MHB Comparing $gH$ and $Hg$ for Infinite & Finite Groups

Click For Summary
In the discussion about comparing the left and right cosets $gH$ and $Hg$ for infinite and finite groups, the key point is the condition that for every element $h \in H$, there exists an element $h' \in H$ such that $gh = h'g$. This condition leads to the conclusion that $gH \subseteq Hg$ for finite groups, implying $gH = Hg$ due to the bijection between the two sets. However, for infinite groups, this does not necessarily hold, as demonstrated by an example involving group presentations where conjugation does not map onto the subgroup. The conversation highlights the complexity of group properties and the necessity of specific conditions for equality of cosets. Ultimately, the relationship between $gH$ and $Hg$ varies significantly depending on the finiteness of the groups involved.
alexmahone
Messages
303
Reaction score
0
Suppose $G$ is an infinite group and $H$ is an infinite subgroup of $G$.

Let $g\in G$.

Suppose $\forall h\in H\ \exists h'\in H$ such that $gh=h'g$.

Can we conclude that $gH=Hg$?

What if $G$ and $H$ are of finite orders?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Alexmahone said:
Suppose $G$ is an infinite group and $H$ is an infinite subgroup of $G$.

Let $g\in G$.

Suppose $\forall h\in H\ \exists h'\in H$ such that $gh=h'g$.

Can we conclude that $gH=Hg$?

What if $G$ and $H$ are of finite orders?
I don't have an answer, just an observation. It is possible that given g and h that the h' might generate a subset of H, not all of H. (ie. [math]\exists f: H \to H'[/math] is not an bijection.) In which case [math]gH = H'g \subseteq Hg[/math] in general. I don't know if that helps or not.

-Dan
 
Alexmahone said:
Suppose $G$ is an infinite group and $H$ is an infinite subgroup of $G$.

Let $g\in G$.

Suppose $\forall h\in H\ \exists h'\in H$ such that $gh=h'g$.

Can we conclude that $gH=Hg$?

What if $G$ and $H$ are of finite orders?

Hi Alexmahone,

I believe your statement is correct, but only for finite groups. Suppose $G$ is finite. The given condition implies $gH \subset Hg$. Since there is a bijection $gH \leftrightarrow Hg$, then $gH$ and $Hg$ have the same number of elements. Hence, $gH = Hg$.
 
Actually, the statement also holds when $G$ is commutative, infinite or not. The condition would not be needed in such a case.
 
Your problem rephrased slightly:
If $G$ is a group, $H$ a subgroup of $G$ and $g\in G$ with $gHg^{-1}\subseteq H$, does $gHg^{-1}=H$?

Euge has answered in the affirmative for some cases; also this follows if $g$ has finite order, easy proof.

I think an example is needed that shows this is not always true. To follow the example, you need to know a little about group presentations.

Let $G=<a\,,b\,:\, b^{-1}ab=a^2>,\,H=<a>\text{ and } g=b^{-1}$
Since conjugation is a homomorphism, $gHg^{-1}\subseteq H$. If this conjugation were an onto map, there would exist an integer $k$ with $ga^kg^{-1}=a$. But $ga^kg^{-1}=a^{2k}$ . Since $a$ has infinite order (loosely speaking there is no relation that allows $a$ to have finite order), we would get that $2k=1$, impossible. So $gHg^{-1}\neq H$.
 
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 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
835
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
505
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K