If $|G|=p^2$, $p$ prime and $G$ is not cyslic $Gcong Bbb Z/pBbb Ztimes Bbb Z/pBbb Z $
Here is an incomplete proof:
If $Hle G$ is a subgroup, there are only three possibilities for its cardinal: $1,p$ or $p^2$ by Lagrange.
If $|H|=p^2$ then there exists $gin Hsubset G$ of order $p^2$ and so $G$ is cyclic.
If $|H|=1$ and there is no other proper subgroup then $G$ is cyclic.
So there must be a subgroup of order $p$, let $|H|=p$. Let $x$ be in $G$. We will show that $xHx^{-1}=H$ and so $Htriangleleft G.$ By contradiction let's suppose $xHx^{-1}ne H$.
$xHx^{-1}$ is a subgroup of $G$ because $$(xhx^{-1})^{-1}=xhx^{-1}in xHx^{-1} text{ and }~ xhx^{-1}xh'x^{-1}=xhh'x^{-1}in xHx^{-1}~forall h,h'in xHx^{-1}$$
There is a formula for the cardinality of a product of groups that says $$begin{align}|xHx^{-1}|cdot|H|&= |xHx^{-1}H|cdot|xHx^{-1}cap H|\ |(xHx^{-1})H| &= frac{|xHx^{-1}|cdot|H|}{|xHx^{-1}cap H|}=frac{pcdot p}{1}end{align}$$
And here I'm not sure how to show that $xHx^{-1}$ has cardinality $p$, I guess for the same reason as $H$.
And why is the intersection trivial?
If the equality above is true we get that $xHx^{-1}H=G$ so for any $xnotin H$ there exist some $h_1,h_2in H$ such that $x=xh_1x^{-1}h_2$
$$begin{align}e &=h_1x^{-1}h_2\ h_1^{-1}&= x^{-1}h_2\ h_1^{-1}h_2^{-1}&= x^{-1}implies xin H text{ (impossible)}end{align}$$
Once we arrive at a contradiction we have that $xHx^{-1}=H$ so $H$ is normal in $G$.
Then I have to show that there exists $Kle G$ such that $Kcap H={e}$ and $Ktriangleleft G$ and from this it will be easy to show that $Gcong Ktimes H$
group-theory proof-verification finite-groups cyclic-groups
add a comment |
Here is an incomplete proof:
If $Hle G$ is a subgroup, there are only three possibilities for its cardinal: $1,p$ or $p^2$ by Lagrange.
If $|H|=p^2$ then there exists $gin Hsubset G$ of order $p^2$ and so $G$ is cyclic.
If $|H|=1$ and there is no other proper subgroup then $G$ is cyclic.
So there must be a subgroup of order $p$, let $|H|=p$. Let $x$ be in $G$. We will show that $xHx^{-1}=H$ and so $Htriangleleft G.$ By contradiction let's suppose $xHx^{-1}ne H$.
$xHx^{-1}$ is a subgroup of $G$ because $$(xhx^{-1})^{-1}=xhx^{-1}in xHx^{-1} text{ and }~ xhx^{-1}xh'x^{-1}=xhh'x^{-1}in xHx^{-1}~forall h,h'in xHx^{-1}$$
There is a formula for the cardinality of a product of groups that says $$begin{align}|xHx^{-1}|cdot|H|&= |xHx^{-1}H|cdot|xHx^{-1}cap H|\ |(xHx^{-1})H| &= frac{|xHx^{-1}|cdot|H|}{|xHx^{-1}cap H|}=frac{pcdot p}{1}end{align}$$
And here I'm not sure how to show that $xHx^{-1}$ has cardinality $p$, I guess for the same reason as $H$.
And why is the intersection trivial?
If the equality above is true we get that $xHx^{-1}H=G$ so for any $xnotin H$ there exist some $h_1,h_2in H$ such that $x=xh_1x^{-1}h_2$
$$begin{align}e &=h_1x^{-1}h_2\ h_1^{-1}&= x^{-1}h_2\ h_1^{-1}h_2^{-1}&= x^{-1}implies xin H text{ (impossible)}end{align}$$
Once we arrive at a contradiction we have that $xHx^{-1}=H$ so $H$ is normal in $G$.
