Are the Right and Left Cosets Equal in a Group's Cayley Table?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathsdespair
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group Table
mathsdespair
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Just by looking at the cayley table of a group and looking at its subgroups, is their a theorem or something which tells you if the right and left cosets are equal?

I have question to do and I would love to half the workload by not having to to work out the same thing twice.
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When multiplying cosets, can you just quite simply multiply them together?
Our teacher said something about their could be a potential problem?
What could the problem be?
 
mathsdespair said:
When multiplying cosets, can you just quite simply multiply them together?
Our teacher said something about their could be a potential problem?
What could the problem be?
You can always multiply cosets, but the result is not necessarily a coset. In other words, the set of right or left cosets is not generally a group. Thus you can form the product ##aHbH##, which is the set of all elements of the form ##ah_1bh_2##, but this does not generally equal ##abH##, nor can it generally be written in the form ##gH## at all.

However, if ##H## is a normal subgroup, then the left and right cosets are the same (##aH = Ha##), so we just call them cosets, and the set of cosets does form a group. In this case, the product ##aHbH## can be simplified as follows:
$$aHbH = a(Hb)H = a(bH)H = abHH = abH$$
 
jbunniii said:
You can always multiply cosets, but the result is not necessarily a coset. In other words, the set of right or left cosets is not generally a group. Thus you can form the product ##aHbH##, which is the set of all elements of the form ##ah_1bh_2##, but this does not generally equal ##abH##, nor can it generally be written in the form ##gH## at all.

However, if ##H## is a normal subgroup, then the left and right cosets are the same (##aH = Ha##), so we just call them cosets, and the set of cosets does form a group. In this case, the product ##aHbH## can be simplified as follows:
$$aHbH = a(Hb)H = a(bH)H = abHH = abH$$

Thank you for the good explanation.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
567
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Back
Top