Does there exist any surjective group homomorphism from $(mathbb R^* , .)$ onto $(mathbb Q^* , .)$?
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Does there exist any surjective group homomorphism from $(mathbb R^* , .)$ (the multiplicative group of non-zero real numbers) onto $(mathbb Q^* , .)$ (the multiplicative group of non-zero rational numbers)?
group-theory abelian-groups group-homomorphism infinite-groups
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Does there exist any surjective group homomorphism from $(mathbb R^* , .)$ (the multiplicative group of non-zero real numbers) onto $(mathbb Q^* , .)$ (the multiplicative group of non-zero rational numbers)?
group-theory abelian-groups group-homomorphism infinite-groups
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Does there exist any surjective group homomorphism from $(mathbb R^* , .)$ (the multiplicative group of non-zero real numbers) onto $(mathbb Q^* , .)$ (the multiplicative group of non-zero rational numbers)?
group-theory abelian-groups group-homomorphism infinite-groups
Does there exist any surjective group homomorphism from $(mathbb R^* , .)$ (the multiplicative group of non-zero real numbers) onto $(mathbb Q^* , .)$ (the multiplicative group of non-zero rational numbers)?
group-theory abelian-groups group-homomorphism infinite-groups
group-theory abelian-groups group-homomorphism infinite-groups
edited Nov 19 at 10:11
Martin Sleziak
44.4k7115268
44.4k7115268
asked Aug 19 '16 at 15:15
user228168
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
Suppose that $f:Bbb{R}^*toBbb{Q}^*$ is a such homomorphism. Then we have some $x$ such that $f(x)=2$. Now take a cube root $sqrt[3]{x}$ of $x$, which always exists in $mathbb{R}^*$. Then $(f(sqrt[3]{x}))^3 = f(x) = 2$, i.e. $f(sqrt[3]{x})$ is a cube root of $2$. But $2$ has no cube root in $mathbb{Q}^*$, so this is a contradiction.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Let me add a more abstract view to the concrete arguments already given.
Recall that a group $(G,cdot)$ is called divisible if for each $ain G$, positive integer $n$, the equation $X^n = a$ has a solution.
(The terminology makes more sense in additive notation where it means $nX=a$ has a solution; that is, one can 'divide the $a$ into $n$ equal parts.')
Now observe:
- the homomorphic image of a divisible group is divisible.
- the only divisible subgroup of $(mathbb{Q}^{ast}, cdot)$ is the trivial one.
- the (sub)group $(mathbb{R}_+^{ast}, cdot)$ is divisible.
Thus, the image of $(mathbb{R}_+^{ast}, cdot)$ under every homorphism $varphi$ from $(mathbb{R}^{ast}, cdot)$ to $(mathbb{Q}^{ast}, cdot)$ must be trivial.
Now, for $x$ negative we have that $x^2$ is positive and thus $varphi(x)^2=varphi(x^2)= 1$. Thus, $varphi(x)$ is $pm 1$. (Also see another answer for this.)
Assume there are two negative number $x,y$ such that $varphi(x) neq varphi (y)$, then $1= varphi(xy) = varphi(x)varphi(y) = -1$, a contradiction.
Thus either all negative numbers have image $1$ or all negative number have image $-1$.
It follows that the only two homomorphism there could be are $x mapsto 1$ and $x mapsto operatorname{sign}{(x)}$.
Both are indeed homomorphisms, yet neither is surjective.
the only divisible subgroup of $(mathbb Q^* , .)$ is trivial ... I can feel it intuitively but how do you prove that rigorously ? could you please elaborate ?
– user228168
Aug 20 '16 at 3:30
The point is that you cannot take arbitrary roots of a rational number (in the rationals). Suppose $a$ would allow a solution, in the rationals, to $X^n =a$ for each $a$. We show $a=1$ We can focus on $a$ positive, as a negative number has no squareroot. Thus $a = p_1^{v_1} dots p_k^{v_k}$ with distinct primes $p_i$ and integers $v_i$. Now for $X^n = a$ to have a solution we need $n mid v_i$ for each $i$. For each fixed $a$, this thus cannot have a solution for all $n$ unless all the $v_i$ are $0$ that is $a=1$.
