How to show that the category of $\mathbb{Z}$-modules is isomorphic to the catefory of abelian groups. It seems obvious for me that a $\mathbb{Z}$-module is an abelian group and conversely. But I don't know how to write it using functors.
2026-03-25 03:24:06.1774409046
The category of Z-modules is isomorphic to the category Ab
653 Views Asked by user383659 https://math.techqa.club/user/user383659/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in ABSTRACT-ALGEBRA
- Feel lost in the scheme of the reducibility of polynomials over $\Bbb Z$ or $\Bbb Q$
- Integral Domain and Degree of Polynomials in $R[X]$
- Fixed points of automorphisms of $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta)$
- Group with order $pq$ has subgroups of order $p$ and $q$
- A commutative ring is prime if and only if it is a domain.
- Conjugacy class formula
- Find gcd and invertible elements of a ring.
- Extending a linear action to monomials of higher degree
- polynomial remainder theorem proof, is it legit?
- $(2,1+\sqrt{-5}) \not \cong \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]$ as $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]$-module
Related Questions in CATEGORY-THEORY
- (From Awodey)$\sf C \cong D$ be equivalent categories then $\sf C$ has binary products if and only if $\sf D$ does.
- Continuous functor for a Grothendieck topology
- Showing that initial object is also terminal in preadditive category
- Is $ X \to \mathrm{CH}^i (X) $ covariant or contravariant?
- What concept does a natural transformation between two functors between two monoids viewed as categories correspond to?
- Please explain Mac Lane notation on page 48
- How do you prove that category of representations of $G_m$ is equivalent to the category of finite dimensional graded vector spaces?
- Terminal object for Prin(X,G) (principal $G$-bundles)
- Show that a functor which preserves colimits has a right adjoint
- Show that a certain functor preserves colimits and finite limits by verifying it on the stalks of sheaves
Related Questions in ABELIAN-GROUPS
- How to construct a group whose "size" grows between polynomially and exponentially.
- $G$ abelian when $Z(G)$ is a proper subset of $G$?
- Invariant factor decomposition of quotient group of two subgroups of $\mathbb{Z}^n$.
- Computing Pontryagin Duals
- Determine the rank and the elementary divisors of each of the following groups.
- existence of subgroups of finite abelian groups
- Theorem of structure for abelian groups
- In the category of abelian groups the coequalizer $\text{Coker}(f, 0)$, $f: A \to B$ is simply $B/f(A)$.
- Commutator subgroup and simple groups
- Are there any interesting examples of functions on Abelian groups that are not homomorphisms?
Related Questions in FUNCTORS
- Continuous functor for a Grothendieck topology
- Two morphisms $f, g : M \to L$ are equal as long as they are equal under the limit $L$.
- Co- and contravariance of vectors vs co- and contravariant functors
- Discrete simplicial sets: equivalent definitions, request for a proof
- Simplicial sets, injectivity
- When can functors fail to be adjoints if their hom sets are bijective?
- Example of a functor that doesn't reflect isomorphism
- Equality of functors
- Example of functor not full not faithfull
- Bijective on objects implies essentially surjection
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
The are many different foundations where mathematics (particularly, category theory, algebra) can be done. But usually the classical category theory (and algebra) is based on the set theory or one of its standard variations (for example, including classes or universes etc). So, by default, all questions on MathStackExchange (I guess) are perceived by the community within the framework of the set theory.
In a standard form of the set theory, by a standard definition, a $\mathbb{Z}$-module is not an abelian group (and, similarly, an abelian group is not a $\mathbb{Z}$-module). The reason is that an abelian group is a set with one operation and a $\mathbb{Z}$-module is a set with two operations (one of which is an action of $\mathbb{Z}$, i.e., an external operation). A set with one operation can't be a set with two operations, because the first is a pair, but the second is a triplet.
I do not want to seem an excessive formalist; on the contrary, I believe that it is one of the most important effects of the category theory, that it provides convinient tools for understanding when formally different objects are mathematically the same. It is the case when their categories are...equivalent. Isomorphism is even a stronger property.
So, by definition, to prove that abelian groups are mathematically the same as $\mathbb{Z}$-modules, it is sufficient to find the two functors $\mathcal{F}\colon\mathbf{Ab}\to(\mathbb{Z}-\mathbf{Mod})$ and $\mathcal{G}\colon(\mathbb{Z}-\mathbf{Mod})\to\mathbf{Ab}$, such that $\mathcal{G}\circ\mathcal{F}=\text{I}_{\mathbf{Ab}}$ and $\mathcal{F}\circ\mathcal{G}=\text{I}_{\mathbb{Z}-\mathbf{Mod}}$. In order to find such functors you should think how to construct in a natural way a $\mathbb{Z}$-module by an abelian group and vice versa. If you are not familiar with the categorical notions (functor, composition, identity functor, forgetful functor), then I recommend the textbook of Mac Lane "Categories for the working mathematician".