Free product of non-trivial groups is non-abelian

  • Thread starter Thread starter James4
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Groups Product
James4
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Hello

I have to show that the free product of a collection of more than one non-trivial group is non-abelian.

But doesn't this just follow from the definition of the free product?
Or how would you tackle this question?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well... what definition of free product are you using, and how does non-abelian follow from it?
 
You mean the definition of the free product?

As a set, the free product  G consists of all
words g_1g_2.. .g_m of arbitrary finite length m > 0, where each letter g_i belongs to
a group G_ i and is not the identity element of G_ i , and adjacent letters g_i and g_(i+1‚)
belong to different groups G .

For a counterexample to being abelian i thought about:
\pi_1(S^1 \vee S^1) which corresponds to the free product of the fundamental groups of S^1 and which is not abbelian
 
So if you have two groups G and H, and you look at G*H, can you identify two elements in G*H which do not commute?
 
Hi Office_Shredder

Thanks for your answer.
>So if you have two groups G and H, and you look at G*H, can you identify two elements in G*H which do not commute?

Thats what I meant when I wrote in the beginning that it almost follows form the definition, because it holds for any two non trivial items g,h from G,H respectively that g*h is not the same as h*g.
 
James4 said:
Hi Office_Shredder

Thanks for your answer.
>So if you have two groups G and H, and you look at G*H, can you identify two elements in G*H which do not commute?

Thats what I meant when I wrote in the beginning that it almost follows form the definition, because it holds for any two non trivial items g,h from G,H respectively that g*h is not the same as h*g.

Yes, it's almost trivial. g*h is not equal to h*g if g and h are not the identities of their respective groups.
 
So is there actually something to prove here?
 
James4 said:
So is there actually something to prove here?

Not much. gh is not equal to hg because g isn't equal h and neither is the identity.
 
Back
Top