Then I have to show that there exists $Kle G$ such that $Kcap H={e}$ and $Ktriangleleft G$ and from this it will be easy to show that $Gcong Ktimes H$
group-theory proof-verification finite-groups cyclic-groups
add a comment |
Here is an incomplete proof:
If $Hle G$ is a subgroup, there are only three possibilities for its cardinal: $1,p$ or $p^2$ by Lagrange.
If $|H|=p^2$ then there exists $gin Hsubset G$ of order $p^2$ and so $G$ is cyclic.
If $|H|=1$ and there is no other proper subgroup then $G$ is cyclic.
So there must be a subgroup of order $p$, let $|H|=p$. Let $x$ be in $G$. We will show that $xHx^{-1}=H$ and so $Htriangleleft G.$ By contradiction let's suppose $xHx^{-1}ne H$.
$xHx^{-1}$ is a subgroup of $G$ because $$(xhx^{-1})^{-1}=xhx^{-1}in xHx^{-1} text{ and }~ xhx^{-1}xh'x^{-1}=xhh'x^{-1}in xHx^{-1}~forall h,h'in xHx^{-1}$$
There is a formula for the cardinality of a product of groups that says $$begin{align}|xHx^{-1}|cdot|H|&= |xHx^{-1}H|cdot|xHx^{-1}cap H|\ |(xHx^{-1})H| &= frac{|xHx^{-1}|cdot|H|}{|xHx^{-1}cap H|}=frac{pcdot p}{1}end{align}$$
And here I'm not sure how to show that $xHx^{-1}$ has cardinality $p$, I guess for the same reason as $H$.
And why is the intersection trivial?
If the equality above is true we get that $xHx^{-1}H=G$ so for any $xnotin H$ there exist some $h_1,h_2in H$ such that $x=xh_1x^{-1}h_2$
$$begin{align}e &=h_1x^{-1}h_2\ h_1^{-1}&= x^{-1}h_2\ h_1^{-1}h_2^{-1}&= x^{-1}implies xin H text{ (impossible)}end{align}$$
Once we arrive at a contradiction we have that $xHx^{-1}=H$ so $H$ is normal in $G$.
Then I have to show that there exists $Kle G$ such that $Kcap H={e}$ and $Ktriangleleft G$ and from this it will be easy to show that $Gcong Ktimes H$
group-theory proof-verification finite-groups cyclic-groups
Here is an incomplete proof:
If $Hle G$ is a subgroup, there are only three possibilities for its cardinal: $1,p$ or $p^2$ by Lagrange.
If $|H|=p^2$ then there exists $gin Hsubset G$ of order $p^2$ and so $G$ is cyclic.
If $|H|=1$ and there is no other proper subgroup then $G$ is cyclic.
So there must be a subgroup of order $p$, let $|H|=p$. Let $x$ be in $G$. We will show that $xHx^{-1}=H$ and so $Htriangleleft G.$ By contradiction let's suppose $xHx^{-1}ne H$.
$xHx^{-1}$ is a subgroup of $G$ because $$(xhx^{-1})^{-1}=xhx^{-1}in xHx^{-1} text{ and }~ xhx^{-1}xh'x^{-1}=xhh'x^{-1}in xHx^{-1}~forall h,h'in xHx^{-1}$$
There is a formula for the cardinality of a product of groups that says $$begin{align}|xHx^{-1}|cdot|H|&= |xHx^{-1}H|cdot|xHx^{-1}cap H|\ |(xHx^{-1})H| &= frac{|xHx^{-1}|cdot|H|}{|xHx^{-1}cap H|}=frac{pcdot p}{1}end{align}$$
And here I'm not sure how to show that $xHx^{-1}$ has cardinality $p$, I guess for the same reason as $H$.
And why is the intersection trivial?
