Generated by two subgroups?

  • Thread starter tgt
  • Start date
In summary, to say that a subgroup of G is generated by the subgroups A and B means that the smallest subgroup containing A and B is G. This can also be written as G = <AB>, where AB is the set of all finite products of elements from A and B. This concept applies even when AB is not necessarily a subgroup, but the smallest subgroup containing AB is still G. This is a generalization of the case when AB is equal to G.
  • #1

tgt

522
2
Consider G a group with two subgroups A and B.

What does it mean to say a subgroup of G generated by the subgroups A and B?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
First look at a simpler case: What does it mean to say that it is generated by A only?
 
  • #3
Good question. What does it mean?
 
  • #4
Given any subset S of a group G, we can form the subgroup of G by taking all finite products of the elements of S (we define the empty product to be the identity). This is denoted by <S>. An equivalent definition, is that <S> is the smallest subgroup of G containing S. Since if [tex] $ x=s_1\cdots s_n $ where $ s_i \in S $ [/tex], then x must be in the smallest subgroup of G containing S. It is then obvious that the two definitions are equivalent.

So, since the smallest subgroup generated by a subgroup A of G must be A, for G to be generated by A means that A=G. Note that this is only when A is a subgroup. So, for G to be generated by A and B means that there is no subgroup of G which contains A and B other than G. We can always form what is know as the free product of groups, usually denoted either A*B or AB. Then another way of saying it is that G=<AB>. In other words, AB might not necessarily be a subgroup, but you do know that the smallest subgroup containing AB is G. This seems like a generalization of the case when AB=G to the case when AB is not necessarily a subgroup. Note that the free product is always a group, but that there may not be an imbedding of AB into G.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
eastside00_99 said:
Given any subset S of a group G, we can form the subgroup of G by taking all finite products of the elements of S (we define the empty product to be the identity). This is denoted by <S>. An equivalent definition, is that <S> is the smallest subgroup of G containing S. Since if [tex] $ x=s_1\cdots s_n $ where $ s_i \in S $ [/tex], then x must be in the smallest subgroup of G containing S. It is then obvious that the two definitions are equivalent.

So, since the smallest subgroup generated by a subgroup A of G must be A, for G to be generated by A means that A=G. Note that this is only when A is a subgroup. So, for G to be generated by A and B means that there is no subgroup of G which contains A and B other than G. We can always form what is know as the free product of groups, usually denoted either A*B or AB. Then another way of saying it is that G=<AB>. In other words, AB might not necessarily be a subgroup, but you do know that the smallest subgroup containing AB is G. This seems like a generalization of the case when AB=G to the case when AB is not necessarily a subgroup. Note that the free product is always a group, but that there may not be an imbedding of AB into G.

The second paragraph isn't clear.
 
  • #6
(1) So, since the smallest subgroup generated by a subgroup A of G must be A, for G to be generated by A means that A=G. Note that this is only when A is a subgroup.

By definition, the group generated by the subgroup A is A if A is a group. Thus if the group generated by A is G, then A=G whenever A is a subgroup of G.(2) So, for G to be generated by A and B means that there is no subgroup of G which contains A and B other than G.

By definition, the group generated by A and B is the smallest subgroup containing but A and B. Therefore there is no proper subgroup of G which contains both A and B.(3) We can always form what is know as the free product of groups, usually denoted either A*B or AB. Then another way of saying it is that G=<AB>.

Let [tex] $ AB =\{ab \mid a\in A, b\in B\} $ [/tex] It is easy to check that the group generated by A and B is equivalent to the group generated by the set AB. Maybe part of the confusion is that the group generated by A and B would be the group generated by the union of the two groups. This is the only possible meaning of the phrase sense A and B are groups. If they where sets, then it wouldn't be so straightforward. In that case it could mean G=<A>=<B> where A =\= B. But as long as they are groups, they couldn't mean this because then you would have G=A=B.(4) In other words, AB might not necessarily be a subgroup, but you do know that the smallest subgroup containing AB is G. This seems like a generalization of the case when AB=G to the case when AB is not necessarily a subgroup.
 