– quid♦
Aug 20 '16 at 8:51
Differently, the multiplicative group of positve rationals is isomorphic to the additive group $mathbb{Z}^{(mathbb{N})}$. The latter is not divisible.
– quid♦
Aug 20 '16 at 8:51
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
$f(-1)^2=f(1)$ implies that $f(-1)=1$ or $f(-1)=-1$. Suppose $f(-1)=1$. Let $x>0$, $f(x)=f(sqrt x)^2$. Implies that $f(x)$ is a square, $f(-x)=f(-1)f(x)>0$. Impossible. Since $f$ is surjective.
Suppose $f(-1)=-1, f(-x)=-f(sqrt x)^2$ and $f(x)=f(sqrt x)^2$ this implies that $f$ is not surjective since $1/2$ is not in the image: it is positive but not the square of a rational.
This answer could use serious rewriting, because as it is it's really not clear. If someone read this and didn't already know the proof I doubt they'd understand what's going on.
– Najib Idrissi
Aug 19 '16 at 15:39
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
Suppose that $f:Bbb{R}^*toBbb{Q}^*$ is a such homomorphism. Then we have some $x$ such that $f(x)=2$. Now take a cube root $sqrt[3]{x}$ of $x$, which always exists in $mathbb{R}^*$. Then $(f(sqrt[3]{x}))^3 = f(x) = 2$, i.e. $f(sqrt[3]{x})$ is a cube root of $2$. But $2$ has no cube root in $mathbb{Q}^*$, so this is a contradiction.
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
Suppose that $f:Bbb{R}^*toBbb{Q}^*$ is a such homomorphism. Then we have some $x$ such that $f(x)=2$. Now take a cube root $sqrt[3]{x}$ of $x$, which always exists in $mathbb{R}^*$. Then $(f(sqrt[3]{x}))^3 = f(x) = 2$, i.e. $f(sqrt[3]{x})$ is a cube root of $2$. But $2$ has no cube root in $mathbb{Q}^*$, so this is a contradiction.
add a comment |
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
up vote
10
down vote
accepted
Suppose that $f:Bbb{R}^*toBbb{Q}^*$ is a such homomorphism. Then we have some $x$ such that $f(x)=2$. Now take a cube root $sqrt[3]{x}$ of $x$, which always exists in $mathbb{R}^*$. Then $(f(sqrt[3]{x}))^3 = f(x) = 2$, i.e. $f(sqrt[3]{x})$ is a cube root of $2$. But $2$ has no cube root in $mathbb{Q}^*$, so this is a contradiction.
Suppose that $f:Bbb{R}^*toBbb{Q}^*$ is a such homomorphism. Then we have some $x$ such that $f(x)=2$. Now take a cube root $sqrt[3]{x}$ of $x$, which always exists in $mathbb{R}^*$. Then $(f(sqrt[3]{x}))^3 = f(x) = 2$, i.e. $f(sqrt[3]{x})$ is a cube root of $2$. But $2$ has no cube root in $mathbb{Q}^*$, so this is a contradiction.
edited Aug 22 '16 at 15:58
community wiki
3 revs, 2 users 75%
Hanul Jeon
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Let me add a more abstract view to the concrete arguments already given.
Recall that a group $(G,cdot)$ is called divisible if for each $ain G$, positive integer $n$, the equation $X^n = a$ has a solution.
(The terminology makes more sense in additive notation where it means $nX=a$ has a solution; that is, one can 'divide the $a$ into $n$ equal parts.')
Now observe:
- the homomorphic image of a divisible group is divisible.
