Group Theory Question: The Symmetry of Right and Left Multiplication in Groups

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of multiplication in group theory, specifically examining whether right and left multiplication by a group element can be classified as homomorphisms. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the symmetry of these operations and their implications for homomorphism status.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definitions of homomorphisms in the context of group operations, questioning the conditions under which right and left multiplication can be homomorphisms. There is a discussion about the implications of Cayley's theorem and whether the defined mappings are indeed homomorphisms.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights into the nature of the mappings and their properties. Some participants suggest that neither right nor left multiplication is a homomorphism, while others explore specific cases and definitions that may lead to different conclusions.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing examination of the definitions and properties of group operations, with participants questioning assumptions about the symmetry of multiplication and the requirements for mappings to be classified as homomorphisms.

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


If G is a group, is it true that right multiplication by a given element is a homomorphism but left multiplication is not? That does not really make sense to me because aren't right and left multiplication "symmetric"?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
In general neither is a homomorphism.
 
Note to be a homomorphism, it needs to map the identity to the identity. Only a select few elements can multiply with the identity and give the identity back
 
I think I asked the wrong question.
Let G = {g_1, ..., g_n} be a group. Let X be a graph with vertices {g_1, ..., g_n}. Let [tex]\alpha_{g}[/tex] be the permutation of the vertices defined by [tex]\alpha_{g}(g_i) = g_i*g[/tex]

Given a bijection between the elements of G and the elements of the group of \alpha_g, I want to show that the group of \alpha_{g} and G are isomorphic.

So, let [tex]h(g_i) = \alpha_{g_i}[/tex].

h is not a homomorphism, correct?
 
does anyone understand this question?
 
The group of alpha_g? I assume you mean the subgroup of [tex]S_G[/tex] obtained from the map h you defined lastly?

If so, then that's just Cayley's theorem.

In Cayley's theorem, we show that every group G is isomorphic to a subgroup of [tex]S_G[/tex] (the group of permutation of G.)

To do this, we show that the map [tex]h:G\rightarrow S_G[/tex] defined as you did is a monomorphism. Then the restriction of its codomain to h(G) is an isomorphism.
 
quasar987 said:
The group of alpha_g? I assume you mean the subgroup of [tex]S_G[/tex] obtained from the map h you defined lastly?
The group I speak of is [tex]\{\alpha_{g} : g \in G\}[/tex] under composition of functions.

quasar987 said:
If so, then that's just Cayley's theorem.

I didn't realize that but you're right. So my question really is then, to prove Cayley's Theorem can you define [tex]\alpha_{g}(g_i) = g_i*g[/tex] or do you need to define
[tex]\alpha_{g}(g_i) = g*g_i[/tex]?

I think that we need the latter, but I'm afraid I am making a stupid mistake.
 
IT works either way. As you said, it's "symetric"

1° For all g, [tex]\alpha_{g}(g_i) = g_i*g[/tex] defines a permutation of G, because 1) if g1*g=g2*g, then discover that g1=g2 by multiplying by g^-1 from the right. That's injectivity. 2) let g' be in G, then [tex]g_i=g'*g^{-1}[/tex] is sent to g' by [tex]\alpha_{g}[/tex]. That's surjectivity.

2° Show h is an homomorphism. That's routine.

3° Let g be in Ker(h). Then [tex]\alpha_{g}=id_G[/tex]. So for any g' in G, g'*g=g'. This can only be so if g=1. Hence the kernel is trivial, hence h is a monomorphism.
 
Funny!

2° [tex]h(g*g')(g_i)=\alpha_{g*g'}(g_i)=g_i*(g*g')=(g_i*g)*g'=\alpha_{g'}(g_i*g)=\alpha_{g'}(\alpha_{g}(g_i))=(\alpha_{g'}\circ \alpha_{g})(g_i)=[h(g')\circ h(g)](g_i)[/tex]

so it seems you were right in worrying! It's not a morphism if we multiply from the right!
 
  • #10
quasar987 said:
IT works either way. As you said, it's "symetric"
2° Show h is an homomorphism. That's routine.

I claim that h is not a homomorphism in this case:

[tex]\alpha_{g_1*g_2}(g_i) = g_i*g_1*g_2[/tex]
but
[tex]\alpha_{g_1}\circ \alpha_{g_2}(g_i) = \alpha_{g_1}(\alpha_{g_2}(g_i)) = g_i*g_2*g_1[/tex]

EDIT: you beat me
 
Last edited:
  • #11
It works if we define [tex]\alpha_g[/tex] to act on gi by multiplication from the right by the inverse of g instead:

[tex]\alpha_g(g_i)=g_ig^{-1}[/tex].

Because now

[tex]\alpha_{g*g'}(g_i)=g_i(g*g')^{-1}=g_ig'^{-1}g^{-1}=(\alpha_{g}\circ\alpha_{g'})(g_i)[/tex].
 
Last edited:
  • #12
ehrenfest said:
You mean its not a homomorphism, right?

Yes, morphism and homomorphism are interchangeable terms.
 
  • #13
quasar987 said:
Yes, morphism and homomorphism are interchangeable terms.

I just realized that and deleted the post. But thanks. Everything is clear now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K