  • #7
eastside00_99 said:
(1) So, since the smallest subgroup generated by a subgroup A of G must be A, for G to be generated by A means that A=G. Note that this is only when A is a subgroup.

By definition, the group generated by the subgroup A is A if A is a group. Thus if the group generated by A is G, then A=G whenever A is a subgroup of G.(2) So, for G to be generated by A and B means that there is no subgroup of G which contains A and B other than G.

By definition, the group generated by A and B is the smallest subgroup containing but A and B. Therefore there is no proper subgroup of G which contains both A and B.(3) We can always form what is know as the free product of groups, usually denoted either A*B or AB. Then another way of saying it is that G=<AB>.

Let [tex] $ AB =\{ab \mid a\in A, b\in B\} $ [/tex] It is easy to check that the group generated by A and B is equivalent to the group generated by the set AB. Maybe part of the confusion is that the group generated by A and B would be the group generated by the union of the two groups. This is the only possible meaning of the phrase sense A and B are groups. If they where sets, then it wouldn't be so straightforward. In that case it could mean G=<A>=<B> where A =\= B. But as long as they are groups, they couldn't mean this because then you would have G=A=B.(4) In other words, AB might not necessarily be a subgroup, but you do know that the smallest subgroup containing AB is G. This seems like a generalization of the case when AB=G to the case when AB is not necessarily a subgroup.

3 is unclear.

What happens if the intersection of A and B is non empty? Then the group generated by A and B is not the free product of A and B.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
tgt said:
3 is unclear.

What happens if the intersection of A and B is non empty? Then the group generated by A and B is not the free product of A and B.
There are many types of products of groups. Let AxB denote the cartesian product. I.e., AxB ={(a,b) | a in A and b in B}. This is a group under the multiplication (a,b)(a',b')=(aa',bb'). There is a theorem that states if ab=ba for all a in A and all b in B, the only element of A and B is the identity, then AxB can be embedded into G. Furthermore, if AB ={a,b | a in A, and b in B} =G, then AxB is isomorphic to G.

Proof. We define a map from AxB to G by by (a,b) --> ab. A trivial computation shows that it is a homomorphism. Furthermore, it is onto AB by definition. Now, let (a,b) be in the kernel of our map --- i.e., ab = e. Then a=b^-1. So, a is both in A and in B which implies a = e, whence b=e. Thus the map is injective.

What I think you are getting at is that AB will not necessarily be isomorphic to the group AxB without these conditions.
 
  • #9
To clearify (3), just use the fact that the group generated by A and B is the smallest subgroup of G which contains A and B. Clearly, this is the smallest subgroup containing AuB or because if H contains A and B then it contains AuB and vise verse. Thus, when it says that the smallest subgroup generated by A and B, think of it as the group of all finite products of elements of AuB.

But, just for your reference there was some ambiguity in the statement "suppose G is group generated by A and B." by a stretch of the imagination this could mean G=<A>=<B> (when A and B are not groups). But sense you have stated explicitly that they are groups, use what I have said above.
 
  • #10
eastside00_99 said:
as the group of all finite products of elements of AuB.

Why does it have to be finite?
 
  • #11
Because that is the definition of 'generate' - any element is a word of finite length in the elements of A and B.
 
  • #12
I guess what I'm really after is:

How would you work out the subgroup of G generated by two subgroups of G (i.e A and B)?

i.e <AUB>=? for A and B are any subgroup of a group G

Is there a formula or method for calculating such things?
 
  • #13
In general no. But in any particular example just 'doing it' will probably give you the answer.
 
  • #14
matt grime said:
In general no.

Can you prove that in general it is not possible?
 
  • #15
It is a genuinely hard problem to determine when two given presentations (generators, relations) define the same group, or indeed to determine almost anything at all about a group. See, e.g. the word problem or that whole gamut of things.