- the only divisible subgroup of $(mathbb{Q}^{ast}, cdot)$ is the trivial one.
- the (sub)group $(mathbb{R}_+^{ast}, cdot)$ is divisible.
Thus, the image of $(mathbb{R}_+^{ast}, cdot)$ under every homorphism $varphi$ from $(mathbb{R}^{ast}, cdot)$ to $(mathbb{Q}^{ast}, cdot)$ must be trivial.
Now, for $x$ negative we have that $x^2$ is positive and thus $varphi(x)^2=varphi(x^2)= 1$. Thus, $varphi(x)$ is $pm 1$. (Also see another answer for this.)
Assume there are two negative number $x,y$ such that $varphi(x) neq varphi (y)$, then $1= varphi(xy) = varphi(x)varphi(y) = -1$, a contradiction.
Thus either all negative numbers have image $1$ or all negative number have image $-1$.
It follows that the only two homomorphism there could be are $x mapsto 1$ and $x mapsto operatorname{sign}{(x)}$.
Both are indeed homomorphisms, yet neither is surjective.
the only divisible subgroup of $(mathbb Q^* , .)$ is trivial ... I can feel it intuitively but how do you prove that rigorously ? could you please elaborate ?
– user228168
Aug 20 '16 at 3:30
The point is that you cannot take arbitrary roots of a rational number (in the rationals). Suppose $a$ would allow a solution, in the rationals, to $X^n =a$ for each $a$. We show $a=1$ We can focus on $a$ positive, as a negative number has no squareroot. Thus $a = p_1^{v_1} dots p_k^{v_k}$ with distinct primes $p_i$ and integers $v_i$. Now for $X^n = a$ to have a solution we need $n mid v_i$ for each $i$. For each fixed $a$, this thus cannot have a solution for all $n$ unless all the $v_i$ are $0$ that is $a=1$.
– quid♦
Aug 20 '16 at 8:51
Differently, the multiplicative group of positve rationals is isomorphic to the additive group $mathbb{Z}^{(mathbb{N})}$. The latter is not divisible.
– quid♦
Aug 20 '16 at 8:51
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Let me add a more abstract view to the concrete arguments already given.
Recall that a group $(G,cdot)$ is called divisible if for each $ain G$, positive integer $n$, the equation $X^n = a$ has a solution.
(The terminology makes more sense in additive notation where it means $nX=a$ has a solution; that is, one can 'divide the $a$ into $n$ equal parts.')
Now observe:
- the homomorphic image of a divisible group is divisible.
- the only divisible subgroup of $(mathbb{Q}^{ast}, cdot)$ is the trivial one.
- the (sub)group $(mathbb{R}_+^{ast}, cdot)$ is divisible.
Thus, the image of $(mathbb{R}_+^{ast}, cdot)$ under every homorphism $varphi$ from $(mathbb{R}^{ast}, cdot)$ to $(mathbb{Q}^{ast}, cdot)$ must be trivial.
Now, for $x$ negative we have that $x^2$ is positive and thus $varphi(x)^2=varphi(x^2)= 1$. Thus, $varphi(x)$ is $pm 1$. (Also see another answer for this.)
Assume there are two negative number $x,y$ such that $varphi(x) neq varphi (y)$, then $1= varphi(xy) = varphi(x)varphi(y) = -1$, a contradiction.
Thus either all negative numbers have image $1$ or all negative number have image $-1$.
It follows that the only two homomorphism there could be are $x mapsto 1$ and $x mapsto operatorname{sign}{(x)}$.
Both are indeed homomorphisms, yet neither is surjective.
the only divisible subgroup of $(mathbb Q^* , .)$ is trivial ... I can feel it intuitively but how do you prove that rigorously ? could you please elaborate ?
