (\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}) \otimes_\mathbb{Z} (\mathbb{Z} / n \mathbb{Z}) \\ & z & \to & z (1 \otimes 1) \end{array} $$ That is: When is it true that $z (1 \otimes 1)$ is null? Since it is true for $n \in m\mathbb{Z} \cup n\mathbb{Z}$, then you know that it is true for the ideal generated by it: $\langle \mathrm{gcd}(m,n)\rangle \subset \mathrm{ker}(g)$.

You know that the map is surjective because $1 \otimes 1$ is a generator. If you show that $\mathrm{ker}(g) \subset \langle \mathrm{gcd}(m,n) \rangle$, you will have the isomorphism you claim. This is the part you are missing. It is equivalent to showing that your $f$ is well-defined.

So, the conclusion is that it is not right.

share|improve this answer
    
Well let $x \in \mathrm{ker}(g)$. Then $g(x) = x(1 \otimes 1) = 0 \otimes 0$. Hence if $x$ was not already zero it is either a multiple of $n$ or a multiple of $m$ and hence in $\langle \mathrm{gcd}(m,n) \rangle$. –  Matt N. Jul 26 '12 at 20:04
1  
@Matt: Careful: If $m=6$ and $n=4$, then $x = 2\in \ker(g)$ but $x$ isn't a multiple of $4$ or $6$. What's happening is $2(1\otimes 1) = (6-4)(1\otimes 1) = 6(1\otimes 1) -4(1\otimes 1) = 6\otimes 1 - 1\otimes 4 = 0-0=0$ –  Jason DeVito Jul 26 '12 at 20:29
3  
@Matt: I don't know a particularly elegant solution, but here goes. Consider the bilinear map $\mathbb{Z}_m\times \mathbb{Z}_n\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}_{\gcd(m,n)}$ sending $(x,y)$ to $xy \bmod{\gcd(m,n)}$. By universal property of tensor products, this factors through $\mathbb{Z}_m\otimes\mathbb{Z}_n$. Using this, one can show the element $k(1\otimes 1)\neq 0$ for every $0<k < \gcd(m,n)$. Finally, going back to $\subset$, if $x$ isn't a multiple of $\gcd(m,n)$, write $x = s\gcd(m,n) + k$ with $0<k<\gcd(m,n)$. Show that $g(x) = g(k)$ and conclude that $g(k)\neq 0$, so $g(x)\neq 0$. –  Jason DeVito Jul 26 '12 at 21:16
2  
@Matt: I'm just using the universal property to better understand the elements of the tensor product. The point is you have this element $k(1\otimes 1)$ with $0<k<\gcd(m,n)$ and you don't know if this is actually $0$ due to some weird combination of relations. To rule this out, I find a linear map out of the tensor product which maps $k(1\otimes 1)$ to something nonzero. Since a linear map always maps $0$ to $0$, this proves $k(1\otimes 1)$ is nonzero. Once you know this is nonzero, go back to $g(x)$. (continued) –  Jason DeVito Jul 27 '12 at 11:46
2  
@Matt: (continued). If $x$ is not in the ideal generated by $\gcd(m,n)$, then $x = s\gcd(m,n) + k$ with $0<k<\gcd(m,n)$. First show $g(x) = g(k)$, but then $g(k) = k(1\otimes 1)$ is nonzero by the previous comment. This shows $g(x)$ is not in the kernel. Contrapostively, what we've proved is if $x$ is in the kernel of $g$, then $x$ is in the ideal generated by $\gcd(m,n)$. –  Jason DeVito Jul 27 '12 at 11:47

The only thing that you are missing is to show that your map is well-defined. Indeed, we implicitly make a choice of representatives when we write $a \otimes b$ or $ab(1 \otimes 1)$ in $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z} \otimes \mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$. So we first need to show that if $a \equiv c \bmod m$ and $b \equiv d \bmod n$, then the image of $c \otimes d$ is the same under your map. That is, we need to show $cd \equiv ab \bmod gcd(m, n)$.

share|improve this answer

Let $M$ be a $R$-module and let $I$ be an ideal of $R$. Then we have $\frac RI\otimes_RM\cong\frac M{IM}$.

First proof: consider the exact sequence $0\to I\to R\to\frac RI\to0$. Tensoring with $M$ and using right-exactness of the tensor product we get $I\otimes_RM\to R\otimes_RM\to\frac RI\otimes_RM\to0$. We know that $R\otimes_RM\cong R$ via $r\otimes m\mapsto rm$; under this isomorphism the image of $I\otimes_RM\to R\otimes_RM$ is precisely $IM$, and since this image is precisely the kernel of $R\otimes_RM\to\frac RI\otimes_RM$, the claim follows from the isomorphism theorem.