However, in nearly any case you're given, attempting to show that, in this case, <AuB> contains some known generators of G will almost surely work.

For finite groups, you of course have exhaustion, and generically, I suspect that that will be the only option.

I'd also like you to think about your own question: when you ask "what is <AuB>?", you're really asking 'can I identify it with something else that I like more'. The subgroup generated is whatever it is, it is really only interesting to ask if this subgroup is isomorphic to some other group, or is indeed the whole of G. Note that for infinite groups it is entirely possible for <AuB> to be isomorphic to G, and not equal to it.

In finite cases you have other useful things at hand. For instance, take G=S_3, the permutation group of 3 elements. Let A be {e, (12)} and B be {e,(123), (132)}. Then it is obvious that <AuB>=S_3, since <AuB> contains at least 4 elements, and the order must divide 6.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
matt grime said:
In general no. But in any particular example just 'doing it' will probably give you the answer.

What does doing it mean? Is there some procedure?
 
  • #17
In my experience, 'doing it' usually means writing down all the elements you can think of, applying the relations to find all unique ones among them, check if you can construct any new ones, possibly use some group theoretical theorems to check if that might be all (e.g. do all the orders of the elements divide the total number I've found, does it contain the generating group, etc) and hope that's it :smile:

I don't think there is really any method that will always definitely give you the entire group, unless you have a computer program or some "physical" meaning (for example, you know that [itex]D_6[/itex], the symmetry group of a triangle, has 6 elements because each symmetry can be identified with a permutation of the corners of which there are 3! = 6).
Indeed I wonder how they proved facts about, for example, the monster group :smile:
 
  • #18
tgt said:
What does doing it mean? Is there some procedure?

It means precisely what it states: just do it., get your hands dirty, make some computations, bloody well think about it, for God's sake; it's not hard, it just requires you to put in some work.
 
  • #19
matt grime said:
It means precisely what it states: just do it., get your hands dirty, make some computations, bloody well think about it, for God's sake; it's not hard, it just requires you to put in some work.

What happens if we have two infinite groups? At the moment, it seems the free product approach or free product with amagalmation seems best but it dosen't work for all of them. For example, what happens if you are in a large group F where you want to know <A,B> in F. But two or more pairs of subgroups in A and B are identified (for example, considered equal). Then what do you do?
 
  • #20
Whatever you can. There are many papers and books on this stuff, try looking up algorithms. Try, for instance, googling for 'the word problem finitely presented groups' and see what comes up.
 

1. What is the definition of "Generated by two subgroups"?

"Generated by two subgroups" refers to a mathematical concept in group theory where a group is formed by combining two smaller subgroups. It involves taking all possible combinations of elements from the two subgroups and creating a new group with these elements.

2. How is "Generated by two subgroups" related to other concepts in group theory?

"Generated by two subgroups" is closely related to the concepts of normal subgroups, quotient groups, and direct products. It is often used in group theory to prove theorems and understand the structure of groups.

3. Can any two subgroups generate a group?

No, not all pairs of subgroups can generate a group. For a group to be generated by two subgroups, the subgroups must satisfy certain conditions such as being normal or having a specific relationship with each other.

4. How is "Generated by two subgroups" used in real-world applications?

"Generated by two subgroups" is used in a variety of applications, including cryptography, chemistry, and physics. It helps to understand the structure and behavior of complex systems and can be applied to solving problems in these fields.

5. Are there any limitations to using "Generated by two subgroups" in group theory?

While "Generated by two subgroups" is a useful concept in group theory, it does have some limitations. It may not be applicable to all types of groups, and there are cases where it may not fully capture the properties of a group. Additionally, it may be difficult to determine which subgroups are needed to generate a specific group.

Suggested for: Generated by two subgroups?

Replies
1
Views
629
Replies
2
Views
738
Replies
4
Views
512
Replies
1
Views
736
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
1K
Back
Top