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
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.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top