# Prove that the additive group $ℚ$ is not isomorphic with the multiplicative group $ℚ^*$. [duplicate]

1. Prove that the additive group $ℚ$ is not isomorphic with the multiplicative group $ℚ^*$.

2. Prove that $ℚ^*_{>0}$ is not isomorphic with $ℚ$.

• Something to ponder: This question has four up-votes. It also has four answers. Now, I upvoted this question, but didn't answer it...so... Mar 19, 2013 at 15:34

For example, the equation $x+x=a$ has a solution in $ℚ$, unlike $x \cdot x=a$ in $ℚ^*_{>0}$.

• I've never thought about it this way before - it is really very, very elegant! Mar 19, 2013 at 11:59
• @user1729: Oh! This is an usual trick. Mar 19, 2013 at 14:01
• @einpoklum: Thank you. This is more understandable. Mar 19, 2013 at 16:42

If $t$ means the torsion subgroup of a group so $$t(\mathbb Q,+)=\{0\}\neq \{\pm1\}=t(\mathbb Q^*,\cdot)$$

• Thanks Don. Honestly, I read the Chapter which contain free abelian and pure and divisible groups in Rotman's book. And I know these points from there. All is for J. Rotman :-) Mar 19, 2013 at 18:12
• Nice, Babak! +1 :-) Mar 20, 2013 at 0:13
• Like Ittay Weiss' answer, this does not solve 2. Mar 20, 2013 at 8:41
• Could you provide a link to a proof that shows that two groups are not isomorphic if their torsion subgroups are not equal? Feb 14, 2015 at 5:44

In addition to other good answers, it might be worthwhile to observe that not only are these groups not exactly isomorphic, but, in fact, they are wildly different: the positive multiplicative group is free on the primes, while the additive group is (uniquely-) divisible, meaning that for every integer $n$ and $a$ in the additive group, $n\cdot x=a$ has a (unique) solution $x$. That is, the positive multiplicative group is projective (implied by free-ness), while the additive group is injective (implied by divisibility... this is Baer's criterion). So one really should feel that they are completely different.

• +1 For a very insightful, nice answer...alas, it seems to be a little advanced for someone asking what the OP did. Mar 19, 2013 at 18:05
• @DonAntonio, Yes, you are certainly correct, but I think it's not a bad thing to mention "fancy" things "prematurely", so that the next time a beginner hears/sees those words, they're just a touch less alien. And there's the point to be made that these groups are not different "on a mere technicality". And on some days I have the opinion that whenever I have a strong impulse to comment/rant, I should not entirely repress it, since it might be informative to someone else, if only as a bad example. :) Mar 19, 2013 at 18:11
• For what it's worth, as someone who does topology mostly, my group theory has gotten rusty and I feel that answer like this is exactly what I needed to read. So, while the OP may not have benefited from this answer, I did. Thanks, and +1. Mar 19, 2013 at 19:22
• @JasonDeVito, Thx for the feedback! :) Mar 19, 2013 at 19:28
• Excellent answer @paulgarrett . I particularly like the observation that "the positive multiplicative group is free on the primes" Oct 7, 2013 at 0:00

If $\phi$ were such mapping (i.e. $\phi :\mathbb{Q} \to \mathbb{Q^*}$ is an isomorphism it means that it must satisfy all the properties of isomorphism), there would be a rational number $a$ such that $\phi(a)=-1$.

$$-1=\phi(a)=\phi \bigg(\frac{1}{2}a+\frac{1}{2}a\bigg)=\phi \bigg(\frac{1}{2}a\bigg)\phi \bigg(\frac{1}{2}a\bigg)=\bigg[\phi\bigg(\frac{1}{2}a\bigg)\bigg]^{2}$$

Is there any rational number whose square is $-1$?

If you think about it, it is the simplest solution by contradiction.

• This counterexample is ok but $\phi(a)=-1$ is not allowed as image is to be from positive rationals. By the way, $\phi(a)=2$ can work well. Nov 2, 2020 at 7:36

Hint: Count elements of finite order.

• This answers 1. but not 2. Mar 20, 2013 at 8:39

I give you two different proofs to each statement.

1. Reason a) Only $0$ has finite order in $\mathbb{Q}$, but ${-1,1}$ has finite order in $\mathbb{Q}^*$.
Reason b) $\mathbb{Q}$ is indecomposable, but $\mathbb{Q}^* = \mathbb{Q}^*_{>0}\oplus \mathbb{Z}_2$ is decomposable.
2. Reason a) $\mathbb{Q}^*_{>0}$ is a free abelian group on $\mathbb{N}$ and $\mathbb{Q}$ is not free abelian.
Reason b) $\mathbb{Q}$ is indecomposable, but $\mathbb{Q}^*_{>0}$ is decomposable (since it's free abelian on $\mathbb{N}$).
{"ft_lang_label":"__label__en","ft_lang_prob":0.89302707,"math_prob":0.9884752,"size":4694,"snap":"2023-40-2023-50","text_gpt3_token_len":1471,"char_repetition_ratio":0.15415779,"word_repetition_ratio":0.059945505,"special_character_ratio":0.31721348,"punctuation_ratio":0.14106584,"nsfw_num_words":0,"has_unicode_error":false,"math_prob_llama3":0.9989986,"pos_list":[0],"im_url_duplicate_count":[null],"WARC_HEADER":"{\"WARC-Type\":\"response\",\"WARC-Date\":\"2023-11-30T08:01:29Z\",\"WARC-Record-ID\":\"<urn:uuid:3c06ddaa-e3c2-40d9-a823-2558aa051b4f>\",\"Content-Length\":\"210001\",\"Content-Type\":\"application/http; msgtype=response\",\"WARC-Warcinfo-ID\":\"<urn:uuid:9cbf9337-7fd1-4d00-90a0-7b654878abb6>\",\"WARC-Concurrent-To\":\"<urn:uuid:5e8e8191-0dc2-4afe-bb05-169e5945e730>\",\"WARC-IP-Address\":\"104.18.43.226\",\"WARC-Target-URI\":\"https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/334686/prove-that-the-additive-group-%E2%84%9A-is-not-isomorphic-with-the-multiplicative-grou/334691\",\"WARC-Payload-Digest\":\"sha1:2WQDHU5QWV6GTESGC3MWNELXKFCY4CAL\",\"WARC-Block-Digest\":\"sha1:K3M2DWU64BULC5X33ZHGTJHHH72G5BNE\",\"WARC-Identified-Payload-Type\":\"text/html\",\"warc_filename\":\"/cc_download/warc_2023/CC-MAIN-2023-50/CC-MAIN-2023-50_segments_1700679100172.28_warc_CC-MAIN-20231130062948-20231130092948-00318.warc.gz\"}"}