On proving that $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ is not a free $mathbb{Z}$-module











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Setup:



I've just started self-studying commutative algebra via video lectures from India Institute of Technology, and this question came up in the section on modules. It seems easy in a way, but I guess I'm missing something trivial. This is rather directly after introducing free modules, which I still haven't completely grasped. The definition of a free module used here is:




An $A$-module $M$ is said to be free if $M=bigoplus_{lambdainLambda} M_lambda$, where $forall lambdainLambda quad M_lambdacong A$.




Question 1: Would someone help me show (and to understand clearly) that $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$, where $n_iin{2,3,dots}$, is not a free $mathbb{Z}$-module (where $mathbb{Z}_{n_i}=mathbb{Z}/n_imathbb{Z})$ ?



The lecturer gave the impression that this should be straight forward, so preferably I want to do this by showing that there cannot be an isomorphism



$varphi: mathbb{Z}^{bigoplusLambda}tobigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$,



where $mathbb{Z}^{bigoplusLambda}=mathbb{Z}oplusmathbb{Z}oplus.../"|Lambda|text{ times }" /...oplusmathbb{Z}$.



Question 2: Is there an even simpler answer than my potential one below?



Thoughts (Attempt):



The potential problem is likely that each $Z_{n_i}$ is a finite $Z$-module. By assuming $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ is free, and projecting down, $pi:bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}tomathbb{Z}_{n_i}$, we exhibit finite submodules $pi^{-1}(Z_{n_i})subset bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$. Now, I found out that submodules of free modules over a PID are free, and thus since $mathbb{Z}$ is a PID, we have that each submodule $pi^{-1}(Z_{n_i})$ must be a free $mathbb{Z}$-module. By the definition above there would then exist an isomorphism $mathbb{Z}^{bigoplusLambda}topi^{-1}(Z_{n_i})$, which cannot be the case, since this function can not be injective since $pi^{-1}(Z_{n_i})$ is finite. //



However, I cannot remember that we have yet mentioned that submodules of free modules over a PID are free. Is there thus an even easier way of getting an answer to Question 1?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Hint: What happens if you multiply an element in $mathbb{Z}_n$ by $n$? What are the zero divisors of direct sums of $mathbb{Z}$?
    – Severin Schraven
    Nov 14 at 14:43












  • Note that the direct sum $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ is a free $Bbb{Z}$-module if $n_ileq1$ for all $i$. Do you consider $0$ a natural number?
    – Servaes
    Nov 14 at 14:48












  • @Servaes : good point, I will add that.
    – Christopher.L
    Nov 14 at 15:43










  • @SeverinSchraven : Yes, thank you, I had read the answer below before your comment; would've been sufficient to solve it though.
    – Christopher.L
    Nov 14 at 15:44















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Setup:



I've just started self-studying commutative algebra via video lectures from India Institute of Technology, and this question came up in the section on modules. It seems easy in a way, but I guess I'm missing something trivial. This is rather directly after introducing free modules, which I still haven't completely grasped. The definition of a free module used here is:




An $A$-module $M$ is said to be free if $M=bigoplus_{lambdainLambda} M_lambda$, where $forall lambdainLambda quad M_lambdacong A$.




Question 1: Would someone help me show (and to understand clearly) that $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$, where $n_iin{2,3,dots}$, is not a free $mathbb{Z}$-module (where $mathbb{Z}_{n_i}=mathbb{Z}/n_imathbb{Z})$ ?



The lecturer gave the impression that this should be straight forward, so preferably I want to do this by showing that there cannot be an isomorphism



$varphi: mathbb{Z}^{bigoplusLambda}tobigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$,



where $mathbb{Z}^{bigoplusLambda}=mathbb{Z}oplusmathbb{Z}oplus.../"|Lambda|text{ times }" /...oplusmathbb{Z}$.



Question 2: Is there an even simpler answer than my potential one below?



