If $Acong B$, then $Aotimes Ccong Botimes C$.











up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1












I think this is kind of true, since $squareotimes C$ is a functor, so it preserves the isomorphism.



But what if we consider the example, $mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$ is not isomorphic to $2mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$. Because the latter is trivial while the first is not.



We can also consider the exact sequences:
$$0tomathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}_2to0,$$
where the first map is simply multiple by 2,
and
$$0to2mathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}_2to0,$$
where the first map is the inclusion.
If we tensor by $mathbb{Z}_2$ we will get
$$mathbb{Z}_2tomathbb{Z}_2tomathbb{Z}_2to0$$
and



$$(0to)Xtomathbb{Z}_2tomathbb{Z}_2to0$$
respectively.



Apparently, the first one is the famous counterexample of non-left-exactness of tensor product. But the second one we just inject a submodule (ideal) to the whole module (ring). If $rotimes m$ is 0 in $mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$, then apparently it is 0 in $2mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$. So we have the left exactness of the tensor product. This is again weird, since the two exact sequences are isomorphic (by wiki), why do I have different result?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    @5xum but tensoring by $C$ is a functor in the category of $R$-modules, so it must preserve the isomorphism.
    – Xavier Yang
    Nov 22 at 14:53










  • Are ${Bbb Z}$ and ${Bbb Z}_2$ considered as $Bbb Z$ modules?
    – Wuestenfux
    Nov 22 at 14:54










  • @Wuestenfux Yes. So, you mean $2mathbb{Z}otimes_mathbb{Z}mathbb{Z}_2$ is also $mathbb{Z}_2$?
    – Xavier Yang
    Nov 22 at 14:56








  • 3




    Why is the second trivial? Shouldn’t $2 otimes 1$ be a nonzero element of $2 mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2$?
    – user328442
    Nov 22 at 15:01












  • You've implicitly assumed that $(-) otimes mathbb{Z}_2$ preserves inclusions, but it doesn't; in general tensoring with a module preserves monomorphisms iff it's exact iff the module is flat.
    – Qiaochu Yuan
    Nov 22 at 21:31















up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1












I think this is kind of true, since $squareotimes C$ is a functor, so it preserves the isomorphism.



But what if we consider the example, $mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$ is not isomorphic to $2mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$. Because the latter is trivial while the first is not.



We can also consider the exact sequences:
$$0tomathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}_2to0,$$
where the first map is simply multiple by 2,
and
$$0to2mathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}_2to0,$$
where the first map is the inclusion.
If we tensor by $mathbb{Z}_2$ we will get
$$mathbb{Z}_2tomathbb{Z}_2tomathbb{Z}_2to0$$
and



$$(0to)Xtomathbb{Z}_2tomathbb{Z}_2to0$$
respectively.



Apparently, the first one is the famous counterexample of non-left-exactness of tensor product. But the second one we just inject a submodule (ideal) to the whole module (ring). If $rotimes m$ is 0 in $mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$, then apparently it is 0 in $2mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$. So we have the left exactness of the tensor product. This is again weird, since the two exact sequences are isomorphic (by wiki), why do I have different result?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    @5xum but tensoring by $C$ is a functor in the category of $R$-modules, so it must preserve the isomorphism.
    – Xavier Yang
    Nov 22 at 14:53










  • Are ${Bbb Z}$ and ${Bbb Z}_2$ considered as $Bbb Z$ modules?
    – Wuestenfux
    Nov 22 at 14:54










  • @Wuestenfux Yes. So, you mean $2mathbb{Z}otimes_mathbb{Z}mathbb{Z}_2$ is also $mathbb{Z}_2$?
    – Xavier Yang
    Nov 22 at 14:56








  • 3




    Why is the second trivial? Shouldn’t $2 otimes 1$ be a nonzero element of $2 mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2$?
    – user328442
    Nov 22 at 15:01












  • You've implicitly assumed that $(-) otimes mathbb{Z}_2$ preserves inclusions, but it doesn't; in general tensoring with a module preserves monomorphisms iff it's exact iff the module is flat.
    – Qiaochu Yuan
    Nov 22 at 21:31













up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
6
down vote

favorite
1






1





I think this is kind of true, since $squareotimes C$ is a functor, so it preserves the isomorphism.



