Is my proof below correct? What specific property of rationals did I exploit in my proof? It looks like the property I exploited is the following: Given any positive rational, I can always write it as sum of arbitrary number of positive rationals, whereas given any positive integer I cannot write it as a sum of arbitrary number of positive integers. Has it got to do with the fact that $\mathbb{Q}$ is a field?

Problem Prove that the additive groups $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ are not isomorphic.

Solution Let there exist an isomorphism between $\mathbb{Z}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$. Now consider the element $1_{\mathbb{Q}}$. We then have $\phi(1_{\mathbb{Q}}) = z \in \mathbb{Z}$. Since $\phi$ has to be a bijection, $z$ cannot be zero, since $\phi(0) = 0$.

Now consider the element $\left(\dfrac1{z+1}\right)_{\mathbb{Q}}$. We now have $$z = \phi(1_{\mathbb{Q}}) = \phi\left(\underbrace{\left(\dfrac1{z+1}\right)_{\mathbb{Q}} + \left(\dfrac1{z+1}\right)_{\mathbb{Q}} + \cdots + \left(\dfrac1{z+1}\right)_{\mathbb{Q}}}_{z+1 \text{ times }} \right) = (z+1) \phi\left(\left(\dfrac1{z+1}\right)_{\mathbb{Q}}\right)$$ However, there is no element in $y \in \mathbb{Z}$ such that $(z+1)y = z$.

First update

Actually I realize that I complicated it unnecessarily. Instead, we can do like this. Since $\phi$ is an isomorphism, we have $\phi(q_{\mathbb{Q}}) = 1_{\mathbb{Z}}$ for some $q \in Q$. However, $$\phi(q) = \phi(q/2+q/2) = 2\phi(q/2)$$ And there is no $y \in Z$, such that $2y=1$. Hence, $\phi(q/2)$ remains unmapped.


  • $\begingroup$ If $z=-1$? You have to exclude this case. $\endgroup$ – Test123 Dec 28 '13 at 16:23
  • $\begingroup$ But for the case $\;z=-1\;$ it looks fine. Deal with the particular case separatedly. $\endgroup$ – DonAntonio Dec 28 '13 at 16:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Have you thought that additive group of $\mathbb Q$ is not cyclic $\endgroup$ – Babak Miraftab Dec 28 '13 at 16:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You may unconsciously assume that $z>0$. You get problems not only with $z=-1$, but also with $z=-2$. - I rather suggest you have a look at $m:=\phi(\frac12\phi^{-1}(1))\in\mathbb Z$, which should have the property $m+m=1$. $\endgroup$ – Hagen von Eitzen Dec 28 '13 at 16:28
  • $\begingroup$ @HagenvonEitzen Actually, I realized my mistake. I have now added an update. Can you tell me if this works? $\endgroup$ – John Smith Dec 28 '13 at 16:30

Another proof is as follows:

Suppose that $\phi : \mathbb{Q} \to \mathbb{Z}$ is an isomorphism. Then there is some $r \in \mathbb{Q}$ such that $\phi(r) = 1_{\mathbb{Z}}$.

So what is $\phi(r/2)$? We would have to have

$$ 1_{\mathbb{Z}} = \phi(r) = \phi\big(2(r/2)\big) = 2\phi(r/2) $$

or equivalently that $\phi(r/2) = \frac{1}{2}$. But this is not in $\mathbb{Z}$, so there can be no such morphism.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ... Which I see you just added to the question. $\endgroup$ – Simon Rose Dec 28 '13 at 16:32
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. I added this to the proof about a minute back. So is my proof a proof by contradiction? $\endgroup$ – John Smith Dec 28 '13 at 16:33
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. You are assuming the existence of an object, and then deriving a conclusion that is at odds with that very object's existence. $\endgroup$ – Simon Rose Dec 28 '13 at 16:35
  • $\begingroup$ Ok. Thanks. This is helpful. $\endgroup$ – John Smith Dec 28 '13 at 16:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Leslie: You can also do a direct proof as follows. Let $\phi:\Bbb Q\to\Bbb Z$ be any homomorphism. Since there is no $z\in\Bbb Z$ such that $2z=1_{\Bbb Z},$ then for all $q\in\Bbb Q,$ we have $1_{\Bbb Z}\ne 2\phi(q)=\phi(2q).$ In particular, then, since $\frac r2\in\Bbb Q$ for all $r\in\Bbb Q$ and $r=2\left(\frac r2\right),$ then for all $r\in\Bbb Q$ we have $\phi(r)\ne1_{\Bbb Z}.$ Hence, $\phi$ is not surjective. Since $\phi:\Bbb Q\to\Bbb Z$ was an arbitrary homomorphism, then no homomorphism $\phi:\Bbb Q\to\Bbb Z$ is surjective, and so $\Bbb Q$ and $\Bbb Z$ are not isomorphic. $\endgroup$ – Cameron Buie Dec 28 '13 at 16:51

Note that the additive group $\mathbb Z = \langle 1\rangle$ is generated by one element (and hence is cyclic), whereas $\mathbb Q$ is not cyclic, nor can it be finitely generated. In any case, being cyclic is a structural property of groups that is preserved by any isomorphism.