Thoughts (Attempt):



The potential problem is likely that each $Z_{n_i}$ is a finite $Z$-module. By assuming $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ is free, and projecting down, $pi:bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}tomathbb{Z}_{n_i}$, we exhibit finite submodules $pi^{-1}(Z_{n_i})subset bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$. Now, I found out that submodules of free modules over a PID are free, and thus since $mathbb{Z}$ is a PID, we have that each submodule $pi^{-1}(Z_{n_i})$ must be a free $mathbb{Z}$-module. By the definition above there would then exist an isomorphism $mathbb{Z}^{bigoplusLambda}topi^{-1}(Z_{n_i})$, which cannot be the case, since this function can not be injective since $pi^{-1}(Z_{n_i})$ is finite. //



However, I cannot remember that we have yet mentioned that submodules of free modules over a PID are free. Is there thus an even easier way of getting an answer to Question 1?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Hint: What happens if you multiply an element in $mathbb{Z}_n$ by $n$? What are the zero divisors of direct sums of $mathbb{Z}$?
    – Severin Schraven
    Nov 14 at 14:43












  • Note that the direct sum $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ is a free $Bbb{Z}$-module if $n_ileq1$ for all $i$. Do you consider $0$ a natural number?
    – Servaes
    Nov 14 at 14:48












  • @Servaes : good point, I will add that.
    – Christopher.L
    Nov 14 at 15:43










  • @SeverinSchraven : Yes, thank you, I had read the answer below before your comment; would've been sufficient to solve it though.
    – Christopher.L
    Nov 14 at 15:44













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











Setup:



I've just started self-studying commutative algebra via video lectures from India Institute of Technology, and this question came up in the section on modules. It seems easy in a way, but I guess I'm missing something trivial. This is rather directly after introducing free modules, which I still haven't completely grasped. The definition of a free module used here is:




An $A$-module $M$ is said to be free if $M=bigoplus_{lambdainLambda} M_lambda$, where $forall lambdainLambda quad M_lambdacong A$.




Question 1: Would someone help me show (and to understand clearly) that $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$, where $n_iin{2,3,dots}$, is not a free $mathbb{Z}$-module (where $mathbb{Z}_{n_i}=mathbb{Z}/n_imathbb{Z})$ ?



The lecturer gave the impression that this should be straight forward, so preferably I want to do this by showing that there cannot be an isomorphism



$varphi: mathbb{Z}^{bigoplusLambda}tobigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$,



where $mathbb{Z}^{bigoplusLambda}=mathbb{Z}oplusmathbb{Z}oplus.../"|Lambda|text{ times }" /...oplusmathbb{Z}$.



Question 2: Is there an even simpler answer than my potential one below?



Thoughts (Attempt):



The potential problem is likely that each $Z_{n_i}$ is a finite $Z$-module. By assuming $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ is free, and projecting down, $pi:bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}tomathbb{Z}_{n_i}$, we exhibit finite submodules $pi^{-1}(Z_{n_i})subset bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$. Now, I found out that submodules of free modules over a PID are free, and thus since $mathbb{Z}$ is a PID, we have that each submodule $pi^{-1}(Z_{n_i})$ must be a free $mathbb{Z}$-module. By the definition above there would then exist an isomorphism $mathbb{Z}^{bigoplusLambda}topi^{-1}(Z_{n_i})$, which cannot be the case, since this function can not be injective since $pi^{-1}(Z_{n_i})$ is finite. //



However, I cannot remember that we have yet mentioned that submodules of free modules over a PID are free. Is there thus an even easier way of getting an answer to Question 1?










share|cite|improve this question















Setup:



I've just started self-studying commutative algebra via video lectures from India Institute of Technology, and this question came up in the section on modules. It seems easy in a way, but I guess I'm missing something trivial. This is rather directly after introducing free modules, which I still haven't completely grasped. The definition of a free module used here is:




An $A$-module $M$ is said to be free if $M=bigoplus_{lambdainLambda} M_lambda$, where $forall lambdainLambda quad M_lambdacong A$.




