Homomorphisms and Isomorphisms

Study Sheet

Homomorphisms and Isomorphisms

Structure-preserving maps, kernels and images, and telling groups apart

Homomorphisms

Concept
Homomorphism

A function φ:G→H\varphi: G \to H between groups is a homomorphism if φ(ab)=φ(a)φ(b)\varphi(ab) = \varphi(a)\varphi(b) for all a,b∈Ga, b \in G, where the left-hand product uses GG's operation and the right-hand product uses HH's.

This single equation is the whole idea of the course from here on: it says the map respects multiplication, so anything built from multiplying elements in GG — orders, generated subgroups, the shape of the Cayley table — has a matching picture in HH. A homomorphism can lose information (several elements of GG may land on one element of HH) but it can never scramble the operation. Checking the equation on every pair looks expensive, but because every element of GG is built by multiplying generators, it is enough to check it on a generating set, as the third example below shows. The rest of this topic is about what a homomorphism preserves, and when it preserves everything.

Example
Reduction mod 55

Let φ:Z→Z5\varphi: \mathbb Z \to \mathbb Z_5 send kk to its remainder mod 55. Check it on a=8,b=19a = 8, b = 19: φ(8)=3\varphi(8) = 3 and φ(19)=4\varphi(19) = 4. Directly, φ(8+19)=φ(27)=2\varphi(8 + 19) = \varphi(27) = 2, and going the other way, φ(8)+φ(19)=3+4=7≡2(mod5)\varphi(8) + \varphi(19) = 3 + 4 = 7 \equiv 2 \pmod 5 as well — the two routes to the answer agree, as the homomorphism equation demands for every pair, not just this one.

Example
The determinant is a homomorphism

For φ:GL2(Q)→Q×\varphi: GL_2(\mathbb Q) \to \mathbb Q^{\times} given by φ(M)=det⁡M\varphi(M) = \det M, take A=(1201)A = \begin{pmatrix}1&2\\0&1\end{pmatrix} and B=(1031)B = \begin{pmatrix}1&0\\3&1\end{pmatrix}. Then AB=(7231)AB = \begin{pmatrix}7&2\\3&1\end{pmatrix}, so det⁡(AB)=7−6=1\det(AB) = 7 - 6 = 1, while det⁡A⋅det⁡B=1⋅1=1\det A \cdot \det B = 1 \cdot 1 = 1: they agree. det⁡(AB)=det⁡Adet⁡B\det(AB) = \det A \det B is a theorem of linear algebra, and it says exactly that det⁡\det carries matrix multiplication to real multiplication — the homomorphism property in disguise.

Example
Finding all homomorphisms Z6→Z4\mathbb Z_6 \to \mathbb Z_4

A homomorphism φ:Z6→Z4\varphi: \mathbb Z_6 \to \mathbb Z_4 is determined by φ(1)\varphi(1), since every element of Z6\mathbb Z_6 is a multiple of the generator 11. Applying φ\varphi to 6⋅1=06 \cdot 1 = 0 forces 6φ(1)≡0(mod4)6\varphi(1) \equiv 0 \pmod 4, so φ(1)\varphi(1) must have order dividing gcd⁡(6,4)=2\gcd(6, 4) = 2 in Z4\mathbb Z_4. Only 00 and 22 have order dividing 22, giving exactly 22 homomorphisms: the trivial map φ(k)=0\varphi(k) = 0, and φ(k)=2k mod 4\varphi(k) = 2k \bmod 4. Checking the second one stays consistent all the way around: φ(1)=2,φ(2)=0,φ(3)=2,φ(4)=0,φ(5)=2,φ(6)=φ(0)=0\varphi(1) = 2, \varphi(2) = 0, \varphi(3) = 2, \varphi(4) = 0, \varphi(5) = 2, \varphi(6) = \varphi(0) = 0.

