This article is a continuation of More on Groups: Morphisms, Normal Subgroups, etc… In this article we’re going to continue looking into groups and apply some of our results from studying permutations to our study of them. Both fields of study enforce each other.
But first, we’re going to continue our investigation of subgroups, morphisms and equivalence relations. We saw in More on Groups: Morphisms, Normal Subgroups, etc… that if is a homomorphism from a group to a group , then is a normal subgroup of . Now we’re going to show
Theorem (image is a subgroup)
Let be a homomorphism from group into not necessarily all of group . If we let
Then . That is, is a subgroup of .
Proof
Using the subgroup test, suppose that and , then we want to show that is also in . By definition of , there are two (not necessarily distinct) elements of , and , say, such that , and . Now, since is a group, , so then
That means that, by what we assumed and were, that .
QED
In the last entry, we proved that all kernels of homomorphisms were normal subgroups. Soon we’ll see that all normal subgroups are kernels for a homomorphism into another group. First we need to take a slight detour and discuss the notion of equivalence classes.
Definition (equivalence class)
Let be an equivalence relation on a set, , let be an element of . We define the equivalence class of , often written as , to be the set of all elements, , such that .
Definition (factor set)
Let be a set and be an equivalence relation among pairs of elements of . Then the set of equivalence classes of form a set, sometimes written as . It is sometimes read “ mod ”, and is referred to as a factor set.
Factor sets are similar to factor groups, but don’t have the added structure that comes from having a binary operator. In order to make a factor group, you have to have a factor set and a binary operator that operates on pairs of equivalence classes, mapping them to a third equivalence class, which obeys the group axioms.
When the factor set can be turned into a factor group, it’s typically written as , where is a subgroup and
Recall that
However, for most subgroups, , this factor set cannot be made into a group. The reason is that a binary operator on the equivalence classes (which we’ll sometimes write as to avoid confusion with the binary operator in ) can’t be both well-defined and preserve some of the structure of . What we want is for any two equivalence classes, , and , to have . The good news is that sometimes this is possible. When is a normal subgroup of , then we can form a factor group, as we’ll show below.
Mini-Lemma (when aH = H)
Proof
Suppose , then , so . Now suppose that , then , so , and since cosets are either equal or disjoint (i.e. their intersection is empty), .
QED
Mini-Lemma (aN = Na)
Let , then for all , the cosets and are the same. (This is an alternate way to define normal subgroup).
Proof
Let be a normal subgroup of and be an arbitrary element of . Then , which implies that if we apply to the left of every element, the cosets will remain equal. That gives us .
QED
Theorem (mod normal subgroup is a group)
Let be a group, and be a normal subgroup. Let be a function which sends any to its equivalence class in . Let be a binary operator on .
- is well-defined. That is, for any two equivalence classes and in , .
- is a group with its binary operator.
- is an epimorphism from onto , and .
Proof
Now we prove is well defined. The issue that we have to make sure we avoid is having the binary operator give different results for different choices of equivalence class representatives. What we mean is that if is an equivalence class and , then . We have to guarantee that if , that , whenever and .
Let and , we want to show that . This will happen if and only if , which means that , and by definition that will happen if and only if .
Since , we have , which means , and likewise we also have . We want to show that . In the next calculation, we omit , and instead just write , for example.
then by the mini lemma above, since is a normal subgroup, we have
Again, by the mini lemma we have, . Thus is well-defined, and we have proven claim 1 above.
By what we’ve just shown, for any , , so , so every equivalence class has an inverse equivalence class. We’ve also seen that for every two equivalence classes , and , , so is closed under . The final step to proving that is a group with binary operator is to show that this operator is associative, which is straight-forward.
Notice that for any three equivalence classes , , and , that
and that is equal to
which from what we showed in the proof of claim 1 is equal to , which (again by what we showed from case 1) is equal to . This finishes the proof of claim 2.
By the definition of , it is a homomorphism. Let’s determine its kernel.
Suppose is such that , that means that , so by the mini lemma above, . We also see that implies that , so . Therefore .
The only thing left to check is that it is onto , which is easy. Let be a left coset of , then is an equivalence class in the range of . That finishes the proof of claim 3.
QED
We hope this isn’t getting too confusing. We’ve been sloppy about what exactly lives in , and the proof of claim 3 in the above theorem laid that bare. At times it seems like is a set of cosets of , and at other times it seems like it’s a set of equivalence classes of elements of . They’re really the same thing, though. We showed (in More on Groups: Morphisms, Normal Subgroups, etc…) that is an equivalence relation on the set of cosets of a subgroup of . We defined two elements to be in the same equivalence class if they belong to the same coset.
Now we start to think about how a group can act on a set.
Definition (group actions)
Let be a set, be the group of all permutations of , and , then is said to act on , and is said to be a group of actions on .
In fact, since itself is a set with a binary operation, can even act on itself. What’s more, every group acts on itself.
Theorem (originally due to Cayley)
Let be a group, then there is an isomorphism , from into a subgroup of , the group of all permutations of the elements of .
This means that any group can be thought of as a subgroup of a group of permutations.
Proof
Let be a group, but for this proof, let’s refer to the set of all of the elements of as . That is, . Then a permutation of is a permutation of , and belongs to , by definition. Define such that , where , for any . Remember, means that is an element of , so is defined.
First we have to show that
for all . This follows from the fact that
and
By associativity, the two must be equal.
Finally, we have to show that for any , , i.e. that is actually a permutation of . To do that we must show that .
Let’s first show that is 1-1. Suppose , then . We’ve already shown that we can apply cancellation in , so , and is 1-1.
Now we show that is onto. Let be any element in , and thus an element of . Consider that
so , thus is onto. It is therefore a permutation, and our proof is finished.
QED
In the earlier entry (More Math of Permutations), we showed that for any permutation of a finite set, there is a function
and that
We now know that is a homomorphism from the set of all permutations of a finite set into the set . What’s more, with the above Theorem of Cayley, there’s also such a homomorphism from each finite group into the set of . This can be very useful. As an example we can now prove a couple of lemmas:
Lemma (either all even or half even)
Let be a finite group. Then if there exists , such that , there exists , such that . Otherwise for every , .
Proof
Suppose there is a , such that , then let . Notice that if and , that
so , and thus is a subgroup of . It is a normal subgroup, because for any , and ,
and that is equal to
and so is in . Therefore , so is normal.
Now we show that . Notice that for any , , and likewise, for any , . We previously showed that is 1-1, so , therefore , and thus .
QED
Lemma ( 2*odd has a normal subgroup of order odd)
Let be a group of order , then has a subgroup of order , which is normal in .
We’re going to prove this in the next entry. It takes a bit more work than the above lemma.