Question 1: Would someone help me show (and to understand clearly) that $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$, where $n_iin{2,3,dots}$, is not a free $mathbb{Z}$-module (where $mathbb{Z}_{n_i}=mathbb{Z}/n_imathbb{Z})$ ?



The lecturer gave the impression that this should be straight forward, so preferably I want to do this by showing that there cannot be an isomorphism



$varphi: mathbb{Z}^{bigoplusLambda}tobigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$,



where $mathbb{Z}^{bigoplusLambda}=mathbb{Z}oplusmathbb{Z}oplus.../"|Lambda|text{ times }" /...oplusmathbb{Z}$.



Question 2: Is there an even simpler answer than my potential one below?



Thoughts (Attempt):



The potential problem is likely that each $Z_{n_i}$ is a finite $Z$-module. By assuming $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ is free, and projecting down, $pi:bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}tomathbb{Z}_{n_i}$, we exhibit finite submodules $pi^{-1}(Z_{n_i})subset bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$. Now, I found out that submodules of free modules over a PID are free, and thus since $mathbb{Z}$ is a PID, we have that each submodule $pi^{-1}(Z_{n_i})$ must be a free $mathbb{Z}$-module. By the definition above there would then exist an isomorphism $mathbb{Z}^{bigoplusLambda}topi^{-1}(Z_{n_i})$, which cannot be the case, since this function can not be injective since $pi^{-1}(Z_{n_i})$ is finite. //



However, I cannot remember that we have yet mentioned that submodules of free modules over a PID are free. Is there thus an even easier way of getting an answer to Question 1?







abstract-algebra modules free-modules






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 14 at 19:47









user26857

39.1k123882




39.1k123882










asked Nov 14 at 14:35









Christopher.L

7281317




7281317












  • Hint: What happens if you multiply an element in $mathbb{Z}_n$ by $n$? What are the zero divisors of direct sums of $mathbb{Z}$?
    – Severin Schraven
    Nov 14 at 14:43












  • Note that the direct sum $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ is a free $Bbb{Z}$-module if $n_ileq1$ for all $i$. Do you consider $0$ a natural number?
    – Servaes
    Nov 14 at 14:48












  • @Servaes : good point, I will add that.
    – Christopher.L
    Nov 14 at 15:43










  • @SeverinSchraven : Yes, thank you, I had read the answer below before your comment; would've been sufficient to solve it though.
    – Christopher.L
    Nov 14 at 15:44


















  • Hint: What happens if you multiply an element in $mathbb{Z}_n$ by $n$? What are the zero divisors of direct sums of $mathbb{Z}$?
    – Severin Schraven
    Nov 14 at 14:43












  • Note that the direct sum $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ is a free $Bbb{Z}$-module if $n_ileq1$ for all $i$. Do you consider $0$ a natural number?
    – Servaes
    Nov 14 at 14:48












  • @Servaes : good point, I will add that.
    – Christopher.L
    Nov 14 at 15:43










  • @SeverinSchraven : Yes, thank you, I had read the answer below before your comment; would've been sufficient to solve it though.
    – Christopher.L
    Nov 14 at 15:44
















Hint: What happens if you multiply an element in $mathbb{Z}_n$ by $n$? What are the zero divisors of direct sums of $mathbb{Z}$?
– Severin Schraven
Nov 14 at 14:43






Hint: What happens if you multiply an element in $mathbb{Z}_n$ by $n$? What are the zero divisors of direct sums of $mathbb{Z}$?
– Severin Schraven
Nov 14 at 14:43














Note that the direct sum $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ is a free $Bbb{Z}$-module if $n_ileq1$ for all $i$. Do you consider $0$ a natural number?
– Servaes
Nov 14 at 14:48






Note that the direct sum $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ is a free $Bbb{Z}$-module if $n_ileq1$ for all $i$. Do you consider $0$ a natural number?
– Servaes
Nov 14 at 14:48