But what if we consider the example, $mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$ is not isomorphic to $2mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$. Because the latter is trivial while the first is not.



We can also consider the exact sequences:
$$0tomathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}_2to0,$$
where the first map is simply multiple by 2,
and
$$0to2mathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}_2to0,$$
where the first map is the inclusion.
If we tensor by $mathbb{Z}_2$ we will get
$$mathbb{Z}_2tomathbb{Z}_2tomathbb{Z}_2to0$$
and



$$(0to)Xtomathbb{Z}_2tomathbb{Z}_2to0$$
respectively.



Apparently, the first one is the famous counterexample of non-left-exactness of tensor product. But the second one we just inject a submodule (ideal) to the whole module (ring). If $rotimes m$ is 0 in $mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$, then apparently it is 0 in $2mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$. So we have the left exactness of the tensor product. This is again weird, since the two exact sequences are isomorphic (by wiki), why do I have different result?










share|cite|improve this question















I think this is kind of true, since $squareotimes C$ is a functor, so it preserves the isomorphism.



But what if we consider the example, $mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$ is not isomorphic to $2mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$. Because the latter is trivial while the first is not.



We can also consider the exact sequences:
$$0tomathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}_2to0,$$
where the first map is simply multiple by 2,
and
$$0to2mathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}_2to0,$$
where the first map is the inclusion.
If we tensor by $mathbb{Z}_2$ we will get
$$mathbb{Z}_2tomathbb{Z}_2tomathbb{Z}_2to0$$
and



$$(0to)Xtomathbb{Z}_2tomathbb{Z}_2to0$$
respectively.



Apparently, the first one is the famous counterexample of non-left-exactness of tensor product. But the second one we just inject a submodule (ideal) to the whole module (ring). If $rotimes m$ is 0 in $mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$, then apparently it is 0 in $2mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$. So we have the left exactness of the tensor product. This is again weird, since the two exact sequences are isomorphic (by wiki), why do I have different result?







abstract-algebra modules






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 29 at 13:56

























asked Nov 22 at 14:48









Xavier Yang

481314




481314








  • 1




    @5xum but tensoring by $C$ is a functor in the category of $R$-modules, so it must preserve the isomorphism.
    – Xavier Yang
    Nov 22 at 14:53










  • Are ${Bbb Z}$ and ${Bbb Z}_2$ considered as $Bbb Z$ modules?
    – Wuestenfux
    Nov 22 at 14:54










  • @Wuestenfux Yes. So, you mean $2mathbb{Z}otimes_mathbb{Z}mathbb{Z}_2$ is also $mathbb{Z}_2$?
    – Xavier Yang
    Nov 22 at 14:56








  • 3




    Why is the second trivial? Shouldn’t $2 otimes 1$ be a nonzero element of $2 mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2$?
    – user328442
    Nov 22 at 15:01












  • You've implicitly assumed that $(-) otimes mathbb{Z}_2$ preserves inclusions, but it doesn't; in general tensoring with a module preserves monomorphisms iff it's exact iff the module is flat.
    – Qiaochu Yuan
    Nov 22 at 21:31














  • 1




    @5xum but tensoring by $C$ is a functor in the category of $R$-modules, so it must preserve the isomorphism.
    – Xavier Yang
    Nov 22 at 14:53










  • Are ${Bbb Z}$ and ${Bbb Z}_2$ considered as $Bbb Z$ modules?
    – Wuestenfux
    Nov 22 at 14:54










