Subgroups-commutator, normal, Abelian

  • Thread starter Thread starter fk378
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Normal
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the properties of the commutator subgroup [G,G] in group theory. It defines the commutator of two elements and explains that [G,G] is generated by all such commutators. Participants seek to understand the structure of elements in [G,G], the proof that it is a normal subgroup of G, and the implications for the quotient group G/[G,G], which is shown to be Abelian. Clarifications are sought regarding the definitions of normal subgroups and the necessary steps to prove these properties. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding subgroup generation and the relationships between group elements.
fk378
Messages
366
Reaction score
0
Subgroups--commutator, normal, Abelian

Homework Statement


Let G be a group and g,h in G. Define the commutator of g and h as [g,h]= gh(hg)^-1. Then define the commutator subgroup, denoted [G,G], of G as the subgroup generated by all the commutators of elements of G, i.e. [G,G]=<{[g,h]: g,h in G}>.

(a) What does an element of [G,G] look like?
Hint: it is not enough to only consider elements of the form [g,h].

(b) Prove that [G,G] is a normal subgroup of G.

(c) Prove that G/[G,G] is an Abelian group.


The Attempt at a Solution



(a) Since [G,G] is cyclic, I thought an element would be of some form of [gh(hg)^-1]^n for some n in N. But the hint kind of threw me off...

(b) Initially I wanted to show that gh(hg)^-1 is mm^-1 but I have to show commutativity there and I don't know how to...so there must be another way? I can't seem to get started on this one...

(c) Is this just a consequence of part (b)? Since to show a subgroup is normal you need to use their cosets as an example.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


(a) [G,G] is not necessarily cyclic - it's generated by a set. I suggest you look up what this means.

(b) I don't understand what you're saying here. What's the definition of "normal subgroup"?

(c) It's a consequence of (b) that G/[G,G] is a group. Why is it an abelian one?
 


A normal subgroup is some H such that xH=Hx for x in G.
Equivalently, xhx^-1 is in H.
 


Right. Now use the definition to show that [G,G] is normal in G.
 


Well...that's my question here.

This is what I attempted:
Let H be a subgroup of G,
g,g-inverse in G
Then gh is in gH, and (g-inverse)(h-inverse) is in (g-inverse)H.
So then [g,h]=gh(g-inverse)(h-inverse)=gH(g-inverse)H=g(g-inverse)H=eH=H
(since the product of left cosets equals a left coset).

Is that correct? If not...any hints?

If it is right...then I have shown that an element of [G,G] looks like the subgroup H, and then all I need to do now is show xH=Hx?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K