@Servaes : good point, I will add that.
– Christopher.L
Nov 14 at 15:43




@Servaes : good point, I will add that.
– Christopher.L
Nov 14 at 15:43












@SeverinSchraven : Yes, thank you, I had read the answer below before your comment; would've been sufficient to solve it though.
– Christopher.L
Nov 14 at 15:44




@SeverinSchraven : Yes, thank you, I had read the answer below before your comment; would've been sufficient to solve it though.
– Christopher.L
Nov 14 at 15:44










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










Easy answer: isomorphisms preserve torsion elements in the underlying abelian group, but $$bigopluslimits_{i=1}^inftymathbb{Z}_{n_i}$$ contains a bunch of torsion elements (for example, if $n_1 neq 1$, then $(1,0,0,0,ldots)$ (otherwise move on to the first term such that $n_i neq 1$: if there isn't one, then your module is trivial, which is free, so you should just throw that in your hypotheses)) has order $n_i$, so is torsion), but free $mathbb{Z}$-modules have no torsion elements, so no such isomorphism can exist.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Ok, I had no idea what torsion was, so I had to read about that; Basically the analog to zero divisors for rings? Ok, it seems to be what everyone else is saying right, so: Let $psi:bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}tomathbb{Z}^{oplusLambda}$ be the assumed isom., then for each $xin pi^{-1}(Z_k)subset bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$, we have $0=psi(0)=psi(kx)=kpsi(x)Rightarrow psi(x)=0$, since $mathbb{Z}^{oplusLambda}$ has no torsion (aka torsion free?), and in this case it's directly analog to the fact that $mathbb{Z}$ is a domain?
    – Christopher.L
    Nov 14 at 15:31












  • Or, well, not each $xinpi^{-1}(Z_k)$, but rather each $x$ of the form $(0,0,dots,x_i,0,dots)$, where $x_iin mathbb{Z}_k$ i guess.
    – Christopher.L
    Nov 14 at 15:34












  • Yes, that's correct.
    – user3482749
    Nov 14 at 15:34


















up vote
1
down vote













You can show this using the fact that submodules of free modules are free over PID, but there is a much simpler way: in a free $mathbb Z$-module the equation $n cdot x = 0$ for some fixed $n$ has only one solution ($x=0$), but in $M = bigoplus mathbb Z / n_i mathbb Z$ all elements of the summand $mathbb Z / n_i mathbb Z$ are solutions of $n_i cdot x = 0$, and the summand injects canonically into the sum, providing non-zero solutions in $M$.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Indeed you want to show that no such isomorphism $varphi$ exists. To do so, it suffices to note that a free module over $Bbb{Z}$ has precisely one element of finite order; the identity element. If $n_ineq0$ for some $i$, then the $i$-th basis vector (the element of $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ that projects down to $1$ on $Bbb{Z}_{n_i}$ and to $0$ on every other coordinate) is of order $n_i$. From this observation it is not hard to deduce that $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ is a free $Bbb{Z}$-module if and only if $n_ileq1$ for all $i$.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2998327%2fon-proving-that-bigoplus-i-1-infty-mathbbz-n-i-is-not-a-free-mathb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      3
      down vote



      accepted










      Easy answer: isomorphisms preserve torsion elements in the underlying abelian group, but $$bigopluslimits_{i=1}^inftymathbb{Z}_{n_i}$$ contains a bunch of torsion elements (for example, if $n_1 neq 1$, then $(1,0,0,0,ldots)$ (otherwise move on to the first term such that $n_i neq 1$: if there isn't one, then your module is trivial, which is free, so you should just throw that in your hypotheses)) has order $n_i$, so is torsion), but free $mathbb{Z}$-modules have no torsion elements, so no such isomorphism can exist.






      share|cite|improve this answer





















      • Ok, I had no idea what torsion was, so I had to read about that; Basically the analog to zero divisors for rings? Ok, it seems to be what everyone else is saying right, so: Let $psi:bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}tomathbb{Z}^{oplusLambda}$ be the assumed isom., then for each $xin pi^{-1}(Z_k)subset bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$, we have $0=psi(0)=psi(kx)=kpsi(x)Rightarrow psi(x)=0$, since $mathbb{Z}^{oplusLambda}$ has no torsion (aka torsion free?), and in this case it's directly analog to the fact that $mathbb{Z}$ is a domain?
        – Christopher.L
        Nov 14 at 15:31