  • @Wuestenfux Yes. So, you mean $2mathbb{Z}otimes_mathbb{Z}mathbb{Z}_2$ is also $mathbb{Z}_2$?
    – Xavier Yang
    Nov 22 at 14:56








  • 3




    Why is the second trivial? Shouldn’t $2 otimes 1$ be a nonzero element of $2 mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2$?
    – user328442
    Nov 22 at 15:01












  • You've implicitly assumed that $(-) otimes mathbb{Z}_2$ preserves inclusions, but it doesn't; in general tensoring with a module preserves monomorphisms iff it's exact iff the module is flat.
    – Qiaochu Yuan
    Nov 22 at 21:31








1




1




@5xum but tensoring by $C$ is a functor in the category of $R$-modules, so it must preserve the isomorphism.
– Xavier Yang
Nov 22 at 14:53




@5xum but tensoring by $C$ is a functor in the category of $R$-modules, so it must preserve the isomorphism.
– Xavier Yang
Nov 22 at 14:53












Are ${Bbb Z}$ and ${Bbb Z}_2$ considered as $Bbb Z$ modules?
– Wuestenfux
Nov 22 at 14:54




Are ${Bbb Z}$ and ${Bbb Z}_2$ considered as $Bbb Z$ modules?
– Wuestenfux
Nov 22 at 14:54












@Wuestenfux Yes. So, you mean $2mathbb{Z}otimes_mathbb{Z}mathbb{Z}_2$ is also $mathbb{Z}_2$?
– Xavier Yang
Nov 22 at 14:56






@Wuestenfux Yes. So, you mean $2mathbb{Z}otimes_mathbb{Z}mathbb{Z}_2$ is also $mathbb{Z}_2$?
– Xavier Yang
Nov 22 at 14:56






3




3




Why is the second trivial? Shouldn’t $2 otimes 1$ be a nonzero element of $2 mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2$?
– user328442
Nov 22 at 15:01






Why is the second trivial? Shouldn’t $2 otimes 1$ be a nonzero element of $2 mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2$?
– user328442
Nov 22 at 15:01














You've implicitly assumed that $(-) otimes mathbb{Z}_2$ preserves inclusions, but it doesn't; in general tensoring with a module preserves monomorphisms iff it's exact iff the module is flat.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Nov 22 at 21:31




You've implicitly assumed that $(-) otimes mathbb{Z}_2$ preserves inclusions, but it doesn't; in general tensoring with a module preserves monomorphisms iff it's exact iff the module is flat.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Nov 22 at 21:31










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
6
down vote



accepted










$2mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$ is not trivial. It is trivial inside of $mathbb Z otimes mathbb{Z}_2$, a subtle but important difference. The "proof" you might have in mind that it is trivial would be



$$ 2n otimes 0 = 0 text{ and } 2n otimes 1 = n otimes 2 = 0 $$



but $n otimes 2$ is only an element of $2mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$ if $n$ is even. Otherwise, you need the ambient module $mathbb Z otimes mathbb{Z}_2$ to make sense of it.



Secondly, for your exact sequences. Do keep in mind that the isomorphism $2mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}$ is a different map than the inclusion $2mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}$.



So if we take the exact sequence



$$ 2mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}_2to 0 $$



where the leftmost map is inclusion and tensor with $mathbb{Z}_2$, we get the following commutative diagram
$require{AMScd}$
begin{CD}
2mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 @>text{inclusion}>> mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 @>>> mathbb{Z}_2otimes mathbb{Z}_2 @>>> 0 \
@VVV @VVV @VVV @VVV \
mathbb{Z}_2 @>times 2>> mathbb{Z}_2 @>>> mathbb{Z}_2 @>>>0
end{CD}

where the rows are exact and the vertical arrows are isomorphisms.