– user228168
Aug 20 '16 at 3:30
The point is that you cannot take arbitrary roots of a rational number (in the rationals). Suppose $a$ would allow a solution, in the rationals, to $X^n =a$ for each $a$. We show $a=1$ We can focus on $a$ positive, as a negative number has no squareroot. Thus $a = p_1^{v_1} dots p_k^{v_k}$ with distinct primes $p_i$ and integers $v_i$. Now for $X^n = a$ to have a solution we need $n mid v_i$ for each $i$. For each fixed $a$, this thus cannot have a solution for all $n$ unless all the $v_i$ are $0$ that is $a=1$.
– quid♦
Aug 20 '16 at 8:51
Differently, the multiplicative group of positve rationals is isomorphic to the additive group $mathbb{Z}^{(mathbb{N})}$. The latter is not divisible.
– quid♦
Aug 20 '16 at 8:51
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Let me add a more abstract view to the concrete arguments already given.
Recall that a group $(G,cdot)$ is called divisible if for each $ain G$, positive integer $n$, the equation $X^n = a$ has a solution.
(The terminology makes more sense in additive notation where it means $nX=a$ has a solution; that is, one can 'divide the $a$ into $n$ equal parts.')
Now observe:
- the homomorphic image of a divisible group is divisible.
- the only divisible subgroup of $(mathbb{Q}^{ast}, cdot)$ is the trivial one.
- the (sub)group $(mathbb{R}_+^{ast}, cdot)$ is divisible.
Thus, the image of $(mathbb{R}_+^{ast}, cdot)$ under every homorphism $varphi$ from $(mathbb{R}^{ast}, cdot)$ to $(mathbb{Q}^{ast}, cdot)$ must be trivial.
Now, for $x$ negative we have that $x^2$ is positive and thus $varphi(x)^2=varphi(x^2)= 1$. Thus, $varphi(x)$ is $pm 1$. (Also see another answer for this.)
Assume there are two negative number $x,y$ such that $varphi(x) neq varphi (y)$, then $1= varphi(xy) = varphi(x)varphi(y) = -1$, a contradiction.
Thus either all negative numbers have image $1$ or all negative number have image $-1$.
It follows that the only two homomorphism there could be are $x mapsto 1$ and $x mapsto operatorname{sign}{(x)}$.
Both are indeed homomorphisms, yet neither is surjective.
Let me add a more abstract view to the concrete arguments already given.
Recall that a group $(G,cdot)$ is called divisible if for each $ain G$, positive integer $n$, the equation $X^n = a$ has a solution.
(The terminology makes more sense in additive notation where it means $nX=a$ has a solution; that is, one can 'divide the $a$ into $n$ equal parts.')
Now observe:
- the homomorphic image of a divisible group is divisible.
- the only divisible subgroup of $(mathbb{Q}^{ast}, cdot)$ is the trivial one.
- the (sub)group $(mathbb{R}_+^{ast}, cdot)$ is divisible.
Thus, the image of $(mathbb{R}_+^{ast}, cdot)$ under every homorphism $varphi$ from $(mathbb{R}^{ast}, cdot)$ to $(mathbb{Q}^{ast}, cdot)$ must be trivial.
Now, for $x$ negative we have that $x^2$ is positive and thus $varphi(x)^2=varphi(x^2)= 1$. Thus, $varphi(x)$ is $pm 1$. (Also see another answer for this.)
Assume there are two negative number $x,y$ such that $varphi(x) neq varphi (y)$, then $1= varphi(xy) = varphi(x)varphi(y) = -1$, a contradiction.
Thus either all negative numbers have image $1$ or all negative number have image $-1$.
It follows that the only two homomorphism there could be are $x mapsto 1$ and $x mapsto operatorname{sign}{(x)}$.
Both are indeed homomorphisms, yet neither is surjective.
answered Aug 19 '16 at 16:22
quid♦
36.7k95093
36.7k95093
the only divisible subgroup of $(mathbb Q^* , .)$ is trivial ... I can feel it intuitively but how do you prove that rigorously ? could you please elaborate ?