If the equality above is true we get that $xHx^{-1}H=G$ so for any $xnotin H$ there exist some $h_1,h_2in H$ such that $x=xh_1x^{-1}h_2$
$$begin{align}e &=h_1x^{-1}h_2\ h_1^{-1}&= x^{-1}h_2\ h_1^{-1}h_2^{-1}&= x^{-1}implies xin H text{ (impossible)}end{align}$$
Once we arrive at a contradiction we have that $xHx^{-1}=H$ so $H$ is normal in $G$.
Then I have to show that there exists $Kle G$ such that $Kcap H={e}$ and $Ktriangleleft G$ and from this it will be easy to show that $Gcong Ktimes H$
group-theory proof-verification finite-groups cyclic-groups
group-theory proof-verification finite-groups cyclic-groups
edited Jan 4 at 17:13
Lord Shark the Unknown
102k959132
102k959132
asked Jan 4 at 16:50
John CataldoJohn Cataldo
1,0961216
1,0961216
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
You can argue like this.
If there were an element of $G$ if order $p^2$, then $G$ were cyclic, generated by this element; thus, every non-identity element of $G$ has order $p$. Fix arbitrarily a non-identity element $g_1in G$, and then an element $g_2in G$ not lying in the subgroup generated by $g_1$. For $iin{1,2}$, denote by $G_i$ the subgroup generated by $g_i$. Both these subgroups are cyclic; hence, generated by any of their non-identity elements. It follows that the intersection of $G_1$ and $G_2$ is trivial (any non-identity element of the intersection would generate both $G_1$ and $G_2$, but $G_1ne G_2$). It follows that all the $p^2$ products $h_1h_2$ with $h_1in G_1$ and $h_2in G_2$ are pairwise distinct. Thus, $G$ is exactly the set of all these products, as wanted.
add a comment |
$H$ has cardinality $p$. The map $Hto xHx^{-1}$ defined by $hto xhx^{-1}$ is one to one and onto. I'll leave you to check that, it is very easy. Hence $xHx^{-1}$ must have the same cardinality. As for the intersection there are only two options: it is either of size 1 or $p$. If it has size $p$ then it means that $H$ and $xHx^{-1}$ is the same set which contradicts your assumption.
Doesn't "one to one" imply $|H|=|xHx^{-1}|$? and why write one to on AND onto when on to one includes that property? one to one is "bijective" right?
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:18
As I know one to one only means injective. For example $f:mathbb{N}tomathbb{R}$ defined by $f(x)=x$ is injective, but it is not a bijection. Maybe there are also other definitions.
– Mark
Jan 4 at 17:21
I mean one to one is a pretty intuitive phrase for bijective... you can pair up all the elements
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:23
Well, as I know one to one means injective. Of course such a function is a bijection if you define the range to be the image of the function. So here you need to check that $xHx^{-1}$ is the image.
– Mark
Jan 4 at 17:27
"One to one" shouldn't mean bijective, but only injective. It doesn't say that every element of a set is uniquely paired to an element of another set, but that "one element is sent to one element." Compare it to "two to one", sometimes used in the context of double covering.
– Ennar
Jan 4 at 17:33
add a comment |
What is $H$? Define your variables! I assume that what you mean is something along the lines of: take any non-identity element $h$ of $G$, and let $H$ be the subgroup that it generates.
This subgroup is cyclic, so cannot be all of $G$, as $G$ is not cyclic, and is not trivial, as it contains $h$, so must have order $p$.
Now take any $g in Gsetminus H$. Then $langle g, hrangle$ contains $H$, but is strictly larger than it, and is a subgroup of $G$, so must be all of $G$. Thus, $G$ is generated by $g$ and $h$. Now, the order of $g$ must also be $p$ (it must divide $p^2$, can't be $1$ since $g$ is not the identity, and can't be $p^2$ since $G$ is not cyclic). Let $K$ be the subgroup generated by $g$. Since $H$ and $K$ both have order $p$ and don't coincide, their intersection must be trivial. Thus, we merely need to show that both are normal in $G$. But given that we chose $H$ to be an arbitrary order-$p$ subgroup, it suffices to show it for $H$.
