Feasibility of groups as union of subgroups.

  • Thread starter Thread starter seshikanth
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Groups Union
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a question from Abstract Algebra concerning the properties of groups and their subgroups. The original poster seeks to understand why a group cannot be expressed as the union of two proper subgroups, while it can be expressed as the union of three subgroups.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore various cases regarding the relationships between two proper subgroups, including containment, disjointness, and shared elements. They also consider specific examples to illustrate the union of three subgroups.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and considerations regarding the properties of subgroup unions. Some participants suggest that the original poster's reasoning covers the necessary cases, while others express interest in the theoretical aspects of group theory involved in the problem.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem is framed within the constraints of group theory, specifically focusing on proper subgroups and their unions. There is an implicit understanding that the original poster is working within the guidelines of a homework assignment.

seshikanth
Messages
19
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I am trying to solve a question from Abstract Algebra by Hernstein.
Can anyone give me hint regarding the following:
Show that a group can not be written as union of 2 (proper) subgroups although it is possible to express it as union of 3 subgroups?

Thanks,



Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I know that the union of 2 subgroups is a group only when one is contained in another or viceversa.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
say you have G with proper subgroups A & B

consider some cases
case 1 - say A is contained in B
________but A & B are both proper

case 2 - say A & B are disjoint
________now consider the multiplication ab

case 3 - say A & B have elements in common other than e
________consider the set of elements they share

those cases should cover the range possibilities
 
Last edited:
If G is the union of two proper subgroups A and B then there is an element a of A that is not in B, and an element b of B that's not in A, right? I think that's the only case you need to consider. For the three subgroup case, just try and think of an example.
 
trivial, but what if A is a subgroup of B?
 
lanedance said:
trivial, but what if A is a subgroup of B?

If B is proper in G and A is a subgroup of B, then the union of A and B is B. Not G.
 
yeah i suppose its really obvious, and the idea you give covers both 2 & 3
 
as always, well played sir ;)
 
lanedance said:
yeah i suppose its really obvious, and the idea you give covers both 2 & 3

That's the idea. If I were reading a students solution to this problem I'd be interested in the 'group theory' part. The case splitting would just annoy me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K