Here, $\langle a \rangle$ denotes the smallest subgroup of $\mathbb{Q}_{>0}$ containing $a$.

I've already proved this by showing that $\langle 2 \rangle$ and $\langle 3 \rangle$ are both isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}$, but I'd like to prove it by showing that a well defined function $f: \langle 2 \rangle \to \langle 3 \rangle$ is bijective and operation-preserving. Since $\langle 2 \rangle = \{2^n:n\in\mathbb{Z}\}$ and $\langle 3 \rangle = \{3^n:n\in\mathbb{Z}\}$, I defined $f$ such that $f(2^n) = 3^n$. How do I now show that $f$ is well defined by writing $f(x) = \dots$? I know it probably includes a log and I can perhaps guess what the explicit function might be, but I was wondering if there was a process like 'solving for x' but in the context of writing an explicit function.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The function is defined is perfectly fine. $\endgroup$ – Fimpellizieri Nov 8 '16 at 1:15
  • $\begingroup$ I know that it can be explicitly shown that $f(2^n) = 3^n$ is well-defined, but my question is: how can one write $f(x) = \dots$ given $f(2^n) = 3^n$? $\endgroup$ – playitright Nov 8 '16 at 1:18

You don't need a complicated expression but if you want one, here it is: $$ f(x) = 3^{\log_2(x)} $$

However, this expression only makes sense in $\langle 2 \rangle$, because for the other rationals, the value of $f$ will be irrational.

Bottom line: stick to the simple $f(2^n)=3^n$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! How did you achieve this expression, if not by simply thinking about it? Is there a step-by-step process similar to how one 'solves for x'? $\endgroup$ – playitright Nov 8 '16 at 1:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @playitright, the expression implements this: take the exponent of the power of $2$ and raise $3$ to that exponent. $\log_2$ takes the exponent. $\endgroup$ – lhf Nov 8 '16 at 1:26
  • $\begingroup$ I've taken your advice to stick with $f(2^n) = 3^n$, but I'm having trouble proving surjectivity of this function. Would you do it algebraically? $\endgroup$ – playitright Nov 8 '16 at 1:45
  • $\begingroup$ @playitright, subjectivity is clear from the definition but if you want, consider $g(3^n)=2^n$ and prove that $f$ and $g$ are inverses. $\endgroup$ – lhf Nov 8 '16 at 1:48
  • $\begingroup$ Apologies for another follow-up question--I've never done set theory with a function that wasn't of the form $f(x) = \dots$, so this is relatively unintuitive to me. I'm currently trying to show that $f \circ g = id_{\langle 3 \rangle}$, but I don't really know where to start. I have the following: $(f \circ g)(3^n) = f(g(3^n)) = f(2^n) = 3^n$. I don't think this shows anything, though. $\endgroup$ – playitright Nov 8 '16 at 2:00

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.