Can Order and Size be Equivalent?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Homo Novus
  • Start date Start date
Homo Novus
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Is "order" = "size"?

I'm really confused... we refer to the "size" of a group as the "order"... But are they really equivalent? Can we prove that simply?

Example:
Say we have a group G and a subgroup H. Then take one of the cosets of H, say Hx... It has order = o(G)/o(G/H). But does this mean that in G/H, (Hx)^[o(G)/o(G/H)] = e = H?? Or do elements have different orders in different groups? I'm so confused.

Oh, and this whole factor group thing... Does this only apply to normal subgroups?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


You seem to be talking about two different definitions of "order". The "order of a group" is the number of elements in the group- its "size". The "order of an element" of group G is the order of the subgroup of G generated by the element. In particular if the order of an element, x, is n then x^n= e, the identity of G. I don't know what you mean by a subgroup, (Hx), to a power.
 


Homo Novus said:
I'm really confused... we refer to the "size" of a group as the "order"... But are they really equivalent? Can we prove that simply?

No, they are not equivalent. One definition of order means the "size" of the group. The other definition of order is the order of an element g: it is the smallest positive integer n such that g^n=e.

Example:
Say we have a group G and a subgroup H. Then take one of the cosets of H, say Hx... It has order = o(G)/o(G/H).

Why does it have that order? Sure, the coset has |H| elements. But the order is the smallest positive number n such that (Hx)^n=H. This is in general not o(G)/o(G/H).


Oh, and this whole factor group thing... Does this only apply to normal subgroups?

Yes.
 
##\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...
Back
Top