MHB Is G/G isomorphic to the trivial group? A proof for G/G\cong \{e\}

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The proof for the isomorphism $$G/G \cong \{e\}$$ is established through three key statements. First, the subgroup G of G is identified as the unique left coset of G in G, leading to the conclusion that $$G/G = \{G\}$$. Since G is a normal subgroup of itself, the quotient group has an order of |G/G| = 1. Finally, the function $$\phi: G/G \to \{e\}$$ defined by $$\phi(G) = e$$ demonstrates a group isomorphism, confirming that $$G/G \cong \{e\}$$.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of group theory concepts, specifically quotient groups.
  • Familiarity with the definition and properties of normal subgroups.
  • Knowledge of group isomorphisms and their implications.
  • Basic mathematical notation and proof techniques in abstract algebra.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of normal subgroups in detail.
  • Learn about the structure and significance of quotient groups in group theory.
  • Explore examples of group isomorphisms and their applications.
  • Investigate the implications of the First Isomorphism Theorem in group theory.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of abstract algebra, and anyone interested in understanding group theory and isomorphisms will benefit from this discussion.

lemonthree
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Reorder the statements below to give a proof for $$G/G\cong \{e\}$$, where $$\{e\}$$ is the trivial group.

The 3 sentences are:
For the subgroup G of G, G is the unique left coset of G in G.
Therefore we have $$G/G=\{G\}$$ and, since $$G\lhd G$$, the quotient group has order |G/G|=1.
Let $$\phi:G/G\to \{e\}$$ be defined as $$\phi(G)=e$$. This is trivially a group isomorphism and so $$G/G\cong \{e\}$$.

I have ordered the statements to what I believe is right but I would just like to check and ensure I'm thinking on the right track.
Firstly, the question wants a proof for a group isomorphism. So we state that the subgroup of G of G is the unique left coset.
Then G/G has got to be {G} since it's the same group G anyway. We know that the order is 1.
Therefore, we define phi to be the proof, and from there we can conclude the group isomorphism.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, the order of the statements is logically correct.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
584
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
904
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K