That map $mathbb{Z}_2 xrightarrow{times 2} mathbb{Z}_2$ on the bottom is the zero map. To see that this must be the case, let us note that the isomorphisms $to mathbb{Z}_2$ are



$$ begin{array}{ccc}
2mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 & longrightarrow & mathbb{Z}_2 \
2n otimes 0 &longmapsto & 0 \
2n otimes 1 & longmapsto & n bmod 2
end{array}
qquad text{and} qquad
begin{array}{ccc}
mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 & longrightarrow & mathbb{Z}_2 \
n otimes 0 &longmapsto & 0 \
n otimes 1 & longmapsto & n bmod 2
end{array} $$



So the map on the bottom we can compute by looking at the composition $mathbb{Z}_2 to 2mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 to mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 to mathbb{Z}_2$ and this composition takes $1 mapsto 2 otimes 1 mapsto 2 otimes 1 mapsto 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    $2mathbb{Z}$ and $mathbb{Z}_2$ are not isomorphic as $mathbb{Z}$-modules. Take a generator of each module and multiply it by 2.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • Yes, this is clear.
      – Xavier Yang
      Nov 22 at 17:16











    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%2f3009225%2fif-a-cong-b-then-a-otimes-c-cong-b-otimes-c%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    6
    down vote



    accepted










    $2mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$ is not trivial. It is trivial inside of $mathbb Z otimes mathbb{Z}_2$, a subtle but important difference. The "proof" you might have in mind that it is trivial would be



    $$ 2n otimes 0 = 0 text{ and } 2n otimes 1 = n otimes 2 = 0 $$



    but $n otimes 2$ is only an element of $2mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$ if $n$ is even. Otherwise, you need the ambient module $mathbb Z otimes mathbb{Z}_2$ to make sense of it.



    Secondly, for your exact sequences. Do keep in mind that the isomorphism $2mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}$ is a different map than the inclusion $2mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}$.



    So if we take the exact sequence



    $$ 2mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}_2to 0 $$



    where the leftmost map is inclusion and tensor with $mathbb{Z}_2$, we get the following commutative diagram
    $require{AMScd}$
    begin{CD}
    2mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 @>text{inclusion}>> mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 @>>> mathbb{Z}_2otimes mathbb{Z}_2 @>>> 0 \
    @VVV @VVV @VVV @VVV \
    mathbb{Z}_2 @>times 2>> mathbb{Z}_2 @>>> mathbb{Z}_2 @>>>0
    end{CD}

    where the rows are exact and the vertical arrows are isomorphisms.



    That map $mathbb{Z}_2 xrightarrow{times 2} mathbb{Z}_2$ on the bottom is the zero map. To see that this must be the case, let us note that the isomorphisms $to mathbb{Z}_2$ are



    $$ begin{array}{ccc}
    2mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 & longrightarrow & mathbb{Z}_2 \
    2n otimes 0 &longmapsto & 0 \
    2n otimes 1 & longmapsto & n bmod 2
    end{array}
    qquad text{and} qquad
    begin{array}{ccc}
    mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 & longrightarrow & mathbb{Z}_2 \
    n otimes 0 &longmapsto & 0 \
    n otimes 1 & longmapsto & n bmod 2
    end{array} $$



    So the map on the bottom we can compute by looking at the composition $mathbb{Z}_2 to 2mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 to mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 to mathbb{Z}_2$ and this composition takes $1 mapsto 2 otimes 1 mapsto 2 otimes 1 mapsto 0$.






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      up vote
      6
      down vote



      accepted










      $2mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$ is not trivial. It is trivial inside of $mathbb Z otimes mathbb{Z}_2$, a subtle but important difference. The "proof" you might have in mind that it is trivial would be



      $$ 2n otimes 0 = 0 text{ and } 2n otimes 1 = n otimes 2 = 0 $$



      but $n otimes 2$ is only an element of $2mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$ if $n$ is even. Otherwise, you need the ambient module $mathbb Z otimes mathbb{Z}_2$ to make sense of it.