Side note
Where it goes wrong

It is tempting to treat any "nice-looking" formula as a homomorphism. The map φ:Z→Z\varphi: \mathbb Z \to \mathbb Z, φ(n)=n+1\varphi(n) = n + 1, looks structure-respecting, but φ(2)+φ(3)=3+4=7\varphi(2) + \varphi(3) = 3 + 4 = 7 while φ(2+3)=φ(5)=6\varphi(2 + 3) = \varphi(5) = 6: they disagree, so φ\varphi is not a homomorphism — it does not even send 00 to 00. The equation φ(ab)=φ(a)φ(b)\varphi(ab) = \varphi(a)\varphi(b) must hold for literally every pair; checking it on a few values is never a proof, and checking it only on a generating set is only valid once you know the map is well defined there, as in the Z6→Z4\mathbb Z_6 \to \mathbb Z_4 example above.

Try it
Try it: homomorphism or not

Is φ:(R×,×)→(R,+)\varphi: (\mathbb R^{\times}, \times) \to (\mathbb R, +) given by φ(x)=ln⁡∣x∣\varphi(x) = \ln|x| a homomorphism?

Show the answer

Yes: for any nonzero x,yx, y, φ(xy)=ln⁡∣xy∣=ln⁡(∣x∣∣y∣)=ln⁡∣x∣+ln⁡∣y∣=φ(x)+φ(y)\varphi(xy) = \ln|xy| = \ln(|x||y|) = \ln|x| + \ln|y| = \varphi(x) + \varphi(y), using that ln⁡\ln turns products into sums. So φ\varphi carries the multiplicative structure of R×\mathbb R^{\times} onto the additive structure of R\mathbb R — the answer is yes.

Kernel and Image

Concept
Kernel and image

For a homomorphism φ:G→H\varphi: G \to H, the kernel is ker⁡φ={g∈G:φ(g)=eH}\ker\varphi = \{g \in G : \varphi(g) = e_H\} and the image is im⁡φ={φ(g):g∈G}⊆H\operatorname{im}\varphi = \{\varphi(g) : g \in G\} \subseteq H. Both are subgroups (proved in Why It Works): ker⁡φ\ker\varphi is a subgroup of GG, im⁡φ\operatorname{im}\varphi is a subgroup of HH, and φ\varphi is injective exactly when ker⁡φ={eG}\ker\varphi = \{e_G\}.

The kernel measures how far φ\varphi is from being injective: everything in the kernel collapses onto eHe_H, so the kernel is the "blind spot" of the map. The image measures how much of HH gets hit at all. Testing injectivity through the kernel is far cheaper than comparing all pairs of elements — one subset of GG to inspect instead of ∣G∣2|G|^2 pairs — which is why the kernel, not a direct comparison, is how injectivity gets checked in practice. The kernel will turn out to be more than just a subgroup: it is closed under conjugation by every element of GG, the property that Topic 7 names normal and uses to build quotient groups.

Example
The fibers of reduction mod 44
012345670123
The two shaded elements of Z8 map to 0 — the kernel; the other six pair up onto the rest of Z4.

Let φ:Z8→Z4\varphi: \mathbb Z_8 \to \mathbb Z_4 send kk to k mod 4k \bmod 4. Then ker⁡φ={0,4}\ker\varphi = \{0, 4\}, since those are exactly the elements sent to 00, so ∣ker⁡φ∣=2|\ker\varphi| = 2. Every residue 0,1,2,30, 1, 2, 3 is hit (by kk and k+4k + 4 alike), so im⁡φ=Z4\operatorname{im}\varphi = \mathbb Z_4 and ∣im⁡φ∣=4|\operatorname{im}\varphi| = 4. Notice ∣ker⁡φ∣⋅∣im⁡φ∣=2⋅4=8=∣Z8∣|\ker\varphi| \cdot |\operatorname{im}\varphi| = 2 \cdot 4 = 8 = |\mathbb Z_8| — no coincidence; it previews the counting identity behind the First Isomorphism Theorem.

Example
An injective homomorphism that is not surjective

Let φ:Z→Z\varphi: \mathbb Z \to \mathbb Z send kk to 3k3k; it is a homomorphism of (Z,+)(\mathbb Z, +) since 3(a+b)=3a+3b3(a + b) = 3a + 3b. If 3k=03k = 0 then k=0k = 0, so ker⁡φ={0}\ker\varphi = \{0\} and φ\varphi is injective. But im⁡φ=3Z={…,−3,0,3,6,…}\operatorname{im}\varphi = 3\mathbb Z = \{\ldots, -3, 0, 3, 6, \ldots\}, not all of Z\mathbb Z: for instance 1∉im⁡φ1 \notin \operatorname{im}\varphi, since 3k=13k = 1 has no integer solution. Injective does not imply surjective.

