1
$\begingroup$

Both the real numbers $\mathbb R$ and the circle group $\mathbb T$ have cardinality continuum.

It is easy to show that $\mathbb T$ is not a subgroup of the additive group of real numbers $\mathbb R(+)$ since $\mathbb T$ has an element $x \ne 0$ such that $x + x = 0$.

Wikipedia states that $\mathbb T \cong \mathbb R \oplus (\mathbb Q/\mathbb Z)$.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_group#Group_structure)

Does it mean $\mathbb R(+)$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $\mathbb T$?

What would be an expression for the isomorphism?

Is it order-preserving for the linear order of $\mathbb R$ and/or for the cyclic order of $\mathbb T$?
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_order)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It looks like they're arguing that each element $z$ of $\mathbb{T}$ (other than the roots of unity) together with its divisors (elements so that $nw = z$ for some integer $n$) generate a subgroup isomorphic to $\mathbb{Q}$. By cardinality reasons, the number of such subgroups should be countable. But up to isomorphism there's a unique vector space of a certain cardinality over a fixed field; it happens that $\mathbb{R}$ is a vector space over $\mathbb{Q}$ of cardinality of the continuum. So abstractly there's an isomorphism of the torsion-free part of $\mathbb{T}$ with $\mathbb{R}$ (con't) $\endgroup$ – Jane Doé May 4 at 5:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ as $\mathbb{Q}$-vector spaces. However, an explicit isomorphism of $\mathbb{R}$ with $\oplus_\mathfrak{c} \mathbb{Q}$ is difficult to write down... it's known as the problem of finding a Hamel basis for $\mathbb{R}$ over $\mathbb{Q}$. So yes, $\mathbb{R},+$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of $\mathbb{T}$, but the isomorphism is not naively of geometric origin I would say. $\endgroup$ – Jane Doé May 4 at 5:05
3
$\begingroup$

Yes, it does mean that $\mathbb{R}$ is (isomorphic to) a subgroup of $\mathbb{T}$. You should understand the isomorphism $\mathbb{T}\simeq \mathbb{R}\oplus \mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}$ if you want to see how exactly the identification is made.

But here is the idea of the wikipedia article. Divisible abelian groups are the same as injective $\mathbb{Z}$-modules. An injective abelian group $A$ has the property that, if $A\leq A'$, then $A'=A\oplus B$ for some $B$ (every inclusion splits). If $A$ is a divisible abelian group, so is its torsion subgroup $T:=\mathrm{Tor}(A)$, and therefore the inclusion $T\leq A$ splits: we can write $$A=T\oplus B$$ for some $B$. Now $B\simeq A/T$ is torsion-free, which means it can be viewed as a $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space. Pick a basis for it, so that $B\simeq \mathbb{Q}^I$.

Here's the magic part. If you set $A=\mathbb{T}$, then $A$ is uncountable; but the torsion subgroup $T$ is just the set of all roots of unity, which is countable. Since $A=T\oplus B$, it follows that $B$ must be uncountable. But then the index set $I$ must be uncountable, so $B\simeq \mathbb{Q}^I\simeq \mathbb{R}$ (notice $\mathbb{R}$ has uncountable dimension as a $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space).

Since the group $T$ of roots of unity is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}$, in total we get $$\mathbb{T}\simeq \mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}\oplus \mathbb{R}.$$ The submodule $\mathbb{R}$ is realized non-canonically: you have to pick a basis for $A/T$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is it an order-preserving isomorphism for the cyclic order of $\mathbb T$ and/or for the linear order of $\mathbb R$? $\endgroup$ – Alex C May 4 at 9:48
  • $\begingroup$ The construction is highly non-canonical, so I suggest you examine it carefully to see if it preserves additional properties. Unfortunately I don't know what "cyclic order" means. $\endgroup$ – Ehsaan May 4 at 15:17
  • $\begingroup$ I've found in G. G. Pestov work: $\mathbb{T} \simeq C \oplus B$, where $C$ is the group of all roots of unity, and $B$ is a linearly ordered group of cardinality continuum. $B$ is dense, but not continuous, so it is not isomorphic to $\mathbb R$ considering continuity. Is this correct? $\endgroup$ – Alex C May 4 at 15:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ That is correct, although your question was not about continuity. $\endgroup$ – Lee Mosher May 10 at 19:34

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.