Abstract Algebra HW: Show nk=kn for N,K ∈ G

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem in abstract algebra, specifically concerning the properties of normal subgroups and their interactions within a group. The original poster is tasked with showing that for elements \( n \) from subgroup \( N \) and \( k \) from subgroup \( K \), the product \( nk \) equals \( kn \) under certain conditions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore various methods to demonstrate the equality \( nk = kn \), with some suggesting the use of the hint provided in the problem statement. There is a focus on manipulating expressions involving the elements of the subgroups and their inverses.

Discussion Status

Multiple approaches are being discussed, with some participants questioning the validity of certain steps and the clarity of the arguments presented. There is an ongoing exploration of how the normality of the subgroups affects the relationships between the elements. Some participants express a desire to formalize their reasoning while others seek clarification on specific points.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the significance of the intersection of the subgroups being trivial, as well as the implications of the normality of \( N \) and \( K \) in their arguments. There is an acknowledgment of the need to clarify the use of elements from the respective subgroups in the proofs being attempted.

nateHI
Messages
145
Reaction score
4

Homework Statement


Suppose [itex]N \lhd G[/itex] and [itex]K \vartriangleleft G[/itex] and [itex]N \cap K = \{e\}[/itex]. Show that if
[itex]n \in N[/itex]and [itex]k \in K[/itex], then [itex]nk = kn[/itex]. Hint: [itex]nk = kn[/itex] if and
only if [itex]nkn^{-1}k^{-1} = e[/itex].

Homework Equations


These "relevant equations" were not provided with the problem I'm just putting them here to make my solution more clear.
[itex]e=k_1^{-1}k_1[/itex]
[itex]e=n_1^{-1}n_1[/itex]

The Attempt at a Solution


Let [itex]n_1,n_2\in N[/itex] and let [itex]k_1,k_2\in K[/itex]
Then
[itex](n_1)(k_1)(n_2)(k_2)=(n_1)(k_1)(n_2)e(k_2)=n_1(k_1n_2k_1^{-1})(k1k2)=n1NK=NK[/itex]
But
[itex](n_1)(k_1)(n_2)(k_2)=(n_1)(k_1)e(n_2)(k_2)=(n_1k_1n_1^{-1})(n_1n_2)k_2=KNk_2=Kk_2N=KN[/itex] where we used the fact that in this case, [itex]k_2 \notin N[/itex].
Therefore [itex]NK=KN[/itex] for all [itex]n\in N[/itex] and [itex]k\in K[/itex]

This seems correct to me but I didn't use the hint and my usage of [itex]N \cap K = \{e\}[/itex] seems a little hand wavey.

Please help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I didn't follow your proof. I think you are confusing things by using two elements from each subgroup. You only need the elements given in the problem statement: [itex]n \in N[/itex] and [itex]k \in K[/itex]. Now consider the element [itex]nkn^{-1}k^{-1}[/itex]. The goal is to show that this equals [itex]e[/itex]. One promising way to do this would be to show that it is an element of [itex]N \cap K[/itex].
 
OK, I'll try your method next since I would like to know how to use the hint since the teacher is obviously trying to convey something he deems important. However, I modified my original method slightly and I think it works now. If someone has the time please tell if it does or how it doesn't work.

Let [itex]n_1,n_2\in N[/itex] and let [itex]k_1,k_2\in K[/itex]
Then
[itex]{\bf (n_1)(k_1)(n_2)(k_2)}=(n_1)(k_1)(n_2)e(k_2)=n_1(k_1n_2k_1^{-1})(k1k2)=n1NK=NK[/itex]

But

[itex]{\bf (n_1)(k_1)(n_2)(k_2)}=(n_1)(k_1)e(n_2)(k_2)=(n_1k_1n_1^{-1})(n_1n_2)k_2=KNk_2=Kk_2N=KN[/itex]

Where we used the facts that [itex]Nk_2=k_2N[/itex], [itex]n_1N=N[/itex] and [itex]Kk_2=K[/itex]. Therefore [itex]NK=KN[/itex] for all [itex]n\in N[/itex] and [itex]k\in K[/itex]
 
nateHI said:
OK, I'll try your method next since I would like to know how to use the hint since the teacher is obviously trying to convey something he deems important. However, I modified my original method slightly and I think it works now. If someone has the time please tell if it does or how it doesn't work.

Let [itex]n_1,n_2\in N[/itex] and let [itex]k_1,k_2\in K[/itex]
Then
[itex]{\bf (n_1)(k_1)(n_2)(k_2)}=(n_1)(k_1)(n_2)e(k_2)=n_1(k_1n_2k_1^{-1})(k1k2)=n1NK=NK[/itex]

What does this string of equalities even mean? If we look at just the leftmost and rightmost expressions, you are asserting that
[tex]n_1 k_1 n_2 k_2 = NK[/tex]
The left hand side is an element, but the right hand side is a group. How can an element equal a group?
 
jbunniii said:
What does this string of equalities even mean? If we look at just the leftmost and rightmost expressions, you are asserting that
[tex]n_1 k_1 n_2 k_2 = NK[/tex]
The left hand side is an element, but the right hand side is a group. How can an element equal a group?

