So i'm trying to understand the proof of:

$\mathbb{Q}$ is not cyclic. So this is the proof:

We proceed by contradiction.

Suppose $\mathbb Q$ is cyclic then it would be generated by a rational number in the form $\frac{a}{b}$ where $a,b \in \mathbb{Z} $ and $a$, $b$ have no common factors. Also, $a,b \neq 0$.

The set $\langle\frac{a}{b}\rangle$ consists of all integer multiples of $\frac{a}{b}$.

Therefore, if $\mathbb{Q}=\langle\frac{a}{b}\rangle$, then $\frac{a}{2b}$ is an integer multiple of $\frac {a}{b}$

PROBLEM: Why is $\frac{a}{2b}$ an integer multiple? or how is it an integer multiple. I'm not seeing it because isn't $\frac{a}{b} \times \frac{a}{b}=\left(\frac{a}{b}\right)^2$

Anyways, here is the rest of the proof:

but if

$c \times \frac{a}{b}=\frac{a}{2b}$ then $c=\frac{1}{2}$ is not an integer.

Thus, $\mathbb{Q}$ cannot be generated by a single rational number and is not cyclic.

If anyone can clarify that would be great. Also, another problem I have is doesn't this show that $\mathbb{Q}-\{0\}$ is not cyclic because I thought $\mathbb{Q}$ under the operation multplication is not a group unless zero is removed.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is the statement "$\frac a {2b}$ is an integer multiple of $\frac a b$" right? $\endgroup$ – Newb Mar 11 '15 at 3:34
  • $\begingroup$ Certainly, $\frac{a}{2b}$ is not an integer multiple of $\frac{a}{b}$, which is the point of mentioning it in the first place. $\endgroup$ – Travis Willse Mar 11 '15 at 3:46
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, it is right. and @Travis, I got the idea. thanks! $\endgroup$ – Justin Mar 11 '15 at 23:16

This is a proof by contradiction. You want to show $\mathbb Q$ is not generated by $a/b$, i.e., it is absurd that every rational number is an integral multiple of $a/b$. You show its absurdity by observing under this assumption $a/2b$, being a rational number, should be an integral multiple of $a/b$, which it clearly isn't. Hence the assumption that $\mathbb Q$ is generated by $a/b$ cannot be true. Since $a/b$ is arbitrary, this shows $\mathbb Q$ is not generated by any single element, i.e., $\mathbb Q$ is not cyclic.


The result is referring to the additive group $(\mathbb{Q}, +)$, not the multiplicative group, $(\mathbb{Q}-\{0\}, \times )$. You should be able to work out what is going on from there.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps this is better suited to be a comment than an answer. $\endgroup$ – Travis Willse Mar 11 '15 at 3:48
  • $\begingroup$ the word multiple threw me off for some reason. $\endgroup$ – Justin Mar 11 '15 at 23:17
  • $\begingroup$ He want votes i guess but still an important thing which may clear op doubts so +1 $\endgroup$ – Cloud JR K Sep 13 '18 at 17:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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