      Secondly, for your exact sequences. Do keep in mind that the isomorphism $2mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}$ is a different map than the inclusion $2mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}$.



      So if we take the exact sequence



      $$ 2mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}_2to 0 $$



      where the leftmost map is inclusion and tensor with $mathbb{Z}_2$, we get the following commutative diagram
      $require{AMScd}$
      begin{CD}
      2mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 @>text{inclusion}>> mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 @>>> mathbb{Z}_2otimes mathbb{Z}_2 @>>> 0 \
      @VVV @VVV @VVV @VVV \
      mathbb{Z}_2 @>times 2>> mathbb{Z}_2 @>>> mathbb{Z}_2 @>>>0
      end{CD}

      where the rows are exact and the vertical arrows are isomorphisms.



      That map $mathbb{Z}_2 xrightarrow{times 2} mathbb{Z}_2$ on the bottom is the zero map. To see that this must be the case, let us note that the isomorphisms $to mathbb{Z}_2$ are



      $$ begin{array}{ccc}
      2mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 & longrightarrow & mathbb{Z}_2 \
      2n otimes 0 &longmapsto & 0 \
      2n otimes 1 & longmapsto & n bmod 2
      end{array}
      qquad text{and} qquad
      begin{array}{ccc}
      mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 & longrightarrow & mathbb{Z}_2 \
      n otimes 0 &longmapsto & 0 \
      n otimes 1 & longmapsto & n bmod 2
      end{array} $$



      So the map on the bottom we can compute by looking at the composition $mathbb{Z}_2 to 2mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 to mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 to mathbb{Z}_2$ and this composition takes $1 mapsto 2 otimes 1 mapsto 2 otimes 1 mapsto 0$.






      share|cite|improve this answer























        up vote
        6
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        6
        down vote



        accepted






        $2mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$ is not trivial. It is trivial inside of $mathbb Z otimes mathbb{Z}_2$, a subtle but important difference. The "proof" you might have in mind that it is trivial would be



        $$ 2n otimes 0 = 0 text{ and } 2n otimes 1 = n otimes 2 = 0 $$



        but $n otimes 2$ is only an element of $2mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$ if $n$ is even. Otherwise, you need the ambient module $mathbb Z otimes mathbb{Z}_2$ to make sense of it.



        Secondly, for your exact sequences. Do keep in mind that the isomorphism $2mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}$ is a different map than the inclusion $2mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}$.



        So if we take the exact sequence



        $$ 2mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}_2to 0 $$



        where the leftmost map is inclusion and tensor with $mathbb{Z}_2$, we get the following commutative diagram
        $require{AMScd}$
        begin{CD}
        2mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 @>text{inclusion}>> mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 @>>> mathbb{Z}_2otimes mathbb{Z}_2 @>>> 0 \
        @VVV @VVV @VVV @VVV \
        mathbb{Z}_2 @>times 2>> mathbb{Z}_2 @>>> mathbb{Z}_2 @>>>0
        end{CD}

        where the rows are exact and the vertical arrows are isomorphisms.



        That map $mathbb{Z}_2 xrightarrow{times 2} mathbb{Z}_2$ on the bottom is the zero map. To see that this must be the case, let us note that the isomorphisms $to mathbb{Z}_2$ are



        $$ begin{array}{ccc}
        2mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 & longrightarrow & mathbb{Z}_2 \
        2n otimes 0 &longmapsto & 0 \
        2n otimes 1 & longmapsto & n bmod 2
        end{array}
        qquad text{and} qquad
        begin{array}{ccc}
        mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 & longrightarrow & mathbb{Z}_2 \
        n otimes 0 &longmapsto & 0 \
        n otimes 1 & longmapsto & n bmod 2
        end{array} $$