Second proof: the mapping $\frac RI\times M\to\frac M{IM}$ given by $(r+I,m)\mapsto rm+IM$ is well-defined and $R$-bilinear, so it induces a $R$-linear mapping $\frac RI\otimes_RM\to\frac M{IM}$, which is obviously surjective, and the inverse mapping is given by $m+IM\mapsto(1+I)\otimes m$; this mapping is well-defined because if $m\in IM$, say $m=\sum_k i_km_k$, with $i_k\in I, m_k\in M$, then by $R$-bilinearity of $\otimes$ we have $(1+I)\otimes m=\sum_k\bigl[i_k(1+I)\bigr]\otimes m_k=\sum_k0_{R/I}\otimes m_k=0$.

In general, if $N$ is a $R$-submodule of a module $M$, then

$$I\frac MN=\frac{IM+N}N\,,$$

so

$$m\mathbb Z\,\frac{\mathbb Z}{n\mathbb Z}=\frac{(m\mathbb Z)\mathbb Z+n\mathbb Z}{n\mathbb Z}=\frac{m\mathbb Z+n\mathbb Z}{n\mathbb Z}=\frac{\gcd(m,n)\mathbb Z}{n\mathbb Z}\,.$$

Finally, applying the first result we get

$$\frac{\mathbb Z}{m\mathbb Z}\otimes_{\mathbb Z}\frac{\mathbb Z}{n\mathbb Z}\cong\frac{\frac{\mathbb Z}{n\mathbb Z}}{m\mathbb Z\,\frac{\mathbb Z}{n\mathbb Z}}=\frac{\frac{\mathbb Z}{n\mathbb Z}}{\,\frac{\gcd(m,n)\mathbb Z}{n\mathbb Z}\,}\cong\frac{\mathbb Z}{\gcd(m,n)\mathbb Z}\,.$$

ADDENDUM

The same reasoning shows that for any ideals $I,J$ in $R$ we have $\frac RI\otimes_R\frac RJ\cong\frac R{I+J}$.

share|improve this answer

Claim: $(\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}) \otimes_\mathbb{Z} (\mathbb{Z} / n \mathbb{Z}) \cong \mathbb{Z}/ \gcd(m,n)\mathbb{Z}$


Proof:

We show the claim by showing that $(\mathbb{Z}/ \gcd(m,n)\mathbb{Z}, b)$ where $b: \mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z} / n \mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z}/ \gcd(m,n)\mathbb{Z}$ is the map $(a,b) \mapsto ab \mod \mathrm{gcd} (n,m)$satisfies the universal property of $(\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}) \otimes_\mathbb{Z} (\mathbb{Z} / n \mathbb{Z}) $ that is, for any $\mathbb Z$-module $P$ and any bilinear map $b^\prime : \mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z} / n \mathbb{Z} \to P$ there exists a unique linear map $l$ such that $l \circ b = b^\prime$.

Define $l: (a \mod \mathrm{gcd} (n,m)) \mapsto b^\prime (1,a) $. Linearity of $l$ directly follows from bilinearity of $b^\prime$. For $(a,b) \in \mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z} / n \mathbb{Z}$ we have $l(b(a,b)) = l(ab) = b^\prime (1,ab) = b^\prime (a,b) $ so that $l$ indeed makes the diagram commute.

To finish the proof we check that $l$ is unique. To this end let $l^\prime$ be such that $l^\prime \circ b = b^\prime$. Then $l(a) = l(b(1,a)) = b^\prime (1,a) = l^\prime (b(1,a)) = l^\prime (a)$, hence the claim follows.

share|improve this answer
    
I like this because it lets me avoid fiddling with numbers. –  Matt N. Aug 5 '12 at 10:07
    
Why do you know that $l$ is well-defined? Why don't you call your functions $f$ and $f'$ instead of $b$ and $b'$? –  André Caldas Aug 12 '12 at 2:50
    
@AndréCaldas Yes, should of course verify that it's well-defined! $b$ stands for bilinear. –  Matt N. Aug 12 '12 at 5:10

Suppose that in the above commutative diagram with exact rows and columns, $A$ is an arbitrary $R$-module. Furthermore, let $F$ be a flat module and $E$ the injective hull (= weak-injective envelope) of $F$. Then $F$ is the flat cover of $A$ if and only if $W$ is the weak-injective envelope of $A$.

share|improve this answer

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.