Hmm, good point. I'll give this one last try using my method. Even if I don't get it this is good I feel like I'm learning a lot.

Here is my modification that I hope fixes it.

Let [itex]n_1,n_2\in N[/itex] and let [itex]k_1,k_2\in K[/itex]
Then
[itex]{\bf (n_1)(k_1)(n_2)(k_2)}=(n_1)(k_1)(n_2)e(k_2)=n_1(k_1n_2k_1^{-1})(k_1k_2)=n_1nk=nk[/itex]

But

[itex]{\bf (n_1)(k_1)(n_2)(k_2)}=(n_1)(k_1)e(n_2)(k_2)=(n_1k_1n_1^{-1})(n_1n_2)k_2=knk_2=kk_2n=kn[/itex]

I guess the flaw now is that we can't assume that [itex]nk_2=k_2n[/itex]. Well I'll just use your method cause this probably won't work.
 
OK, this is better. But the problem is that the n and k in this equation:
[itex]{\bf (n_1)(k_1)(n_2)(k_2)}=(n_1)(k_1)(n_2)e(k_2)=n_1(k_1n_2k_1^{-1})(k_1k_2)=n_1nk=nk[/itex]

need not be the same as the n and k in this equation:
[itex]{\bf (n_1)(k_1)(n_2)(k_2)}=(n_1)(k_1)e(n_2)(k_2)=(n_1k_1n_1^{-1})(n_1n_2)k_2=knk_2=kk_2n=kn[/itex]

You have the right idea, but you are making it more complicated than it needs to be. Try similar manipulations with the idea I suggested earlier.
 
I guess since the intersection of n and k is {e} for both of my n's of N and k's of K then intuitively nk=e and nk=e :-p which implies nkn^-1k^-1=e and I'm done. I just need to formalize that idea.
 
nateHI said:
I guess since the intersection of n and k is {e} for both of my n's of N and k's of K then intuitively nk=e and nk=e :-p which implies nkn^-1k^-1=e and I'm done. I just need to formalize that idea.

I didn't follow your argument. You have [itex]n \in N[/itex] and [itex]k \in K[/itex]. Now what can you say about the element [itex]nkn^{-1}k^{-1}[/itex]? Hint: what if you add some parentheses: [itex](nkn^{-1})k^{-1}[/itex]?
 
Where have you used the fact that N and K are normal subgroups of G?
 
  • #10
OK, let me try to make it a little more precise.

Since [itex]N[/itex] is normal in [itex]G[/itex], any element [itex]k\in K[/itex] which also happens to be in [itex]G[/itex] since [itex]K[/itex] is a subgroup (the fact that K is normal isn't important until the next step) of [itex]G[/itex] we get [itex]knk^{-1}=n \implies nk=kn[/itex] for all [itex]n \in N[/itex].

Since [itex]K[/itex] is normal in [itex]G[/itex], any element [itex]n\in N[/itex] which also happens to be in [itex]G[/itex] since [itex]N[/itex] is a subgroup (the fact that N is normal is only important in the last step) of [itex]G[/itex] we get [itex]nkn^{-1}=k \implies kn=nk[/itex] for all [itex]k \in K[/itex].

However, the intersection of N and K can only be {e} therefore [itex]nk=e=kn \implies nkn^{-1}k^{-1}=en^{-1}k^{-1}=ee=e[/itex].

Furthermore [itex](nkn^{-1})k^{-1} \in K[/itex] and [itex]n(kn^{-1}k^{-1}) \in N[/itex]



Am I done? It seems like there should be a more concise way to say it regardless.
 
  • #11
Wait wait I get it now...

If [itex](nkn^{-1})k^{-1} \in K[/itex] and [itex]n(kn^{-1}k^{-1}) \in N[/itex] where we have used the fact that N ad K are normal in G then [itex](nkn^{-1})k^{-1}=e[/itex]

and

[itex](nkn^{-1})k^{-1}=e \implies nk=kn[/itex]


Took me a while but I got it.
 
  • #12
nateHI said:
Wait wait I get it now...

If [itex](nkn^{-1})k^{-1} \in K[/itex] and [itex]n(kn^{-1}k^{-1}) \in N[/itex] where we have used the fact that N ad K are normal in G then [itex](nkn^{-1})k^{-1}=e[/itex]

and

[itex](nkn^{-1})k^{-1}=e \implies nk=kn[/itex]


Took me a while but I got it.

Looks good to me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K