        So the map on the bottom we can compute by looking at the composition $mathbb{Z}_2 to 2mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 to mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 to mathbb{Z}_2$ and this composition takes $1 mapsto 2 otimes 1 mapsto 2 otimes 1 mapsto 0$.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        $2mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$ is not trivial. It is trivial inside of $mathbb Z otimes mathbb{Z}_2$, a subtle but important difference. The "proof" you might have in mind that it is trivial would be



        $$ 2n otimes 0 = 0 text{ and } 2n otimes 1 = n otimes 2 = 0 $$



        but $n otimes 2$ is only an element of $2mathbb{Z}otimesmathbb{Z}_2$ if $n$ is even. Otherwise, you need the ambient module $mathbb Z otimes mathbb{Z}_2$ to make sense of it.



        Secondly, for your exact sequences. Do keep in mind that the isomorphism $2mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}$ is a different map than the inclusion $2mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}$.



        So if we take the exact sequence



        $$ 2mathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}tomathbb{Z}_2to 0 $$



        where the leftmost map is inclusion and tensor with $mathbb{Z}_2$, we get the following commutative diagram
        $require{AMScd}$
        begin{CD}
        2mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 @>text{inclusion}>> mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 @>>> mathbb{Z}_2otimes mathbb{Z}_2 @>>> 0 \
        @VVV @VVV @VVV @VVV \
        mathbb{Z}_2 @>times 2>> mathbb{Z}_2 @>>> mathbb{Z}_2 @>>>0
        end{CD}

        where the rows are exact and the vertical arrows are isomorphisms.



        That map $mathbb{Z}_2 xrightarrow{times 2} mathbb{Z}_2$ on the bottom is the zero map. To see that this must be the case, let us note that the isomorphisms $to mathbb{Z}_2$ are



        $$ begin{array}{ccc}
        2mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 & longrightarrow & mathbb{Z}_2 \
        2n otimes 0 &longmapsto & 0 \
        2n otimes 1 & longmapsto & n bmod 2
        end{array}
        qquad text{and} qquad
        begin{array}{ccc}
        mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 & longrightarrow & mathbb{Z}_2 \
        n otimes 0 &longmapsto & 0 \
        n otimes 1 & longmapsto & n bmod 2
        end{array} $$



        So the map on the bottom we can compute by looking at the composition $mathbb{Z}_2 to 2mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 to mathbb{Z} otimes mathbb{Z}_2 to mathbb{Z}_2$ and this composition takes $1 mapsto 2 otimes 1 mapsto 2 otimes 1 mapsto 0$.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 22 at 16:20









        Trevor Gunn

        14.1k32046




        14.1k32046






















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            $2mathbb{Z}$ and $mathbb{Z}_2$ are not isomorphic as $mathbb{Z}$-modules. Take a generator of each module and multiply it by 2.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • Yes, this is clear.
              – Xavier Yang
              Nov 22 at 17:16















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            $2mathbb{Z}$ and $mathbb{Z}_2$ are not isomorphic as $mathbb{Z}$-modules. Take a generator of each module and multiply it by 2.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • Yes, this is clear.
              – Xavier Yang
              Nov 22 at 17:16













            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            $2mathbb{Z}$ and $mathbb{Z}_2$ are not isomorphic as $mathbb{Z}$-modules. Take a generator of each module and multiply it by 2.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            $2mathbb{Z}$ and $mathbb{Z}_2$ are not isomorphic as $mathbb{Z}$-modules. Take a generator of each module and multiply it by 2.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Nov 22 at 15:54









            Joel Pereira

            50819




            50819












            • Yes, this is clear.
              – Xavier Yang
              Nov 22 at 17:16


















            • Yes, this is clear.
              – Xavier Yang
              Nov 22 at 17:16
















            Yes, this is clear.
            – Xavier Yang
            Nov 22 at 17:16




            Yes, this is clear.
            – Xavier Yang
            Nov 22 at 17:16


















            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%2f3009225%2fif-a-cong-b-then-a-otimes-c-cong-b-otimes-c%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