      • Or, well, not each $xinpi^{-1}(Z_k)$, but rather each $x$ of the form $(0,0,dots,x_i,0,dots)$, where $x_iin mathbb{Z}_k$ i guess.
        – Christopher.L
        Nov 14 at 15:34












      • Yes, that's correct.
        – user3482749
        Nov 14 at 15:34















      up vote
      3
      down vote



      accepted










      Easy answer: isomorphisms preserve torsion elements in the underlying abelian group, but $$bigopluslimits_{i=1}^inftymathbb{Z}_{n_i}$$ contains a bunch of torsion elements (for example, if $n_1 neq 1$, then $(1,0,0,0,ldots)$ (otherwise move on to the first term such that $n_i neq 1$: if there isn't one, then your module is trivial, which is free, so you should just throw that in your hypotheses)) has order $n_i$, so is torsion), but free $mathbb{Z}$-modules have no torsion elements, so no such isomorphism can exist.






      share|cite|improve this answer





















      • Ok, I had no idea what torsion was, so I had to read about that; Basically the analog to zero divisors for rings? Ok, it seems to be what everyone else is saying right, so: Let $psi:bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}tomathbb{Z}^{oplusLambda}$ be the assumed isom., then for each $xin pi^{-1}(Z_k)subset bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$, we have $0=psi(0)=psi(kx)=kpsi(x)Rightarrow psi(x)=0$, since $mathbb{Z}^{oplusLambda}$ has no torsion (aka torsion free?), and in this case it's directly analog to the fact that $mathbb{Z}$ is a domain?
        – Christopher.L
        Nov 14 at 15:31












      • Or, well, not each $xinpi^{-1}(Z_k)$, but rather each $x$ of the form $(0,0,dots,x_i,0,dots)$, where $x_iin mathbb{Z}_k$ i guess.
        – Christopher.L
        Nov 14 at 15:34












      • Yes, that's correct.
        – user3482749
        Nov 14 at 15:34













      up vote
      3
      down vote



      accepted







      up vote
      3
      down vote



      accepted






      Easy answer: isomorphisms preserve torsion elements in the underlying abelian group, but $$bigopluslimits_{i=1}^inftymathbb{Z}_{n_i}$$ contains a bunch of torsion elements (for example, if $n_1 neq 1$, then $(1,0,0,0,ldots)$ (otherwise move on to the first term such that $n_i neq 1$: if there isn't one, then your module is trivial, which is free, so you should just throw that in your hypotheses)) has order $n_i$, so is torsion), but free $mathbb{Z}$-modules have no torsion elements, so no such isomorphism can exist.






      share|cite|improve this answer












      Easy answer: isomorphisms preserve torsion elements in the underlying abelian group, but $$bigopluslimits_{i=1}^inftymathbb{Z}_{n_i}$$ contains a bunch of torsion elements (for example, if $n_1 neq 1$, then $(1,0,0,0,ldots)$ (otherwise move on to the first term such that $n_i neq 1$: if there isn't one, then your module is trivial, which is free, so you should just throw that in your hypotheses)) has order $n_i$, so is torsion), but free $mathbb{Z}$-modules have no torsion elements, so no such isomorphism can exist.