– user228168
Aug 20 '16 at 3:30
The point is that you cannot take arbitrary roots of a rational number (in the rationals). Suppose $a$ would allow a solution, in the rationals, to $X^n =a$ for each $a$. We show $a=1$ We can focus on $a$ positive, as a negative number has no squareroot. Thus $a = p_1^{v_1} dots p_k^{v_k}$ with distinct primes $p_i$ and integers $v_i$. Now for $X^n = a$ to have a solution we need $n mid v_i$ for each $i$. For each fixed $a$, this thus cannot have a solution for all $n$ unless all the $v_i$ are $0$ that is $a=1$.
– quid♦
Aug 20 '16 at 8:51
Differently, the multiplicative group of positve rationals is isomorphic to the additive group $mathbb{Z}^{(mathbb{N})}$. The latter is not divisible.
– quid♦
Aug 20 '16 at 8:51
add a comment |
the only divisible subgroup of $(mathbb Q^* , .)$ is trivial ... I can feel it intuitively but how do you prove that rigorously ? could you please elaborate ?
– user228168
Aug 20 '16 at 3:30
The point is that you cannot take arbitrary roots of a rational number (in the rationals). Suppose $a$ would allow a solution, in the rationals, to $X^n =a$ for each $a$. We show $a=1$ We can focus on $a$ positive, as a negative number has no squareroot. Thus $a = p_1^{v_1} dots p_k^{v_k}$ with distinct primes $p_i$ and integers $v_i$. Now for $X^n = a$ to have a solution we need $n mid v_i$ for each $i$. For each fixed $a$, this thus cannot have a solution for all $n$ unless all the $v_i$ are $0$ that is $a=1$.
– quid♦
Aug 20 '16 at 8:51
Differently, the multiplicative group of positve rationals is isomorphic to the additive group $mathbb{Z}^{(mathbb{N})}$. The latter is not divisible.
– quid♦
Aug 20 '16 at 8:51
the only divisible subgroup of $(mathbb Q^* , .)$ is trivial ... I can feel it intuitively but how do you prove that rigorously ? could you please elaborate ?
– user228168
Aug 20 '16 at 3:30
the only divisible subgroup of $(mathbb Q^* , .)$ is trivial ... I can feel it intuitively but how do you prove that rigorously ? could you please elaborate ?
– user228168
Aug 20 '16 at 3:30
The point is that you cannot take arbitrary roots of a rational number (in the rationals). Suppose $a$ would allow a solution, in the rationals, to $X^n =a$ for each $a$. We show $a=1$ We can focus on $a$ positive, as a negative number has no squareroot. Thus $a = p_1^{v_1} dots p_k^{v_k}$ with distinct primes $p_i$ and integers $v_i$. Now for $X^n = a$ to have a solution we need $n mid v_i$ for each $i$. For each fixed $a$, this thus cannot have a solution for all $n$ unless all the $v_i$ are $0$ that is $a=1$.
– quid♦
Aug 20 '16 at 8:51
The point is that you cannot take arbitrary roots of a rational number (in the rationals). Suppose $a$ would allow a solution, in the rationals, to $X^n =a$ for each $a$. We show $a=1$ We can focus on $a$ positive, as a negative number has no squareroot. Thus $a = p_1^{v_1} dots p_k^{v_k}$ with distinct primes $p_i$ and integers $v_i$. Now for $X^n = a$ to have a solution we need $n mid v_i$ for each $i$. For each fixed $a$, this thus cannot have a solution for all $n$ unless all the $v_i$ are $0$ that is $a=1$.
– quid♦
Aug 20 '16 at 8:51
Differently, the multiplicative group of positve rationals is isomorphic to the additive group $mathbb{Z}^{(mathbb{N})}$. The latter is not divisible.
– quid♦
Aug 20 '16 at 8:51
Differently, the multiplicative group of positve rationals is isomorphic to the additive group $mathbb{Z}^{(mathbb{N})}$. The latter is not divisible.