This follows from your argument: $y mapsto xyx^{-1}$ is injective (if $xyx^{-1} = xzx^{-1}$, then multiplying that equation by $x^{-1}$ on the left and $x$ on the right gives $y = z$), and is surjective when restricted to map from $H$ to $xHx^{-1}$ by definition of the latter, so $|xHx^{-1}| = |H| = p$. The intersection is trivial since it's a subgroup of $H$, so has order $1$ or $p$, but isn't all of $H$, so can't have order $p$.
Thus, $H$ and $K$ are normal, and $G = H times K$.
Why do we need both subgroups to be normal? After all it's true that if for example only $H$ is normal $KH$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $KHconglangle K, Hrangle$
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:34
To force the group to be abelian. For a similar problem where you could get exactly that result, but the overall result is not true, consider the dihedral group with the obvious two generators.
– user3482749
Jan 4 at 17:42
add a comment |
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061826%2fif-g-p2-p-prime-and-g-is-not-cyslic-g-cong-bbb-z-p-bbb-z-times-bbb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You can argue like this.
If there were an element of $G$ if order $p^2$, then $G$ were cyclic, generated by this element; thus, every non-identity element of $G$ has order $p$. Fix arbitrarily a non-identity element $g_1in G$, and then an element $g_2in G$ not lying in the subgroup generated by $g_1$. For $iin{1,2}$, denote by $G_i$ the subgroup generated by $g_i$. Both these subgroups are cyclic; hence, generated by any of their non-identity elements. It follows that the intersection of $G_1$ and $G_2$ is trivial (any non-identity element of the intersection would generate both $G_1$ and $G_2$, but $G_1ne G_2$). It follows that all the $p^2$ products $h_1h_2$ with $h_1in G_1$ and $h_2in G_2$ are pairwise distinct. Thus, $G$ is exactly the set of all these products, as wanted.
add a comment |
You can argue like this.
If there were an element of $G$ if order $p^2$, then $G$ were cyclic, generated by this element; thus, every non-identity element of $G$ has order $p$. Fix arbitrarily a non-identity element $g_1in G$, and then an element $g_2in G$ not lying in the subgroup generated by $g_1$. For $iin{1,2}$, denote by $G_i$ the subgroup generated by $g_i$. Both these subgroups are cyclic; hence, generated by any of their non-identity elements. It follows that the intersection of $G_1$ and $G_2$ is trivial (any non-identity element of the intersection would generate both $G_1$ and $G_2$, but $G_1ne G_2$). It follows that all the $p^2$ products $h_1h_2$ with $h_1in G_1$ and $h_2in G_2$ are pairwise distinct. Thus, $G$ is exactly the set of all these products, as wanted.
add a comment |
You can argue like this.
If there were an element of $G$ if order $p^2$, then $G$ were cyclic, generated by this element; thus, every non-identity element of $G$ has order $p$. Fix arbitrarily a non-identity element $g_1in G$, and then an element $g_2in G$ not lying in the subgroup generated by $g_1$. For $iin{1,2}$, denote by $G_i$ the subgroup generated by $g_i$. Both these subgroups are cyclic; hence, generated by any of their non-identity elements. It follows that the intersection of $G_1$ and $G_2$ is trivial (any non-identity element of the intersection would generate both $G_1$ and $G_2$, but $G_1ne G_2$). It follows that all the $p^2$ products $h_1h_2$ with $h_1in G_1$ and $h_2in G_2$ are pairwise distinct. Thus, $G$ is exactly the set of all these products, as wanted.
You can argue like this.