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered Nov 14 at 14:42









      user3482749

      981411




      981411












      • Ok, I had no idea what torsion was, so I had to read about that; Basically the analog to zero divisors for rings? Ok, it seems to be what everyone else is saying right, so: Let $psi:bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}tomathbb{Z}^{oplusLambda}$ be the assumed isom., then for each $xin pi^{-1}(Z_k)subset bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$, we have $0=psi(0)=psi(kx)=kpsi(x)Rightarrow psi(x)=0$, since $mathbb{Z}^{oplusLambda}$ has no torsion (aka torsion free?), and in this case it's directly analog to the fact that $mathbb{Z}$ is a domain?
        – Christopher.L
        Nov 14 at 15:31












      • Or, well, not each $xinpi^{-1}(Z_k)$, but rather each $x$ of the form $(0,0,dots,x_i,0,dots)$, where $x_iin mathbb{Z}_k$ i guess.
        – Christopher.L
        Nov 14 at 15:34












      • Yes, that's correct.
        – user3482749
        Nov 14 at 15:34


















      • Ok, I had no idea what torsion was, so I had to read about that; Basically the analog to zero divisors for rings? Ok, it seems to be what everyone else is saying right, so: Let $psi:bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}tomathbb{Z}^{oplusLambda}$ be the assumed isom., then for each $xin pi^{-1}(Z_k)subset bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$, we have $0=psi(0)=psi(kx)=kpsi(x)Rightarrow psi(x)=0$, since $mathbb{Z}^{oplusLambda}$ has no torsion (aka torsion free?), and in this case it's directly analog to the fact that $mathbb{Z}$ is a domain?
        – Christopher.L
        Nov 14 at 15:31












      • Or, well, not each $xinpi^{-1}(Z_k)$, but rather each $x$ of the form $(0,0,dots,x_i,0,dots)$, where $x_iin mathbb{Z}_k$ i guess.
        – Christopher.L
        Nov 14 at 15:34












      • Yes, that's correct.
        – user3482749
        Nov 14 at 15:34
















      Ok, I had no idea what torsion was, so I had to read about that; Basically the analog to zero divisors for rings? Ok, it seems to be what everyone else is saying right, so: Let $psi:bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}tomathbb{Z}^{oplusLambda}$ be the assumed isom., then for each $xin pi^{-1}(Z_k)subset bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$, we have $0=psi(0)=psi(kx)=kpsi(x)Rightarrow psi(x)=0$, since $mathbb{Z}^{oplusLambda}$ has no torsion (aka torsion free?), and in this case it's directly analog to the fact that $mathbb{Z}$ is a domain?
      – Christopher.L
      Nov 14 at 15:31






      Ok, I had no idea what torsion was, so I had to read about that; Basically the analog to zero divisors for rings? Ok, it seems to be what everyone else is saying right, so: Let $psi:bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}tomathbb{Z}^{oplusLambda}$ be the assumed isom., then for each $xin pi^{-1}(Z_k)subset bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$, we have $0=psi(0)=psi(kx)=kpsi(x)Rightarrow psi(x)=0$, since $mathbb{Z}^{oplusLambda}$ has no torsion (aka torsion free?), and in this case it's directly analog to the fact that $mathbb{Z}$ is a domain?
      – Christopher.L
      Nov 14 at 15:31














      Or, well, not each $xinpi^{-1}(Z_k)$, but rather each $x$ of the form $(0,0,dots,x_i,0,dots)$, where $x_iin mathbb{Z}_k$ i guess.
      – Christopher.L
      Nov 14 at 15:34






      Or, well, not each $xinpi^{-1}(Z_k)$, but rather each $x$ of the form $(0,0,dots,x_i,0,dots)$, where $x_iin mathbb{Z}_k$ i guess.
      – Christopher.L
      Nov 14 at 15:34














      Yes, that's correct.
      – user3482749
      Nov 14 at 15:34




      Yes, that's correct.
      – user3482749
      Nov 14 at 15:34










      up vote
      1
      down vote













      You can show this using the fact that submodules of free modules are free over PID, but there is a much simpler way: in a free $mathbb Z$-module the equation $n cdot x = 0$ for some fixed $n$ has only one solution ($x=0$), but in $M = bigoplus mathbb Z / n_i mathbb Z$ all elements of the summand $mathbb Z / n_i mathbb Z$ are solutions of $n_i cdot x = 0$, and the summand injects canonically into the sum, providing non-zero solutions in $M$.






