Are right and left multiplication by an element homomorphisms?

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
12 replies · 3K views
ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


If G is a group, is it true that right multiplication by a given element is a homomorphism but left multiplication is not? That does not really make sense to me because aren't right and left multiplication "symmetric"?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
In general neither is a homomorphism.
 
Note to be a homomorphism, it needs to map the identity to the identity. Only a select few elements can multiply with the identity and give the identity back
 
I think I asked the wrong question.
Let G = {g_1, ..., g_n} be a group. Let X be a graph with vertices {g_1, ..., g_n}. Let [tex]\alpha_{g}[/tex] be the permutation of the vertices defined by [tex]\alpha_{g}(g_i) = g_i*g[/tex]

Given a bijection between the elements of G and the elements of the group of \alpha_g, I want to show that the group of \alpha_{g} and G are isomorphic.

So, let [tex]h(g_i) = \alpha_{g_i}[/tex].

h is not a homomorphism, correct?
 
does anyone understand this question?
 
The group of alpha_g? I assume you mean the subgroup of [tex]S_G[/tex] obtained from the map h you defined lastly?

If so, then that's just Cayley's theorem.

In Cayley's theorem, we show that every group G is isomorphic to a subgroup of [tex]S_G[/tex] (the group of permutation of G.)

To do this, we show that the map [tex]h:G\rightarrow S_G[/tex] defined as you did is a monomorphism. Then the restriction of its codomain to h(G) is an isomorphism.
 
quasar987 said:
The group of alpha_g? I assume you mean the subgroup of [tex]S_G[/tex] obtained from the map h you defined lastly?
The group I speak of is [tex]\{\alpha_{g} : g \in G\}[/tex] under composition of functions.

quasar987 said:
If so, then that's just Cayley's theorem.

I didn't realize that but you're right. So my question really is then, to prove Cayley's Theorem can you define [tex]\alpha_{g}(g_i) = g_i*g[/tex] or do you need to define
[tex]\alpha_{g}(g_i) = g*g_i[/tex]?

I think that we need the latter, but I'm afraid I am making a stupid mistake.
 
IT works either way. As you said, it's "symetric"

1° For all g, [tex]\alpha_{g}(g_i) = g_i*g[/tex] defines a permutation of G, because 1) if g1*g=g2*g, then discover that g1=g2 by multiplying by g^-1 from the right. That's injectivity. 2) let g' be in G, then [tex]g_i=g'*g^{-1}[/tex] is sent to g' by [tex]\alpha_{g}[/tex]. That's surjectivity.

2° Show h is an homomorphism. That's routine.

3° Let g be in Ker(h). Then [tex]\alpha_{g}=id_G[/tex]. So for any g' in G, g'*g=g'. This can only be so if g=1. Hence the kernel is trivial, hence h is a monomorphism.
 
Funny!

2° [tex]h(g*g')(g_i)=\alpha_{g*g'}(g_i)=g_i*(g*g')=(g_i*g)*g'=\alpha_{g'}(g_i*g)=\alpha_{g'}(\alpha_{g}(g_i))=(\alpha_{g'}\circ \alpha_{g})(g_i)=[h(g')\circ h(g)](g_i)[/tex]

so it seems you were right in worrying! It's not a morphism if we multiply from the right!
 
quasar987 said:
IT works either way. As you said, it's "symetric"
2° Show h is an homomorphism. That's routine.

I claim that h is not a homomorphism in this case:

[tex]\alpha_{g_1*g_2}(g_i) = g_i*g_1*g_2[/tex]
but
[tex]\alpha_{g_1}\circ \alpha_{g_2}(g_i) = \alpha_{g_1}(\alpha_{g_2}(g_i)) = g_i*g_2*g_1[/tex]

EDIT: you beat me
 
Last edited:
It works if we define [tex]\alpha_g[/tex] to act on gi by multiplication from the right by the inverse of g instead:

[tex]\alpha_g(g_i)=g_ig^{-1}[/tex].

Because now

[tex]\alpha_{g*g'}(g_i)=g_i(g*g')^{-1}=g_ig'^{-1}g^{-1}=(\alpha_{g}\circ\alpha_{g'})(g_i)[/tex].
 
Last edited:
ehrenfest said:
You mean its not a homomorphism, right?

Yes, morphism and homomorphism are interchangeable terms.
 
quasar987 said:
Yes, morphism and homomorphism are interchangeable terms.

I just realized that and deleted the post. But thanks. Everything is clear now.