3

I would like to know when $H_1:=\Bbb{Z}^n$ is isomorphic (as a group) to $H_2:=\Bbb{Z}^m$, saying like that I would say only when $n=m$ but it's not a proof.

My idea : I can assume that they are isomorphic when $n\ne m$ and take $$G_1:=\{x\in H_1: y\in H_2, x=2y\}$$ and $$G_2:=\{x\in H_2: y\in H_1, x=2y\}.$$ I was thinking that it's a copy of $\Bbb{Z}/2\Bbb{Z}, n$ times and the other one $m$ times, and so it's a contradiction. Is that correct ? I am not sure because it's more an intuitive explanation than a proof.

JeSuis
  • 697

4 Answers4

3

Try this:

If $\mathbb Z\times \mathbb Z\times\cdot\cdot\cdot \mathbb Z (n)$ times $\cong \mathbb Z\times \mathbb Z\times\cdot\cdot\cdot \mathbb Z(m)$ times

Then $2\mathbb Z\times 2\mathbb Z\times\cdot\cdot\cdot 2\mathbb Z (n)$ times $\cong 2\mathbb Z\times 2\mathbb Z\times\cdot\cdot\cdot 2\mathbb Z(m)$ times then we get

$\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z\times \mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z\cdot\cdot \mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z(n)$times $\cong\mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z\times \mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z\cdot\cdot \mathbb Z/2\mathbb Z(m)$times

$\implies 2^n=2^m$ which holds $\iff n=m$

NOTE: Definitely it is not true that two groups are isomorphic implies that their quotient groups are isomorphic too.Consider $\mathbb Z\cong\mathbb Z,2\mathbb Z\cong3\mathbb Z$ but $\mathbb Z_2\ncong \mathbb Z_3$

But the above result holds in my case because the isomorphism between $\mathbb Z\times \mathbb Z\times\cdot\cdot\cdot \mathbb Z (n)$ times $\cong \mathbb Z\times \mathbb Z\times\cdot\cdot\cdot \mathbb Z(m)$ times is the one which determines all the other isomorphisms involved in the answer which was not the case in the example provided above.In other words all the isomorphisms are completely determined by the first isomorphism mapping.

Hope this brings some clarity.

Learnmore
  • 31,062
  • So my idea was the good one but badly formulate, thanks. +1 – JeSuis Dec 03 '15 at 14:25
  • 4
    Is it obvious that you can pass to the quotient here? For example, $\mathbb Z \cong \mathbb Z$ and $2\mathbb Z\cong3\mathbb Z$, but the quotient groups are not isomorphic. How do you know that your isomorphism $\mathbb Z^n\to\mathbb Z^m$ is compatible with your isomorphism $(2\mathbb Z)^n \to(2\mathbb Z)^m$? – Mathmo123 Dec 03 '15 at 14:44
  • I dont think it is correct. $A\cong B$ and $C \cong D$ with $A\supseteq C$ and $B\supseteq D$ do not imply $A/C\cong B/D$. – Batominovski Dec 03 '15 at 21:57
  • @Batominovski I have added a note ;Please go through it – Learnmore Dec 04 '15 at 03:36
  • Let me ask you one question: You provided a very nice example when $\mathbb{Z}\cong \mathbb{Z}$ and $2\mathbb{Z}\cong 3\mathbb{Z}$ but $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\ncong \mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z}$. However, there is the following result when this holds: If $G=G_1\times \dots\times G_s$ and $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ such that $H=H_1\dots\times\dots H_s$, where each $H_i \vartriangleleft G_i$, then $G/H\cong G_1/H_1\times \dots\times G_s/H_s$.

    Does it contradict to your example? I am bit confused! Thanks!

    – RFZ Oct 15 '23 at 22:54
3

The result follows from the following theorem:

Let $M\le \mathbb Z^n$. Then $M\cong\mathbb Z^{m}$ for some $m\le n$,

since if $\mathbb Z^n\cong\mathbb Z^m$, then each can be viewed as a subgroup of the other.

The proof of the theorem is by induction on $n$. (The result is easy to prove when $n=1$)

Let $\{e_1,\ldots,e_n\}$ be a set of generators for $\mathbb Z^n$, and let $G=\langle e_1,\ldots,e_{n-1}\rangle\cong\mathbb Z^{n-1}$. Then by the inductive hypothesis, $G\cap M\cong\mathbb Z^m$ for some $m\le n-1$.

Now $\mathbb Z^n/G\cong\mathbb Z$ and the map$$M/(G\cap M)\overbrace{\cong}^{\text{2nd isomorphism theorem}} MG/G\hookrightarrow\mathbb Z^n/G\cong \mathbb Z$$is injective, so $M/(G\cap M)$ can be seen as a subgroup of $\mathbb Z$. Hence $$M/(G\cap M) \cong \mathbb Z^i$$where $i=0$ or $1$. Since $M, G\cap M$ are free groups and $G\cap M \cong \mathbb Z^{m}$, it follows (using some non-trivial results about free groups) that$$M\cong \mathbb Z^{i+m}$$and since $m\le n-1$, we have $m+i\le n$.

Mathmo123
  • 23,018
3

I would like to formulate your reasoning using category language, to give an another point of view. It follows the general idea that one uses functors to get "simpler" objects to refute isomorphy.

Consider the category $\def\Ab{\mathsf{Ab}}\Ab$ of abelian groups and the functor $F \colon \Ab \to \Ab$ given on objects by $F(A) = A/2A$, an on morphisms $f \colon A \to B$ by $F(f)(a + 2A) = f(a) + 2B$ (note that $f[2A] \subseteq 2B$), hence $F(f)$ is well-defined. As $F$ is a functor, it maps isomorphisms to isomorphims. If $\mathbf Z^n$ and $\mathbf Z^m$ are isomorphic, $F(\mathbf Z^n) = (\mathbf Z/2\mathbf Z)^n$ and $F(\mathbf Z^m) = (\mathbf Z/2\mathbf Z)^m$ are also. Hence $n = m$ (for example by counting elements).

martini
  • 84,101
  • Are you sure OP understands "category" – Learnmore Dec 03 '15 at 15:36
  • 2
    @learnmore No, I'm not. But if he (or any other visitor of this question) does, in my opinion, seeing the categorial context does not do any harm, in constrast, it sheds light on the general idea behind this argument. – martini Dec 03 '15 at 15:39
  • Why the downvote? Is my answer incorrect? – martini Dec 03 '15 at 15:39
1

The easiest way would be to tensor over $\mathbb{Z}$ by $\mathbb{F}_2=\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$, which might be what you were trying to do. Then, you would have two $\mathbb{F}_2$-vector spaces $\mathbb{F}_2^m$ and $\mathbb{F}_2^n$, which are isomorphic iff $m=n$, either by counting the number of elements or by an argument involving bases.

Batominovski
  • 49,629
  • 2
    I don't know what "tensor" is.. – JeSuis Dec 03 '15 at 13:58
  • @JeSuis, you could roughly think of this as the fancy way of saying to consider what happens to $\mathbb Z^m, \mathbb Z^n$ under the passage from abelian groups $A$ to the quotients $A/2A$. – jxnh Dec 04 '15 at 04:11