Results 1 to 4 of 4

Math Help - Z-module homomorphism

  1. #1
    Newbie
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    14

    Z-module homomorphism

    Let M=\{(a_i): a_i \in \mathbb{Z}, i\geq 1\} (M a \mathbb{Z}-module); let N be the Z-submodule of M generated by \{e_n: n\geq 1\} (where e_n = (0,0,\ldots,0, 1 \text{(nth place)}, 0, \ldots)). Let g:M\to\mathbb{Z} be a Z-module homomorphism such that g(N)={0}.
    Use elements in M of the form (2^n a_n) and (3^n b_n) ( a_n, b_n in Z) to show that g=0. Hint: If x=(2^n a_n), use that, given k\geq 1, there exist y in N, z in M such that x-y=2^k z to deduce that g(x)=0.
    What confuses me is if g(N)=0, since an element x of M can be written as x=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n e_n why then does it not follow that, since g(e_n)=0 for each n, g(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n e_n) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n g(e_n) =0 for any x in M? After that the purpose of the various k's is also a mystery to me.



    Thanks for your help
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,261
    Thanks
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by james123 View Post
    What confuses me is if g(N)=0, since an element x of M can be written as x=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n e_n


    No, it can't: there don't exist infinite sums here. N is the free \mathbb{Z}-module (i.e., the free abelian group) on e_i , and every element there is a finite \mathbb{Z}-linear combination of the e_i's.

    Tonio

    why then does it not follow that, since g(e_n)=0 for each n, g(\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n e_n) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n g(e_n) =0 for any x in M? After that the purpose of the various k's is also a mystery to me.



    Thanks for your help
    .
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Newbie
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    14
    Oh, finitely generated - of course! (slaps head). Now, if x=(2^n a_n), given k>=1 I have y = \sum_{i=1}^{k-1}2^i e_i \in N, z = (0 , \ldots , 0, a_{k}, a_{k+1}, \ldots) \in M so that

     x - y = (2^n a_n) - \sum_{i=1}^{k-1}2^i e_i = (0 , \ldots , 0, 2^{k}a_{k}, 2^{k+1}a_{k+1}, \ldots) = 2^k(0 , \ldots , 0, a_{k}, a_{k+1}, \ldots)
     = 2^k z

    as per the hint.

    As g(N)=0, taking g of both sides gives
    g((2^n a_n)) = 2^k g(0, \ldots, 0, a_k, a_{k+1},\ldots)
    for any k>=1.

    In particular, 2^k g(0, \ldots, 0, a_k, a_{k+1},\ldots) = 2^{k+1} g(0, \ldots, 0, a_{k+1}, a_{k+2},\ldots)

    so, upon subtracting:
    0 = -2 g(0, \ldots, 0, a_k, 0, \ldots) = -2a_k g(e_k).

    This would seem to imply x=(0,0,..) or g=0; in either case g(x)=0.

    But this can't be right - I could have deduced as much by not bothering with the powers of 2. What am I missing?

    Thanks again
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Banned
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,261
    Thanks
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by james123 View Post
    Oh, finitely generated - of course! (slaps head).

    No, not finitely generated! Infinitely generated, but every element in N is a finite linear combination of this infinite basis. (so slap it again ).

    From what book/site is this question? I kindda remember a very similar question, but cannot place it.


    Now, if x=(2^n a_n), given k>=1 I have y = \sum_{i=1}^{k-1}2^i e_i \in N, z = (0 , \ldots , 0, a_{k}, a_{k+1}, \ldots) \in M so that

     x - y = (2^n a_n) - \sum_{i=1}^{k-1}2^i e_i = (0 , \ldots , 0, 2^{k}a_{k}, 2^{k+1}a_{k+1}, \ldots) = 2^k(0 , \ldots , 0, a_{k}, a_{k+1}, \ldots)
     = 2^k z

    as per the hint.


    Hmmm...I think it'd rather be y=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k-1}2^ia_ie_i=(2a_1,2^2a_2,\dots,2^{k-1}a_{k-1},0,\dots) , so that:

    x-y = (2a_1,2^2a_2,\dots)-(2a_1,\dots,2^{k-1}a_{k-1},0,\dots)=(0,\dots,0,2^ka_k,2^{k+1}a_{k+1},\dots  )= 2^k(0,\dots,0,a_k,2a_{k+1},2^2a_{k+1},\dots) , and thus:

    g(x)=g(x)-g(y)=g\left(2^k(0,\dots,0,a_k,2^ka_{k+1},\dots)\ri  ght)=2^kg(0,\dots,0,a_k,2a_{k+1},\dots)

    It's easy to see that the above is true, mutandis mutandis, if instead powers of 2 we choose powers of 3. Now, as gcd(2^k,3^n)=1\,\,\forall\,n\,,\,k\in\mathbb{N} ,

    then \forall m\in\mathbb{Z}\,\,\,\exists\, r,s\in\mathbb{Z}\,\,\,s.t.\,\,\,2^kr+3^ks=m

    Tonio

    As g(N)=0, taking g of both sides gives
    g((2^n a_n)) = 2^k g(0, \ldots, 0, a_k, a_{k+1},\ldots)
    for any k>=1.

    In particular, 2^k g(0, \ldots, 0, a_k, a_{k+1},\ldots) = 2^{k+1} g(0, \ldots, 0, a_{k+1}, a_{k+2},\ldots)

    so, upon subtracting:
    0 = -2 g(0, \ldots, 0, a_k, 0, \ldots) = -2a_k g(e_k).

    This would seem to imply x=(0,0,..) or g=0; in either case g(x)=0.

    But this can't be right - I could have deduced as much by not bothering with the powers of 2. What am I missing?

    Thanks again
    .
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Unique R-Module Homomorphism
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 2nd 2011, 09:17 PM
  2. simple question on R module homomorphism
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: November 23rd 2009, 07:12 AM
  3. projective, module homomorphism
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 13th 2009, 05:57 PM
  4. module homomorphism, ring, subset
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 18th 2008, 10:00 PM
  5. R-module homomorphism surjectivity
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 9th 2008, 12:32 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum