4
$\begingroup$

This is an exercise in Hungerford. But can somebody explain why is the following not a counter-example?

Let $G$ be the direct sum of $|\mathbb{R}|$ copies of $\mathbb{Q}$. Let $K$ be the direct sum of $|\mathbb{N}|$ copies of $\mathbb{Q}$. Then $G \oplus \mathbb{Q} \cong G \oplus K$ but $\mathbb{Q}$ is not isomorphic to $K$.

Indeed, suppose $f : \mathbb{Q} \rightarrow K$ is a $\mathbb{Z}$-module isomorphism. We may show that $f$ is a $\mathbb{Q}$-module isomorphism obtaining thus a contradiction. For any $v \in Q$ non-zero and a non-zero natural $b$ there is a unique $w$ such that $bw = v$, that is $w = (1/b)v$. We have $b[(1/b)v] = v$ so $b f((1/b) v) = f(v)$. The same uniqueness argument applies in $K$ since it is torsion-free, so $f((1/b) v) = (1/b) f(v)$. Hence $f$ is a $\mathbb{Q}$-module isomorphism.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Can you produce an actual isomorphism $\;G\oplus\Bbb Q\to G\oplus K\;$ ? I'm afraid that what may be clear setwise is not that straightforward groupwise... $\endgroup$ – DonAntonio Nov 2 '13 at 20:06
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @DonAntonio: Same number of $\mathbb{Q}$s. $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Nov 2 '13 at 20:08
  • $\begingroup$ Can you cite the specific exercise so others can look it up? $\endgroup$ – anon Nov 2 '13 at 20:09
  • $\begingroup$ It's exercise 12, part b, in page 199 $\endgroup$ – Pedro Nov 2 '13 at 20:10
  • $\begingroup$ I don't see that clear, @Martin: an element in $\;G\oplus\Bbb Q\;$ is of the form $\;(a,q)\;,\;a\in G\,,\,q\in\Bbb Q\;$ , whereas an element in $\;G\oplus K\;$ is of the form $\;(a,k)\;,\;a\in G\,,\,k\in K\;$ . The second coordinate may be a little problematic to deal with, although I think both direct product could be isomorphic to a general uncountable direct product. Still, I can't see it that clear, yet. And "same number of $\;\Bbb Q$'s" is a little unaccurate here. Perhaps the problem is there, with "same cardinality" instead. $\endgroup$ – DonAntonio Nov 2 '13 at 20:15
2
$\begingroup$

Yes. A more simple counterexample is $\mathbb{Q}^{\oplus \mathbb{N}} \oplus \mathbb{Q} \cong \mathbb{Q}^{\oplus \mathbb{N}} \oplus 0$. Are you sure that the exercise in Hungerford is exactly as stated?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Here's a copy of the page: i.imgur.com/1xIp21v.png $\endgroup$ – Pedro Nov 2 '13 at 20:14
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. I assume that Exercise 11 is the classification of divisible abelian groups. There is also a reference to II.2.11. What is this? $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Nov 2 '13 at 20:27
  • $\begingroup$ You are correct in your assumption. The other exercise is i.imgur.com/TH6wLQD.png $\endgroup$ – Pedro Nov 2 '13 at 20:29
  • $\begingroup$ Ok. I thought that I could reconstruct what Hungerford actually had in mind with this exercise, since I don't think that he would ask for a proof of a claim which is obviously false (after all, it's the same as in II.2.11 (c) but with $\mathbb{Q}$ instead of $\mathbb{Z}$!). But I'm not sure what Hungerford intended. Maybe the claim is true if $G,H,K$ are direct sums of finitely many "standard" divisible abelian groups ($\mathbb{Q}$ and $\mathbb{Z}/p^{\infty}$)? $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Nov 3 '13 at 9:33
  • $\begingroup$ In that case yes, it would be true, by the same argument that is used for part (a). $\endgroup$ – Pedro Nov 3 '13 at 13:19

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.