Just to make sure you understand that the additive group $\mathbb Q$ is not cyclic, we want to show $\mathbb Q$ is't generated by some element $\dfrac ab$, where $a, b \in \mathbb Z$ i.e., that there is no element $\dfrac ab\in \mathbb Q$ such that $\langle \dfrac ab \rangle = \mathbb Q$. We want to show that it is not the case that every rational number is an integral multiple of $\dfrac ab$.

Suppose $\langle\dfrac ab \rangle = \mathbb Q$.

Observe that, under this assumption $\dfrac a{2b} \in \mathbb Q$, being a rational number, should then be an integral multiple of $\dfrac ab$, which it clearly isn't; it is $\dfrac 12 \dfrac ab.$

Hence the assumption that $\mathbb Q$ is generated by $\dfrac ab$ cannot be true. Since $\dfrac ab$ is arbitrary, this shows $\mathbb Q$ is not generated by any single element in $\mathbb Q,$ i.e., $\mathbb Q$ is not cyclic.

  • $\begingroup$ The OP asked what property is being exploited. $\endgroup$ – Namaste Dec 28 '13 at 16:32
  • $\begingroup$ @DeitrichBurde This has been dealt with. $\endgroup$ – Namaste Jun 11 '18 at 16:37
  • $\begingroup$ All right! It took me a while to remember what we did 5 years ago:) $\endgroup$ – Dietrich Burde Jun 11 '18 at 18:05
  • $\begingroup$ I hadn't seen your comment, until the answer was recently upvoted, and I was like, Dah! why did I not add that?; it would certainly make a better answer! So, @DeitrichBurde, it was more of a "closure" notification, though I missed expressing my "thanks" for pointing that out! $\endgroup$ – Namaste Jun 11 '18 at 19:27

Suppose there is an isomorphism $f:\mathbb Z\to \mathbb Q$.

Let $a=f(1)$; then $f(\mathbb Z)=\{na,n \in\mathbb Z\} \ne \mathbb Q$.


The group $\mathbf Q$ has the property that for any $x\in \mathbf Q$ and any integer $n\geqslant 1$, there exists $y\in \mathbf Q$ such that $n\cdot y=x$. In other words, $\mathbf Q$ is divisible. The group $\mathbf Z$ is not divisible, so since "being divisible" is invariant under isomorphism, $\mathbf Z\not\simeq\mathbf Q$.

Edit: This proof exploits the fact that $\mathbf Q$ is a field in the following way (best seen after generalization). Let $A$ be an integral domain(not a field) with field of fractions $K$. A similar proof shows that if $M$ is any finitely generated $A$-module and $V$ is any finite-dimensional $K$-vector space, then $M\not\simeq V$ as $A$-modules. The reason is that because $K$ is a field, $V$ is a divisible $A$-module, and $M$ is not. (The fact that finitely generated $A$-modules are not divisible is probably most easily seen by localizing at a maximal ideal and using Nakayama's lemma).

  • $\begingroup$ I didn't say it is easier - it is just different approach. That said, the fact that divisibility is invariant under isomorphism requires no thought to check - just do the obvious thing. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Miller Dec 28 '13 at 16:34
  • $\begingroup$ So essentially I exploited the fact that I can divide in rationals. So in essence I exploited the fact that $\mathbb{Q}$ is a field. Is my understanding right? $\endgroup$ – John Smith Dec 28 '13 at 16:37
  • $\begingroup$ Is it more or is it less? $\endgroup$ – John Smith Dec 28 '13 at 16:39
  • $\begingroup$ Ok. I do not know about integral domains, modules, Nakayama lemma etc. Hopefully, when I read those I will be able to appreciate your answer. I am still in the first chapter of Dummit and Foote. Thanks for the answer though. Good to know that the key property being exploited is $\mathbb{Q}$ is a field. $\endgroup$ – John Smith Dec 28 '13 at 16:51

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.