If there were an element of $G$ if order $p^2$, then $G$ were cyclic, generated by this element; thus, every non-identity element of $G$ has order $p$. Fix arbitrarily a non-identity element $g_1in G$, and then an element $g_2in G$ not lying in the subgroup generated by $g_1$. For $iin{1,2}$, denote by $G_i$ the subgroup generated by $g_i$. Both these subgroups are cyclic; hence, generated by any of their non-identity elements. It follows that the intersection of $G_1$ and $G_2$ is trivial (any non-identity element of the intersection would generate both $G_1$ and $G_2$, but $G_1ne G_2$). It follows that all the $p^2$ products $h_1h_2$ with $h_1in G_1$ and $h_2in G_2$ are pairwise distinct. Thus, $G$ is exactly the set of all these products, as wanted.
answered Jan 4 at 17:11
W-t-PW-t-P
64559
64559
add a comment |
add a comment |
$H$ has cardinality $p$. The map $Hto xHx^{-1}$ defined by $hto xhx^{-1}$ is one to one and onto. I'll leave you to check that, it is very easy. Hence $xHx^{-1}$ must have the same cardinality. As for the intersection there are only two options: it is either of size 1 or $p$. If it has size $p$ then it means that $H$ and $xHx^{-1}$ is the same set which contradicts your assumption.
Doesn't "one to one" imply $|H|=|xHx^{-1}|$? and why write one to on AND onto when on to one includes that property? one to one is "bijective" right?
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:18
As I know one to one only means injective. For example $f:mathbb{N}tomathbb{R}$ defined by $f(x)=x$ is injective, but it is not a bijection. Maybe there are also other definitions.
– Mark
Jan 4 at 17:21
I mean one to one is a pretty intuitive phrase for bijective... you can pair up all the elements
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:23
Well, as I know one to one means injective. Of course such a function is a bijection if you define the range to be the image of the function. So here you need to check that $xHx^{-1}$ is the image.
– Mark
Jan 4 at 17:27
"One to one" shouldn't mean bijective, but only injective. It doesn't say that every element of a set is uniquely paired to an element of another set, but that "one element is sent to one element." Compare it to "two to one", sometimes used in the context of double covering.
– Ennar
Jan 4 at 17:33
add a comment |
$H$ has cardinality $p$. The map $Hto xHx^{-1}$ defined by $hto xhx^{-1}$ is one to one and onto. I'll leave you to check that, it is very easy. Hence $xHx^{-1}$ must have the same cardinality. As for the intersection there are only two options: it is either of size 1 or $p$. If it has size $p$ then it means that $H$ and $xHx^{-1}$ is the same set which contradicts your assumption.
Doesn't "one to one" imply $|H|=|xHx^{-1}|$? and why write one to on AND onto when on to one includes that property? one to one is "bijective" right?
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:18
As I know one to one only means injective. For example $f:mathbb{N}tomathbb{R}$ defined by $f(x)=x$ is injective, but it is not a bijection. Maybe there are also other definitions.
– Mark
Jan 4 at 17:21
I mean one to one is a pretty intuitive phrase for bijective... you can pair up all the elements
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:23
Well, as I know one to one means injective. Of course such a function is a bijection if you define the range to be the image of the function. So here you need to check that $xHx^{-1}$ is the image.
– Mark
Jan 4 at 17:27
"One to one" shouldn't mean bijective, but only injective. It doesn't say that every element of a set is uniquely paired to an element of another set, but that "one element is sent to one element." Compare it to "two to one", sometimes used in the context of double covering.
– Ennar
Jan 4 at 17:33
add a comment |
$H$ has cardinality $p$. The map $Hto xHx^{-1}$ defined by $hto xhx^{-1}$ is one to one and onto. I'll leave you to check that, it is very easy. Hence $xHx^{-1}$ must have the same cardinality. As for the intersection there are only two options: it is either of size 1 or $p$. If it has size $p$ then it means that $H$ and $xHx^{-1}$ is the same set which contradicts your assumption.
$H$ has cardinality $p$. The map $Hto xHx^{-1}$ defined by $hto xhx^{-1}$ is one to one and onto. I'll leave you to check that, it is very easy. Hence $xHx^{-1}$ must have the same cardinality. As for the intersection there are only two options: it is either of size 1 or $p$. If it has size $p$ then it means that $H$ and $xHx^{-1}$ is the same set which contradicts your assumption.
answered Jan 4 at 17:15
MarkMark
6,155416
6,155416
Doesn't "one to one" imply $|H|=|xHx^{-1}|$? and why write one to on AND onto when on to one includes that property? one to one is "bijective" right?
