Cartesian Product of Permutations?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the isomorphism between the group G and the Cartesian product H × G/H, using G = S3 and its subgroup H = A3 as examples. It clarifies that the quotient group G/H consists of cosets, specifically mapping permutations to their parity, resulting in an isomorphic structure to the two-element group {1, -1}. The Cartesian product of groups is defined as pairs of elements from each group, with a specific multiplication rule. An example illustrates how to perform multiplication within the product group, demonstrating the interaction between even permutations and their parity. This explanation provides clarity on interpreting the Cartesian product of groups in the context of permutations.
Parmenides
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Suppose I was asked if G \cong H \times G/H. At first I considered a familiar group, G = S_3 with its subgroup H = A_3. I know that the quotient group is the cosets of H, but then I realized that I have no idea how to interpret a Cartesian product of any type of set with elements that aren't just numbers. An ordered pair of permutations doesn't make sense (this is not a homework question). I'd be grateful for some clarity.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If G1 and G2 are groups, then
G_1 \times G_2 = \{ (g_1,g_2)\ :\ g_1 \in G_1,\ g_2\in G_2 \}
with the multiplication
(g_1,g_2)\cdot (h_1,h_2) = (g_1 h_1, g_2 h_2).

So if you have G = S3, and H = A3, G/H is isomorphic to the two element group {1,-1} (where each permutation gets mapped to its parity), and a general element of A3 x (S3/A3) is (\sigma, \pm 1 ) where sigma here is any even permutation.

For example,
\left( (1 2 3 ),-1 \right) \cdot \left( (1 2 3), 1 \right) = \left( (1 3 2), -1 \right)
is a multiplication inside of this group.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
505
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
835
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
859
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K