Can Commutation between Subgroups be Achieved without Assuming Normality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mnb96
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Commutation
mnb96
Messages
711
Reaction score
5
Hello,
let's suppose I have two subgroups R and T, and I know that in general they do not commute: that is, rt\neq tr for some r\in R, t\in T.

Is it possible, perhaps after making specific assumptions on R and T, to find some r'\in R, and t'\in T such that: rt=t'r'.

This is possible, for example, with some matrix manipulations if R and T are respectively the groups of rotations and translations in 2D. I was wondering if it is possible to find a more general algebraic approach without making explicit how R and T are defined.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi, mnb96. A few questions:

Do the subgroups have trivial intersection? Are they part of any specific supergroup?

How about looking at the group table (or, otherwise, how is the group given to you)?
 
Hi Bacle2,
thanks for your help. I consider R and T as being subgroups of the supergroup G=RT, and I do not assume that R and T have trivial intersection.

However I noticed that if I assume that at least one of the two subgroups is normal, then I could solve the problem. Let's suppose for example that T is a normal subgroup of G=RT, then we have:
rt=[r,t]tr where [r,t] is the commutator. Thus, rt=(rtr^{-1})t^{-1}tr and since T is normal we have: rt=t'r where t'=rtr^{-1}\in T.

If you define T as the group of 2D translations and R as the group of 2D rotations, and observe that T is a normal subgroup of G=RT, the above construction actually yields a well-known result...

I just wonder if it is possible to drop the assumption of normality and still come up with some more general result.
 
##\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...
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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...

Similar threads

Back
Top