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:18
As I know one to one only means injective. For example $f:mathbb{N}tomathbb{R}$ defined by $f(x)=x$ is injective, but it is not a bijection. Maybe there are also other definitions.
– Mark
Jan 4 at 17:21
I mean one to one is a pretty intuitive phrase for bijective... you can pair up all the elements
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:23
Well, as I know one to one means injective. Of course such a function is a bijection if you define the range to be the image of the function. So here you need to check that $xHx^{-1}$ is the image.
– Mark
Jan 4 at 17:27
"One to one" shouldn't mean bijective, but only injective. It doesn't say that every element of a set is uniquely paired to an element of another set, but that "one element is sent to one element." Compare it to "two to one", sometimes used in the context of double covering.
– Ennar
Jan 4 at 17:33
add a comment |
Doesn't "one to one" imply $|H|=|xHx^{-1}|$? and why write one to on AND onto when on to one includes that property? one to one is "bijective" right?
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:18
As I know one to one only means injective. For example $f:mathbb{N}tomathbb{R}$ defined by $f(x)=x$ is injective, but it is not a bijection. Maybe there are also other definitions.
– Mark
Jan 4 at 17:21
I mean one to one is a pretty intuitive phrase for bijective... you can pair up all the elements
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:23
Well, as I know one to one means injective. Of course such a function is a bijection if you define the range to be the image of the function. So here you need to check that $xHx^{-1}$ is the image.
– Mark
Jan 4 at 17:27
"One to one" shouldn't mean bijective, but only injective. It doesn't say that every element of a set is uniquely paired to an element of another set, but that "one element is sent to one element." Compare it to "two to one", sometimes used in the context of double covering.
– Ennar
Jan 4 at 17:33
Doesn't "one to one" imply $|H|=|xHx^{-1}|$? and why write one to on AND onto when on to one includes that property? one to one is "bijective" right?
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:18
Doesn't "one to one" imply $|H|=|xHx^{-1}|$? and why write one to on AND onto when on to one includes that property? one to one is "bijective" right?
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:18
As I know one to one only means injective. For example $f:mathbb{N}tomathbb{R}$ defined by $f(x)=x$ is injective, but it is not a bijection. Maybe there are also other definitions.
– Mark
Jan 4 at 17:21
As I know one to one only means injective. For example $f:mathbb{N}tomathbb{R}$ defined by $f(x)=x$ is injective, but it is not a bijection. Maybe there are also other definitions.
– Mark
Jan 4 at 17:21
I mean one to one is a pretty intuitive phrase for bijective... you can pair up all the elements
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:23
I mean one to one is a pretty intuitive phrase for bijective... you can pair up all the elements
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:23
Well, as I know one to one means injective. Of course such a function is a bijection if you define the range to be the image of the function. So here you need to check that $xHx^{-1}$ is the image.
– Mark
Jan 4 at 17:27
Well, as I know one to one means injective. Of course such a function is a bijection if you define the range to be the image of the function. So here you need to check that $xHx^{-1}$ is the image.
– Mark
Jan 4 at 17:27
"One to one" shouldn't mean bijective, but only injective. It doesn't say that every element of a set is uniquely paired to an element of another set, but that "one element is sent to one element." Compare it to "two to one", sometimes used in the context of double covering.
– Ennar
Jan 4 at 17:33
"One to one" shouldn't mean bijective, but only injective. It doesn't say that every element of a set is uniquely paired to an element of another set, but that "one element is sent to one element." Compare it to "two to one", sometimes used in the context of double covering.
– Ennar
Jan 4 at 17:33
add a comment |
What is $H$? Define your variables! I assume that what you mean is something along the lines of: take any non-identity element $h$ of $G$, and let $H$ be the subgroup that it generates.
This subgroup is cyclic, so cannot be all of $G$, as $G$ is not cyclic, and is not trivial, as it contains $h$, so must have order $p$.