Example
Kernel of the sign homomorphism on S3S_3

For the sign homomorphism sgn⁡:S3→{1,−1}\operatorname{sgn}: S_3 \to \{1, -1\}, the kernel is ker⁡(sgn⁡)={e,(1 2 3),(1 3 2)}\ker(\operatorname{sgn}) = \{e, (1\,2\,3), (1\,3\,2)\} — the even permutations, also called A3A_3 — since those are the only elements of S3S_3 with sign +1+1. The image is all of {1,−1}\{1, -1\}, because the transposition (1 2)(1\,2) has sign −1-1. So ∣ker⁡(sgn⁡)∣=3|\ker(\operatorname{sgn})| = 3 and ∣im⁡(sgn⁡)∣=2|\operatorname{im}(\operatorname{sgn})| = 2, and again 3⋅2=6=∣S3∣3 \cdot 2 = 6 = |S_3|.

Side note
Where it goes wrong

The kernel is a subset of the DOMAIN GG, not the codomain HH — it is easy to write ker⁡φ={eH}\ker\varphi = \{e_H\} out of habit, confusing the single target point eHe_H with the (often large) set of inputs φ\varphi sends there. For φ:Z8→Z4\varphi: \mathbb Z_8 \to \mathbb Z_4 above, ker⁡φ={0,4}⊆Z8\ker\varphi = \{0, 4\} \subseteq \mathbb Z_8, two elements, not the one-element set {0}⊆Z4\{0\} \subseteq \mathbb Z_4 that "φ(g)=eH\varphi(g) = e_H" might suggest at a glance.

Try it
Try it: kernel and image

Let φ:Z8→Z8\varphi: \mathbb Z_8 \to \mathbb Z_8 send kk to 2k mod 82k \bmod 8. Find ker⁡φ\ker\varphi and im⁡φ\operatorname{im}\varphi.

Show the answer

Solve 2k≡0(mod8)2k \equiv 0 \pmod 8: this holds exactly when k∈{0,4}k \in \{0, 4\}, so ker⁡φ={0,4}\ker\varphi = \mathbf{\{0, 4\}}. The image consists of all even residues, im⁡φ={0,2,4,6}\operatorname{im}\varphi = \mathbf{\{0, 2, 4, 6\}}, and indeed ∣ker⁡φ∣⋅∣im⁡φ∣=2⋅4=8=∣Z8∣|\ker\varphi| \cdot |\operatorname{im}\varphi| = 2 \cdot 4 = 8 = |\mathbb Z_8|.

Isomorphisms

Concept
Isomorphism

A homomorphism φ:G→H\varphi: G \to H is an isomorphism if it is also a bijection; then GG and HH are called isomorphic, written G≅HG \cong H. Isomorphic groups have identical Cayley tables up to relabeling elements, so every group-theoretic fact about one transfers to the other.

Isomorphism is the right notion of "the same group": G≅HG \cong H via the identity map (reflexive), φ−1:H→G\varphi^{-1}: H \to G is an isomorphism whenever φ\varphi is (symmetric), and composing two isomorphisms gives another (transitive) — so ≅\cong is an equivalence relation, and group theory really classifies groups only up to this relation, not up to having identical elements. Proving G≅HG \cong H needs one explicit bijective homomorphism; proving G≇HG \not\cong H, which the next section takes up, needs only a single mismatched invariant. Being a bijection is not enough on its own — the sidenote below shows a bijection that is not a homomorphism at all.

