Definition of unconnected subgroups

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PsychonautQQ
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the definition of unconnected subgroups in group theory, exploring the conditions under which subgroups are considered unconnected and how these conditions relate to the intersections of subgroups. The scope includes theoretical aspects of group theory and examples from both finite groups and vector spaces.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the definition of unconnected subgroups is equivalent to stating that the intersection of any two subgroups is trivial, i.e., {1}.
  • Another participant provides a counterexample using the group ##G = C_2 \times C_2##, illustrating that while the pairwise intersections of certain subgroups are trivial, they do not satisfy the unconnected condition as their product is the entire group.
  • Further clarification is sought regarding the specific subgroups of ##C_2 \times C_2##, with a detailed breakdown of the subgroups and their elements provided by another participant.
  • A geometric example is introduced, where subgroups generated by non-zero vectors in ##\mathbb R^N## are discussed, emphasizing that the subgroups are unconnected if the vectors are linearly independent, contrasting this with the condition of trivial intersection.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the equivalence of the definitions of unconnected subgroups and trivial intersections. Multiple competing views remain, particularly regarding the implications of linear independence versus trivial intersection.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the nuances in definitions and conditions related to subgroup properties, with some participants noting that the conditions for unconnectedness may be weaker than initially assumed. The examples provided illustrate different contexts where these definitions apply.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and researchers in group theory, particularly those interested in subgroup properties, linear independence in vector spaces, and the implications of subgroup intersections.

PsychonautQQ
Messages
781
Reaction score
10
M = intersection.
Textbook:
"The following are equivalent for subgroups G1, G2, ... ,GN of a group.

1) (G1*G2*...*G(K-1)) M GK = {1} for each k=2,3,...,n
2) If g1*g2*...*gn = 1, where each gi is an element of Gi, then gi = 1 for each i."

If these conditions are met then the subgroups are called unconnected.

My question is this: Isn't this just the same as saying that the intersection of any two subgroups is {1}? If not, why? What's the difference?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, it's not the same. Consider for example the group ##G = C_2 \times C_2##, the non-cyclic abelian group with four elements. It has three subgroups of order 2, let's call them ##H_1, H_2, H_3##. Pairwise, they satisfy ##H_j \cap H_k = \{1\}## if ##j \neq k##. But the product of any two of them is all of ##G##, so they do not satisfy the condition ##(H_1 H_2) \cap H_3 = \{1\}##. In fact, ##(H_1 H_2) \cap H_3 = G \cap H_3 = H_3##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PsychonautQQ
Interesting, thank you. What exactly are the subgroups of C2 x C2? are they (C2 x 0), (0 x C2) and then maybe C2 x C2 itself?
 
PsychonautQQ said:
Interesting, thank you. What exactly are the subgroups of C2 x C2? are they (C2 x 0), (0 x C2) and then maybe C2 x C2 itself?
If we write the elements of ##C_2## as ##\{1, a\}##, then the elements of ##C_2 \times C_2## are ##\{(1,1), (a,1), (1,a), (a,a)\}##. The first element ##(1,1)## is the identity; the other three have order ##2## and therefore each one generates a subgroup of order ##2##:
$$\begin{aligned}
H_1 &= \langle (a,1) \rangle = \{(1,1), (a,1)\} \\
H_2 &= \langle (1,a) \rangle = \{(1,1), (1,a)\} \\
H_3 &= \langle (a,a) \rangle = \{(1,1), (a,a)\} \\
\end{aligned}$$
If you prefer additive notation, then write ##0## instead of ##1## above.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PsychonautQQ
Thanks, I appreciate it
 
Here is another example, more geometric. As it is known, ##\mathbb R^N## (or any vector space) with addition is an abelian group (group operation is the vector space addition, unit is the zero vector). Let ##\mathbf a_1, \mathbf a_2, \ldots, \mathbf a_n## be non-zero vectors in ##\mathbb R^N## (we do not assume ##n=N##), and let ##G_k## be the subspaces generated by ##\mathbf a_k##, $$G_k = \{ x\mathbf a_k: x\in\mathbb R\}.$$ Then ##G_k## is a subgroup of the group ##\mathbb R^N##. And it is not hard to check that the subgroups ##G_1, G_2, \ldots, G_n## are unconnected if and only if the vectors ##\mathbf a_1, \mathbf a_2, \ldots, \mathbf a_n## are linearly independent. And any two subgroups have trivial intersection means simply that no two vectors ##\mathbf a_k## are collinear, i.e. that no vector ##\mathbf a_k## is a multiple of another vector ##\mathbf a_j##, ##j\ne k##. And that condition is much weaker than linear independence, you can find bunch of examples even in ##\mathbb R^2##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PsychonautQQ
Thanks Hawkeye, that helped a lot.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K