Is $(\Bbb Z[\frac{1}{2}]/\Bbb Z)/{\sim}$ a torsion group?

let $\sim$ be the transitive completion of the equivalence relation $x\sim x+2^{v_2(x/4)}\text{ in }\Bbb Z[\frac{1}{2}]/\Bbb Z$

I think it is but don't really know where to start proving it. Maybe it's just a trivial fact.

I tried using a morphism to $\Bbb C$:


and to look at the behaviour of this to show that this stabilises to $2^ne^0$ under multiplication.

But I'm inexperienced in group theory. It seems likely to me the result may just be a trivial fact to somebody more experienced.

Just to more clearly define the equivalence relation I will give the closed form. It was tricky to write this but I think there is no error:

$x\sim y\iff \quad\exists n\in\Bbb Z:y=x+\dfrac{4^n-1}{3\cdot4^n\lvert x\rvert_2}$

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I changed $$(\Bbb Z[\tfrac{1}{2}]/\Bbb Z)/\sim,$$ coded as (\Bbb Z[\frac{1}{2}]/\Bbb Z)/\sim, to $$(\Bbb Z[\tfrac{1}{2}]/\Bbb Z)/{\sim},$$ coded as (\Bbb Z[\frac{1}{2}]/\Bbb Z)/{\sim}. The former has too much space to the left of $\text{“}\sim\text{''}$ because that symbol is usually a binary relation symbol, and so has that amount of space before it. But in this case it refers to an object. $\endgroup$ – Michael Hardy Jun 25 '18 at 17:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ 1) "transitive completion" of an equivalence relation means nothing. You possibly mean transitive completion of an incidence relation. Second, for the quotient to be a group you need to mod out by a subgroup. Maybe you kill the $2^{v_2(x/4)}$... anyway you start from a torsion group, so asking whether one of its quotients (assuming it makes sense) is torsion sounds like a tautology. $\endgroup$ – YCor Jun 25 '18 at 19:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Better don't rely on me and prove it as an exercise. $\endgroup$ – YCor Jun 25 '18 at 20:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You don't need go that far. You have to prove two independent easy things: (a) $Z[1/p]/Z$ is a torsion group (b) every quotient group of a torsion group is a torsion groups. $\endgroup$ – YCor Jun 25 '18 at 20:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It's the very basics of group theory, the notion of quotient group. $\endgroup$ – YCor Jun 25 '18 at 22:00

An equivalence relation on a torsion group does not necessarily create a new torsion group. The rule is that an equivalence relation on a group induces a torsion group if it induces a group at all.

In this case the classes can be indexed uniquely by their smallest element, whose numerator in lowest terms will always be drawn from $\equiv\{1,3,7\}\pmod8$. The group operation on the classes is addition of the indexing element modulo $1$. Since no index equivalent to $3\pmod8$ therefore has an inverse (which would be $\equiv5\pmod 8$), this cannot be a group and therefore cannot be a torsion group.

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.