Example
An explicit isomorphism Z6≅Z2×Z3\mathbb Z_6 \cong \mathbb Z_2 \times \mathbb Z_3

Define φ:Z6→Z2×Z3\varphi: \mathbb Z_6 \to \mathbb Z_2 \times \mathbb Z_3 by φ(k)=(k mod 2,k mod 3)\varphi(k) = (k \bmod 2, k \bmod 3). Listing all six images: φ(0)=(0,0),φ(1)=(1,1),φ(2)=(0,2),φ(3)=(1,0),φ(4)=(0,1),φ(5)=(1,2)\varphi(0) = (0,0), \varphi(1) = (1,1), \varphi(2) = (0,2), \varphi(3) = (1,0), \varphi(4) = (0,1), \varphi(5) = (1,2) — six distinct pairs, exactly the six elements of Z2×Z3\mathbb Z_2 \times \mathbb Z_3, so φ\varphi is a bijection. It is a homomorphism because reduction mod 22 and mod 33 are each homomorphisms; for instance φ(2+5)=φ(1)=(1,1)\varphi(2 + 5) = \varphi(1) = (1,1) matches φ(2)+φ(5)=(0,2)+(1,2)=(1,4 mod 3)=(1,1)\varphi(2) + \varphi(5) = (0,2) + (1,2) = (1, 4 \bmod 3) = (1,1).

Example
Is U(8)U(8) isomorphic to Z4\mathbb Z_4?
U(8)·135711357331755571377531
The multiplication table of U(8) mod 8: every row is a permutation of 1, 3, 5, 7.

Both have order 44, but check element orders in U(8)={1,3,5,7}U(8) = \{1,3,5,7\} under multiplication mod 88: 32=9≡1,52=25≡1,72=49≡1(mod8)3^2 = 9 \equiv 1, 5^2 = 25 \equiv 1, 7^2 = 49 \equiv 1 \pmod 8, so every non-identity element has order 22 — U(8)U(8) has no element of order 44. But Z4\mathbb Z_4 has one (namely 11). Since isomorphisms preserve element order, U(8)≇Z4U(8) \not\cong \mathbb Z_4: same size, different internal structure.

Example
Discrete log gives U(5)≅Z4U(5) \cong \mathbb Z_4

In U(5)={1,2,3,4}U(5) = \{1,2,3,4\}, the powers of 22 are 21=2,22=4,23=3,24=1(mod5)2^1 = 2, 2^2 = 4, 2^3 = 3, 2^4 = 1 \pmod 5, so 22 generates all of U(5)U(5): it is cyclic of order 44. The map φ(2k mod 5)=k mod 4\varphi(2^k \bmod 5) = k \bmod 4 turns multiplication into addition of exponents, so it is an isomorphism U(5)≅Z4U(5) \cong \mathbb Z_4. Check one instance: 2⋅2=4=222 \cdot 2 = 4 = 2^2 corresponds to φ(2)+φ(2)=1+1=2\varphi(2) + \varphi(2) = 1 + 1 = 2.

Side note
Where it goes wrong

A bijection alone does not make an isomorphism — it must also respect the operation. The map ψ:Z4→Z4\psi: \mathbb Z_4 \to \mathbb Z_4 with ψ(0)=0,ψ(1)=2,ψ(2)=1,ψ(3)=3\psi(0) = 0, \psi(1) = 2, \psi(2) = 1, \psi(3) = 3 is a perfectly good bijection, but ψ(1+1)=ψ(2)=1\psi(1 + 1) = \psi(2) = 1 while ψ(1)+ψ(1)=2+2=0\psi(1) + \psi(1) = 2 + 2 = 0 in Z4\mathbb Z_4: they disagree, so ψ\psi is not a homomorphism, let alone an isomorphism, even though it only rearranges the same four elements.

Try it
Try it: an isomorphism of roots of unity

Is the group of 44th roots of unity {1,i,−1,−i}\{1, i, -1, -i\} under multiplication isomorphic to Z4\mathbb Z_4?

Show the answer

Yes: send ik↦k mod 4i^k \mapsto k \bmod 4. Multiplication of powers of ii corresponds exactly to addition of exponents mod 44 — for instance i⋅i=i2=−1i \cdot i = i^2 = -1 corresponds to 1+1=21 + 1 = 2 — so this map is a bijective homomorphism, an isomorphism. The answer is yes, with φ(ik)=k mod 4\varphi(i^k) = k \bmod 4.

Invariants That Tell Groups Apart

Concept
Isomorphism invariants

If φ:G→H\varphi: G \to H is an isomorphism then ∣G∣=∣H∣|G| = |H|, GG is abelian iff HH is, and ord⁡(g)=ord⁡(φ(g))\operatorname{ord}(g) = \operatorname{ord}(\varphi(g)) for every g∈Gg \in G — so the multiset of element orders, and every other property built purely from the group operation, must match on both sides. A single mismatch proves G≇HG \not\cong H outright, with no need to rule out every possible bijection by hand.