Now take any $g in Gsetminus H$. Then $langle g, hrangle$ contains $H$, but is strictly larger than it, and is a subgroup of $G$, so must be all of $G$. Thus, $G$ is generated by $g$ and $h$. Now, the order of $g$ must also be $p$ (it must divide $p^2$, can't be $1$ since $g$ is not the identity, and can't be $p^2$ since $G$ is not cyclic). Let $K$ be the subgroup generated by $g$. Since $H$ and $K$ both have order $p$ and don't coincide, their intersection must be trivial. Thus, we merely need to show that both are normal in $G$. But given that we chose $H$ to be an arbitrary order-$p$ subgroup, it suffices to show it for $H$.
This follows from your argument: $y mapsto xyx^{-1}$ is injective (if $xyx^{-1} = xzx^{-1}$, then multiplying that equation by $x^{-1}$ on the left and $x$ on the right gives $y = z$), and is surjective when restricted to map from $H$ to $xHx^{-1}$ by definition of the latter, so $|xHx^{-1}| = |H| = p$. The intersection is trivial since it's a subgroup of $H$, so has order $1$ or $p$, but isn't all of $H$, so can't have order $p$.
Thus, $H$ and $K$ are normal, and $G = H times K$.
Why do we need both subgroups to be normal? After all it's true that if for example only $H$ is normal $KH$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $KHconglangle K, Hrangle$
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:34
To force the group to be abelian. For a similar problem where you could get exactly that result, but the overall result is not true, consider the dihedral group with the obvious two generators.
– user3482749
Jan 4 at 17:42
add a comment |
What is $H$? Define your variables! I assume that what you mean is something along the lines of: take any non-identity element $h$ of $G$, and let $H$ be the subgroup that it generates.
This subgroup is cyclic, so cannot be all of $G$, as $G$ is not cyclic, and is not trivial, as it contains $h$, so must have order $p$.
Now take any $g in Gsetminus H$. Then $langle g, hrangle$ contains $H$, but is strictly larger than it, and is a subgroup of $G$, so must be all of $G$. Thus, $G$ is generated by $g$ and $h$. Now, the order of $g$ must also be $p$ (it must divide $p^2$, can't be $1$ since $g$ is not the identity, and can't be $p^2$ since $G$ is not cyclic). Let $K$ be the subgroup generated by $g$. Since $H$ and $K$ both have order $p$ and don't coincide, their intersection must be trivial. Thus, we merely need to show that both are normal in $G$. But given that we chose $H$ to be an arbitrary order-$p$ subgroup, it suffices to show it for $H$.
This follows from your argument: $y mapsto xyx^{-1}$ is injective (if $xyx^{-1} = xzx^{-1}$, then multiplying that equation by $x^{-1}$ on the left and $x$ on the right gives $y = z$), and is surjective when restricted to map from $H$ to $xHx^{-1}$ by definition of the latter, so $|xHx^{-1}| = |H| = p$. The intersection is trivial since it's a subgroup of $H$, so has order $1$ or $p$, but isn't all of $H$, so can't have order $p$.
Thus, $H$ and $K$ are normal, and $G = H times K$.
Why do we need both subgroups to be normal? After all it's true that if for example only $H$ is normal $KH$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $KHconglangle K, Hrangle$
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:34
To force the group to be abelian. For a similar problem where you could get exactly that result, but the overall result is not true, consider the dihedral group with the obvious two generators.
– user3482749
Jan 4 at 17:42
add a comment |
What is $H$? Define your variables! I assume that what you mean is something along the lines of: take any non-identity element $h$ of $G$, and let $H$ be the subgroup that it generates.
This subgroup is cyclic, so cannot be all of $G$, as $G$ is not cyclic, and is not trivial, as it contains $h$, so must have order $p$.