– quid♦
Aug 20 '16 at 8:51
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
$f(-1)^2=f(1)$ implies that $f(-1)=1$ or $f(-1)=-1$. Suppose $f(-1)=1$. Let $x>0$, $f(x)=f(sqrt x)^2$. Implies that $f(x)$ is a square, $f(-x)=f(-1)f(x)>0$. Impossible. Since $f$ is surjective.
Suppose $f(-1)=-1, f(-x)=-f(sqrt x)^2$ and $f(x)=f(sqrt x)^2$ this implies that $f$ is not surjective since $1/2$ is not in the image: it is positive but not the square of a rational.
This answer could use serious rewriting, because as it is it's really not clear. If someone read this and didn't already know the proof I doubt they'd understand what's going on.
– Najib Idrissi
Aug 19 '16 at 15:39
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
$f(-1)^2=f(1)$ implies that $f(-1)=1$ or $f(-1)=-1$. Suppose $f(-1)=1$. Let $x>0$, $f(x)=f(sqrt x)^2$. Implies that $f(x)$ is a square, $f(-x)=f(-1)f(x)>0$. Impossible. Since $f$ is surjective.
Suppose $f(-1)=-1, f(-x)=-f(sqrt x)^2$ and $f(x)=f(sqrt x)^2$ this implies that $f$ is not surjective since $1/2$ is not in the image: it is positive but not the square of a rational.
This answer could use serious rewriting, because as it is it's really not clear. If someone read this and didn't already know the proof I doubt they'd understand what's going on.
– Najib Idrissi
Aug 19 '16 at 15:39
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
$f(-1)^2=f(1)$ implies that $f(-1)=1$ or $f(-1)=-1$. Suppose $f(-1)=1$. Let $x>0$, $f(x)=f(sqrt x)^2$. Implies that $f(x)$ is a square, $f(-x)=f(-1)f(x)>0$. Impossible. Since $f$ is surjective.
Suppose $f(-1)=-1, f(-x)=-f(sqrt x)^2$ and $f(x)=f(sqrt x)^2$ this implies that $f$ is not surjective since $1/2$ is not in the image: it is positive but not the square of a rational.
$f(-1)^2=f(1)$ implies that $f(-1)=1$ or $f(-1)=-1$. Suppose $f(-1)=1$. Let $x>0$, $f(x)=f(sqrt x)^2$. Implies that $f(x)$ is a square, $f(-x)=f(-1)f(x)>0$. Impossible. Since $f$ is surjective.
Suppose $f(-1)=-1, f(-x)=-f(sqrt x)^2$ and $f(x)=f(sqrt x)^2$ this implies that $f$ is not surjective since $1/2$ is not in the image: it is positive but not the square of a rational.
edited Aug 19 '16 at 17:29
Brian M. Scott
453k38504904
453k38504904
answered Aug 19 '16 at 15:30
Tsemo Aristide
54.6k11444
54.6k11444
This answer could use serious rewriting, because as it is it's really not clear. If someone read this and didn't already know the proof I doubt they'd understand what's going on.
– Najib Idrissi
Aug 19 '16 at 15:39
add a comment |
This answer could use serious rewriting, because as it is it's really not clear. If someone read this and didn't already know the proof I doubt they'd understand what's going on.
– Najib Idrissi
Aug 19 '16 at 15:39
This answer could use serious rewriting, because as it is it's really not clear. If someone read this and didn't already know the proof I doubt they'd understand what's going on.
– Najib Idrissi
Aug 19 '16 at 15:39
This answer could use serious rewriting, because as it is it's really not clear. If someone read this and didn't already know the proof I doubt they'd understand what's going on.
– Najib Idrissi
Aug 19 '16 at 15:39
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1897212%2fdoes-there-exist-any-surjective-group-homomorphism-from-mathbb-r-onto%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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