Invariants turn an infinite search (all possible bijections) into a finite checklist. Order and "abelian or not" are the cheapest invariants and the first to check; element orders are finer and settle most small examples. None of this proves two groups ARE isomorphic — matching invariants only narrows the field, as the sidenote below shows — but a mismatch on even one invariant is a complete proof that they are not.

Example
Why S3≇Z6S_3 \not\cong \mathbb Z_6

Take r=(1 2 3)r = (1\,2\,3) and s=(1 2)s = (1\,2) in S3S_3. Composing right-to-left, (rs)(1)=r(s(1))=r(2)=3(rs)(1) = r(s(1)) = r(2) = 3, while (sr)(1)=s(r(1))=s(2)=1(sr)(1) = s(r(1)) = s(2) = 1. Since 3≠13 \ne 1, rs≠srrs \ne sr: S3S_3 is non-abelian. But Z6\mathbb Z_6 is abelian — it is cyclic — and "abelian" is an isomorphism invariant, so S3≇Z6S_3 \not\cong \mathbb Z_6, even though both groups have order 66.

Example
Order profiles: Z8\mathbb Z_8 versus D4D_4
D_4·err2r3srsr2sr3seerr2r3srsr2sr3srrr2r3ersr2sr3ssr2r2r3err2sr3ssrsr3r3err2r3ssrsr2sssr3sr2srser3r2rrsrssr3sr2srer3r2r2sr2srssr3sr2rer3r3sr3sr2srssr3r2re
Six of the eight diagonal entries are e: the identity and the five elements of order 2.

Build D4D_4, the symmetries of a square, as {e,r,r2,r3,s,rs,r2s,r3s}\{e, r, r^2, r^3, s, rs, r^2s, r^3s\} with r4=s2=er^4 = s^2 = e and sr=r−1ssr = r^{-1}s. Computing orders: rr and r3r^3 have order 44, while r2,s,rs,r2s,r3sr^2, s, rs, r^2s, r^3s all have order 22 — five elements of order 22 in total. In Z8\mathbb Z_8, only the element 44 has order 22 (since ord⁡(k)=8/gcd⁡(k,8)\operatorname{ord}(k) = 8/\gcd(k,8)). Both groups have order 88, but they disagree on the number of elements of order 22 (55 versus 11), so Z8≇D4\mathbb Z_8 \not\cong D_4 — confirmed without ever listing a full bijection.

Example
The two groups of order 44

There are exactly two groups of order 44 up to isomorphism: Z4\mathbb Z_4, which has an element of order 44, and Z2×Z2\mathbb Z_2 \times \mathbb Z_2 (the Klein four-group V4V_4), in which every non-identity element has order 22 since 2(a,b)=(0,0)2(a,b) = (0,0) for all a,b∈Z2a, b \in \mathbb Z_2. The presence or absence of an order-44 element separates them instantly, so Z4≇V4\mathbb Z_4 \not\cong V_4.

Side note
Where it goes wrong

Matching the easy invariants — same order, both abelian — does not prove two groups are isomorphic; it only narrows the search. Z4×Z2\mathbb Z_4 \times \mathbb Z_2 and Z2×Z2×Z2\mathbb Z_2 \times \mathbb Z_2 \times \mathbb Z_2 both have order 88 and are abelian, yet (1,0)(1,0) has order 44 in the first while every non-identity element of the second has order 22 (doubling any coordinate in Z2\mathbb Z_2 gives 00). A finer invariant — the list of element orders — tells them apart; nothing short of an explicit, verified bijective homomorphism can prove two groups ARE isomorphic.

Try it
Try it: use an invariant

Are Z9\mathbb Z_9 and Z3×Z3\mathbb Z_3 \times \mathbb Z_3 isomorphic?

Show the answer

Z9\mathbb Z_9 has an element of order 99 (namely 11), but in Z3×Z3\mathbb Z_3 \times \mathbb Z_3 every non-identity element (a,b)(a,b) satisfies 3(a,b)=(0,0)3(a,b) = (0,0), so its order divides 33 and can never be 99. Since element order is an isomorphism invariant and the two groups disagree on it, the answer is no.

