Does there exist any surjective group homomorphism from $(mathbb R^* , .)$ onto $(mathbb Q^* , .)$?











up vote
4
down vote

favorite
2












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)?










share|cite|improve this question




























    up vote
    4
    down vote

    favorite
    2












    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)?










    share|cite|improve this question


























      up vote
      4
      down vote

      favorite
      2









      up vote
      4
      down vote

      favorite
      2






      2





      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)?










      share|cite|improve this question















      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






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 19 at 10:11









      Martin Sleziak

      44.4k7115268




      44.4k7115268










      asked Aug 19 '16 at 15:15







      user228168





























          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer






























            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • 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


















            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • 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













            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%2f1897212%2fdoes-there-exist-any-surjective-group-homomorphism-from-mathbb-r-onto%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
            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer



























              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer

























                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.






                share|cite|improve this answer














                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.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Aug 22 '16 at 15:58


























                community wiki





                3 revs, 2 users 75%
                Hanul Jeon























                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer





















                    • 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















                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer





















                    • 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













                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    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.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    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


















                    • 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










                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer























                    • 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

















                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer























                    • 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















                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    $f(-1)^2=f(1)$ 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.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    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




















                    • 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




















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    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





















































                    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

                    Quarter-circle Tiles

                    build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

                    Mont Emei