Now take any $g in Gsetminus H$. Then $langle g, hrangle$ contains $H$, but is strictly larger than it, and is a subgroup of $G$, so must be all of $G$. Thus, $G$ is generated by $g$ and $h$. Now, the order of $g$ must also be $p$ (it must divide $p^2$, can't be $1$ since $g$ is not the identity, and can't be $p^2$ since $G$ is not cyclic). Let $K$ be the subgroup generated by $g$. Since $H$ and $K$ both have order $p$ and don't coincide, their intersection must be trivial. Thus, we merely need to show that both are normal in $G$. But given that we chose $H$ to be an arbitrary order-$p$ subgroup, it suffices to show it for $H$.
This follows from your argument: $y mapsto xyx^{-1}$ is injective (if $xyx^{-1} = xzx^{-1}$, then multiplying that equation by $x^{-1}$ on the left and $x$ on the right gives $y = z$), and is surjective when restricted to map from $H$ to $xHx^{-1}$ by definition of the latter, so $|xHx^{-1}| = |H| = p$. The intersection is trivial since it's a subgroup of $H$, so has order $1$ or $p$, but isn't all of $H$, so can't have order $p$.
Thus, $H$ and $K$ are normal, and $G = H times K$.
What is $H$? Define your variables! I assume that what you mean is something along the lines of: take any non-identity element $h$ of $G$, and let $H$ be the subgroup that it generates.
This subgroup is cyclic, so cannot be all of $G$, as $G$ is not cyclic, and is not trivial, as it contains $h$, so must have order $p$.
Now take any $g in Gsetminus H$. Then $langle g, hrangle$ contains $H$, but is strictly larger than it, and is a subgroup of $G$, so must be all of $G$. Thus, $G$ is generated by $g$ and $h$. Now, the order of $g$ must also be $p$ (it must divide $p^2$, can't be $1$ since $g$ is not the identity, and can't be $p^2$ since $G$ is not cyclic). Let $K$ be the subgroup generated by $g$. Since $H$ and $K$ both have order $p$ and don't coincide, their intersection must be trivial. Thus, we merely need to show that both are normal in $G$. But given that we chose $H$ to be an arbitrary order-$p$ subgroup, it suffices to show it for $H$.
This follows from your argument: $y mapsto xyx^{-1}$ is injective (if $xyx^{-1} = xzx^{-1}$, then multiplying that equation by $x^{-1}$ on the left and $x$ on the right gives $y = z$), and is surjective when restricted to map from $H$ to $xHx^{-1}$ by definition of the latter, so $|xHx^{-1}| = |H| = p$. The intersection is trivial since it's a subgroup of $H$, so has order $1$ or $p$, but isn't all of $H$, so can't have order $p$.
Thus, $H$ and $K$ are normal, and $G = H times K$.
answered Jan 4 at 17:21
user3482749user3482749
2,964414
2,964414
Why do we need both subgroups to be normal? After all it's true that if for example only $H$ is normal $KH$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $KHconglangle K, Hrangle$
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:34
To force the group to be abelian. For a similar problem where you could get exactly that result, but the overall result is not true, consider the dihedral group with the obvious two generators.
– user3482749
Jan 4 at 17:42
add a comment |
Why do we need both subgroups to be normal? After all it's true that if for example only $H$ is normal $KH$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $KHconglangle K, Hrangle$
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:34
To force the group to be abelian. For a similar problem where you could get exactly that result, but the overall result is not true, consider the dihedral group with the obvious two generators.
– user3482749
Jan 4 at 17:42
Why do we need both subgroups to be normal? After all it's true that if for example only $H$ is normal $KH$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $KHconglangle K, Hrangle$
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:34
Why do we need both subgroups to be normal? After all it's true that if for example only $H$ is normal $KH$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $KHconglangle K, Hrangle$
– John Cataldo
Jan 4 at 17:34
To force the group to be abelian. For a similar problem where you could get exactly that result, but the overall result is not true, consider the dihedral group with the obvious two generators.
– user3482749
Jan 4 at 17:42
To force the group to be abelian. For a similar problem where you could get exactly that result, but the overall result is not true, consider the dihedral group with the obvious two generators.
– user3482749
Jan 4 at 17:42
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061826%2fif-g-p2-p-prime-and-g-is-not-cyslic-g-cong-bbb-z-p-bbb-z-times-bbb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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