Automorphisms

Concept
Automorphism

An automorphism of GG is an isomorphism φ:G→G\varphi: G \to G from GG to itself. The set of all automorphisms, Aut⁡(G)\operatorname{Aut}(G), forms a group under composition: its identity element is the identity map, and the inverse of an automorphism is itself an automorphism.

An automorphism is a way of relabeling GG that leaves its multiplication table looking exactly the same — a genuine symmetry of the group itself, not just of a set. For a cyclic group Zn\mathbb Z_n, every automorphism is multiplication by a unit, so Aut⁡(Zn)≅U(n)\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb Z_n) \cong U(n): this is the bridge back to the units mod nn from Number Theory, now seen as a group of symmetries. For a non-abelian group, conjugation φx(g)=xgx−1\varphi_x(g) = xgx^{-1} by a fixed xx gives another kind of automorphism, called inner; these become the central tool of the Conjugacy topic.

Example
Aut⁡(Z6)≅U(6)\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb Z_6) \cong U(6)

Every automorphism of Z6\mathbb Z_6 has the form φa(k)=ak mod 6\varphi_a(k) = ak \bmod 6 for a unit a∈U(6)={1,5}a \in U(6) = \{1, 5\}, so ∣Aut⁡(Z6)∣=2|\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb Z_6)| = 2. The nontrivial one is φ5(k)=5k mod 6\varphi_5(k) = 5k \bmod 6. Check it is a homomorphism on 2,32, 3: φ5(2)+φ5(3)=4+3=7≡1(mod6)\varphi_5(2) + \varphi_5(3) = 4 + 3 = 7 \equiv 1 \pmod 6, matching φ5(2+3)=φ5(5)=25 mod 6=1\varphi_5(2 + 3) = \varphi_5(5) = 25 \bmod 6 = 1.

Example
Aut⁡(Z8)\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb Z_8) is Klein four, not cyclic

As the U(8)U(8) table above showed, the units mod 88 are {1,3,5,7}\{1, 3, 5, 7\}, each of order at most 22: in particular 32=9≡1(mod8)3^2 = 9 \equiv 1 \pmod 8, so the automorphism φ3\varphi_3 satisfies φ3∘φ3=φ9 mod 8=φ1=id⁡\varphi_3 \circ \varphi_3 = \varphi_{9 \bmod 8} = \varphi_1 = \operatorname{id}. So Aut⁡(Z8)≅U(8)\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb Z_8) \cong U(8) has order 44 but every non-identity element squares to the identity — it is the Klein four-group from the Invariants section, not Z4\mathbb Z_4.

Example
An inner automorphism of S3S_3

Conjugation by a fixed element is always an automorphism: φx(g)=xgx−1\varphi_x(g) = xgx^{-1}. In S3S_3, conjugating the 33-cycle (1 2 3)(1\,2\,3) by the transposition (1 2)(1\,2) relabels its entries by swapping 1↔21 \leftrightarrow 2: (1 2 3)(1\,2\,3) becomes (2 1 3)=(1 3 2)(2\,1\,3) = (1\,3\,2), the inverse 33-cycle. So φ(1 2)\varphi_{(1\,2)} is a nontrivial inner automorphism of S3S_3, even though S3S_3 has only 66 elements.

Side note
Where it goes wrong

It is tempting to guess ∣Aut⁡(Zn)∣=n|\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb Z_n)| = n, since Zn\mathbb Z_n itself has nn elements — but only multiplication by a UNIT survives as a bijection. ∣Aut⁡(Z6)∣=∣U(6)∣=2|\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb Z_6)| = |U(6)| = 2, not 66: multiplying by 22 is not even injective on Z6\mathbb Z_6, since 2⋅0=2⋅3=02 \cdot 0 = 2 \cdot 3 = 0, so it is not an automorphism at all.

Try it
Try it: automorphisms of Z5\mathbb Z_5

Find ∣Aut⁡(Z5)∣|\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb Z_5)|, and say whether it is cyclic.

