Factor (Quotient) Space definitions.

wotanub
Messages
230
Reaction score
8
I'm learning algebra by myself and this concept is confusing me. Please excuse me if I define anything wrong... I've never expressed myself in this language before.

Lets say we have a group G and a group G' and there exists a homomorphism R: G → G' and for any element g \in G, the equivalence class of g is denoted as [g]_{R} = \{h \in G \:|\: f(h) = f(g)\}

I understand the factor space G/R as the set of all equivalence classes of G:
G/R = \{[g]_{R} \:|\: g \in G\}

but another way I always see this explained (that I'm not clear on) is if we have a subgroup H \subset G then we can define a factor space with left cosets.

G/H = \{gH \:|\: g \in G\}

How are these definitions stating the same thing? Does it have something to do with H being the kernel of a homomorphism? I don't really understand what cosets have to do with equivalence relations.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The two are closely linked.

Take the factor group approach. The quotient set is defined as ##G/H = \{gH~\vert~g\in H\}## with ##H## a subgroup. This ##H## has to be normal if you want ##G/H## to have a natural group structure, so we will do this. This actually corresponds to the following equivalence relation: we define ##g\sim h## iff ##g^{-1}h\in H##. The equivalence classes correspond exactly to the cosets. That is: ##[g]_\sim = gH##. So the coset definition actually does correspond to an equivalence relation.

Now, the link with homomorphisms is the following:
Given a homomorphism ##f:G\rightarrow G^\prime##, then we set ##gRh## iff ##f(g) = f(h)##. But we can take ##H = \textrm{Ker}(f) = \{h\in G~\vert~ f(h) = e\}##. This is a normal subgroup. Then we see that
f(g) = f(h)~\Leftrightarrow f(g^{-1}h) = e~\Leftrightarrow g^{-1}h\in H~\Leftrightarrow g\sim h
So this equivalence relation is nothing more than the one defined above.

Conversely, if we are given a normal subgroup ##H## of ##G##, then we can always find a group ##G^\prime## and a homomorphism ##f:G\rightarrow G^\prime## such that ##H = \textrm{Ker}(f)##. Indeed, just take ##G^\prime = G/H## and take ##f(g) = gH##.

So the two methods outlined by you are equivalent.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
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

Replies
3
Views
428
Replies
13
Views
561
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top