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        1
        down vote













        You can show this using the fact that submodules of free modules are free over PID, but there is a much simpler way: in a free $mathbb Z$-module the equation $n cdot x = 0$ for some fixed $n$ has only one solution ($x=0$), but in $M = bigoplus mathbb Z / n_i mathbb Z$ all elements of the summand $mathbb Z / n_i mathbb Z$ are solutions of $n_i cdot x = 0$, and the summand injects canonically into the sum, providing non-zero solutions in $M$.






        share|cite|improve this answer























          up vote
          1
          down vote










          up vote
          1
          down vote









          You can show this using the fact that submodules of free modules are free over PID, but there is a much simpler way: in a free $mathbb Z$-module the equation $n cdot x = 0$ for some fixed $n$ has only one solution ($x=0$), but in $M = bigoplus mathbb Z / n_i mathbb Z$ all elements of the summand $mathbb Z / n_i mathbb Z$ are solutions of $n_i cdot x = 0$, and the summand injects canonically into the sum, providing non-zero solutions in $M$.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          You can show this using the fact that submodules of free modules are free over PID, but there is a much simpler way: in a free $mathbb Z$-module the equation $n cdot x = 0$ for some fixed $n$ has only one solution ($x=0$), but in $M = bigoplus mathbb Z / n_i mathbb Z$ all elements of the summand $mathbb Z / n_i mathbb Z$ are solutions of $n_i cdot x = 0$, and the summand injects canonically into the sum, providing non-zero solutions in $M$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 14 at 14:41









          lisyarus

          10.3k21433




          10.3k21433






















              up vote
              0
              down vote













              Indeed you want to show that no such isomorphism $varphi$ exists. To do so, it suffices to note that a free module over $Bbb{Z}$ has precisely one element of finite order; the identity element. If $n_ineq0$ for some $i$, then the $i$-th basis vector (the element of $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ that projects down to $1$ on $Bbb{Z}_{n_i}$ and to $0$ on every other coordinate) is of order $n_i$. From this observation it is not hard to deduce that $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ is a free $Bbb{Z}$-module if and only if $n_ileq1$ for all $i$.






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                Indeed you want to show that no such isomorphism $varphi$ exists. To do so, it suffices to note that a free module over $Bbb{Z}$ has precisely one element of finite order; the identity element. If $n_ineq0$ for some $i$, then the $i$-th basis vector (the element of $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ that projects down to $1$ on $Bbb{Z}_{n_i}$ and to $0$ on every other coordinate) is of order $n_i$. From this observation it is not hard to deduce that $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ is a free $Bbb{Z}$-module if and only if $n_ileq1$ for all $i$.






                share|cite|improve this answer























                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  Indeed you want to show that no such isomorphism $varphi$ exists. To do so, it suffices to note that a free module over $Bbb{Z}$ has precisely one element of finite order; the identity element. If $n_ineq0$ for some $i$, then the $i$-th basis vector (the element of $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ that projects down to $1$ on $Bbb{Z}_{n_i}$ and to $0$ on every other coordinate) is of order $n_i$. From this observation it is not hard to deduce that $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ is a free $Bbb{Z}$-module if and only if $n_ileq1$ for all $i$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  Indeed you want to show that no such isomorphism $varphi$ exists. To do so, it suffices to note that a free module over $Bbb{Z}$ has precisely one element of finite order; the identity element. If $n_ineq0$ for some $i$, then the $i$-th basis vector (the element of $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ that projects down to $1$ on $Bbb{Z}_{n_i}$ and to $0$ on every other coordinate) is of order $n_i$. From this observation it is not hard to deduce that $bigoplus_{i=1}^{infty}mathbb{Z}_{n_i}$ is a free $Bbb{Z}$-module if and only if $n_ileq1$ for all $i$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Nov 14 at 14:42









                  Servaes

                  20.6k33789




                  20.6k33789






























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded



















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2998327%2fon-proving-that-bigoplus-i-1-infty-mathbbz-n-i-is-not-a-free-mathb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Plaza Victoria

                      Puebla de Zaragoza

                      Musa