Show the answer

Since 55 is prime, U(5)={1,2,3,4}U(5) = \{1,2,3,4\} consists of every nonzero residue, and Aut⁡(Z5)≅U(5)\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb Z_5) \cong U(5). Checking powers of 22: 21=2,22=4,23≡3,24≡1(mod5)2^1 = 2, 2^2 = 4, 2^3 \equiv 3, 2^4 \equiv 1 \pmod 5, so 22 has order 44 and generates U(5)U(5), which is cyclic. So ∣Aut⁡(Z5)∣=4|\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb Z_5)| = \mathbf{4}, and it is cyclic.

Why It Works

For any homomorphism φ:G→H\varphi: G \to H: since eGeG=eGe_G e_G = e_G, applying φ\varphi gives φ(eG)=φ(eG)φ(eG)\varphi(e_G) = \varphi(e_G)\varphi(e_G); multiplying both sides on the left by φ(eG)−1\varphi(e_G)^{-1} in HH leaves eH=φ(eG)e_H = \varphi(e_G). Then for any g∈Gg \in G, eH=φ(eG)=φ(gg−1)=φ(g)φ(g−1)e_H = \varphi(e_G) = \varphi(gg^{-1}) = \varphi(g)\varphi(g^{-1}), so φ(g−1)\varphi(g^{-1}) is a two-sided inverse of φ(g)\varphi(g) in HH; by uniqueness of inverses, φ(g−1)=φ(g)−1\varphi(g^{-1}) = \varphi(g)^{-1}.

Let K=ker⁡φK = \ker\varphi. First, eG∈Ke_G \in K since φ(eG)=eH\varphi(e_G) = e_H. If a,b∈Ka, b \in K then φ(ab)=φ(a)φ(b)=eHeH=eH\varphi(ab) = \varphi(a)\varphi(b) = e_He_H = e_H, so ab∈Kab \in K: closure. If a∈Ka \in K then φ(a−1)=φ(a)−1=eH−1=eH\varphi(a^{-1}) = \varphi(a)^{-1} = e_H^{-1} = e_H, so a−1∈Ka^{-1} \in K: closed under inverses. By the subgroup test (Topic 3), K≤GK \le G.

Let K=ker⁡φK = \ker\varphi. For any g∈Gg \in G and k∈Kk \in K, φ(gkg−1)=φ(g)φ(k)φ(g)−1=φ(g) eH φ(g)−1=φ(g)φ(g)−1=eH\varphi(gkg^{-1}) = \varphi(g)\varphi(k)\varphi(g)^{-1} = \varphi(g)\,e_H\,\varphi(g)^{-1} = \varphi(g)\varphi(g)^{-1} = e_H. So gkg−1∈Kgkg^{-1} \in K for every g∈Gg \in G and every k∈Kk \in K — the kernel absorbs conjugation by the whole group. This is exactly the property Topic 7 calls normal, and it is what will let G/KG/K be built as a group.

Let I=im⁡φI = \operatorname{im}\varphi. eH=φ(eG)∈Ie_H = \varphi(e_G) \in I. If φ(a),φ(b)∈I\varphi(a), \varphi(b) \in I then φ(a)φ(b)=φ(ab)∈I\varphi(a)\varphi(b) = \varphi(ab) \in I: closure. If φ(a)∈I\varphi(a) \in I then φ(a)−1=φ(a−1)∈I\varphi(a)^{-1} = \varphi(a^{-1}) \in I: closed under inverses. By the subgroup test, I≤HI \le H.

(⇒\Rightarrow) If φ\varphi is injective and k∈ker⁡φk \in \ker\varphi, then φ(k)=eH=φ(eG)\varphi(k) = e_H = \varphi(e_G), so injectivity forces k=eGk = e_G: the kernel is trivial. (⇐\Leftarrow) Suppose ker⁡φ={eG}\ker\varphi = \{e_G\} and φ(a)=φ(b)\varphi(a) = \varphi(b). Then φ(ab−1)=φ(a)φ(b)−1=φ(a)φ(a)−1=eH\varphi(ab^{-1}) = \varphi(a)\varphi(b)^{-1} = \varphi(a)\varphi(a)^{-1} = e_H, so ab−1∈ker⁡φ={eG}ab^{-1} \in \ker\varphi = \{e_G\}, giving ab−1=eGab^{-1} = e_G, i.e. a=ba = b. So φ\varphi is injective.