MHB How Does Theorem 2.68 Explain Finitely Generated Groups in Algebra?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Groups
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on Theorem 2.68 from Joseph Rotman's "Advanced Modern Algebra," which addresses finitely generated groups. The theorem states that any element in a finitely generated group can be expressed as a product of generators and elements from a normal subgroup. An example using the symmetric group S4 illustrates how specific permutations can generate the entire group, demonstrating the theorem's application. The participants clarify that while a generating set can be larger, it is possible to find a minimal set that still generates the group. The overall conclusion emphasizes the efficiency of using fewer generators to encompass all necessary elements of the group.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Chapter 2: Commutative Rings in Joseph Rotman's book, Advanced Modern Algebra (Second Edition).

I am currently focussed on Theorem 2.68 [page 117] concerning finitely generated groups

I need help to the proof of this theorem.

Theorem 2.68 and its proof read as follows:View attachment 2698In the above text Rotman writes:

" ... ... if $$ a \in A $$ then $$ \pi (a) $$ is a word in the $$u$$: there are $$ e_j = \pm 1 $$ with

$$ \pi (a) = u_{i_1}^{e_1} ... \ ... u_{i_k}^{e_k}$$ ... ... "

I am having real trouble following this proof ... can someone please explain the meaning of the above text and indicate why it follows.

Peter

[Thanks to Prove It for help with the Latex code in this post!]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Here is another way to look at it:

We know the $u_i$ generate $A/S$. What are these elements? They are cosets:

$u_i = x_iS$, for some $x_i \in A$.

So an element of $A/S$ is a product of some of the $u_i$, and each of those is a product of some $x_i$ with a product of the $s$'s that generate $S$.

So we have $x_1S \subseteq \langle x_i,s_1,\dots,s_m\rangle$ <---$m+1$ generators "cover" this coset.

We only need $n$ of these cosets to generate all of $A/S$, so $\langle x_1,\dots x_n,s_1,\dots s_m\rangle$ contains every coset, that is, all of $A$.

Note: we might not need "all" of these, the generating set for $A$ COULD BE smaller, but we can at least find one this small, no matter what.

Let's look at an example, so this might be made a bit clearer.

Suppose $A = S_4$, and that the normal subgroup is $V = \{e,(1\ 2)(3\ 4),(1\ 3)(2\ 4),(1\ 4)(2\ 3)\}$, which is a normal subgroup (it is a union of conjugacy classes, the trivial conjugacy class of the identity, and the double transpositions. Recall that in $S_n$ conjugating preserves cycle type).

Now $V$ is the Klein 4-group, which is generated by any two non-identity elements, let's use $(1\ 2)(3\ 4)$ and $(1\ 3)(2\ 4)$.

Now $S_4/V \cong S_3 \cong D_3$ (the symmetry group of an equilateral triangle), and the latter group also has 2 generators. It can be shown (and I urge you to do so), that:

$(1\ 2\ 3)V$ and $(1\ 2)V$ generate $S_4/V$.

So the theorem tells us that $S_4 = \langle(1\ 2\ 3),(1\ 2),(1\ 2)(3\ 4),(1\ 3)(2\ 4)\rangle$. Is this true?

Well any permutation is a product of transpositions (the transpositions generate $S_n$, for any $n$), so it suffices to show that we can generate any transposition of $S_4$ with this set. It is immediate we can generate:

(1 2) and (3 4). (the latter transposition is simply (1 2)(1 2)(3 4)).

Now we also have (1 2 3)(1 2)(1 3 2) = (2 3) in the generated group, as well as:

(1 3 2)(1 2)(1 2 3) = (1 3). Since we have (1 3) in the generated group, we get:

(1 3)(1 3)(2 4) = (2 4) as well.

Finally, since all of $V$ is in the generated group, (1 4)(2 3) is generated by our set as well, since we have already established that (2 3) is generated by our set, it follows that:

(2 3)(1 4)(2 3) = (1 4) is in the generated group as well. So our set generates:

(1 2),(1 3),(1 4),(2 3),(2 4) and (3 4), which is all 6 transpositions of $S_4$.

Note that our generating set of 4 permutations is slightly more "efficient" than using the set of 6 transpositions.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

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