MHB If G is the union of 3 of its subgroups, show that they each have index 2

  • Thread starter Thread starter oblixps
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Index Union
oblixps
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Let G be a finite group and let G = H_1 \cup H_2 \cup H_3. Show that [G: H_i] = 2 for i = 1, 2, 3.

There was a hint for this question saying to first prove that at least one of the subgroups has index 2 in G. So far I am not sure how to even start this problem. I know that the orders of H_1, H_2, H_3 must divide the order of G, but this doesn't give much information. I was thinking of trying to show that the order of G must have a factor of 2, since |G| = [G: H_i]|H_i| but with only the information given, I have no idea how to go about it.

Could someone offer a hint or two on how to proceed? thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think there is something missing from the question, as you said [G:H] should also divide G order what about a group with order dose not divide 2, odd order for example
\mathbb{Z}_{9} with addition has odd order.
G order should be even
 
oblixps said:
Let G be a finite group and let G = H_1 \cup H_2 \cup H_3. Show that [G: H_i] = 2 for i = 1, 2, 3.

There was a hint for this question saying to first prove that at least one of the subgroups has index 2 in G.
To prove the hint, suppose (in order to get a contradiction) that each of the subgroups has index greater than 2. Then $|H_i| \leqslant \tfrac13|G|$ (for $i = 1, 2, 3$). In other words, each of the subgroups contains at most 1/3 of the elements of $G$. But the subgroups have nonempty intersection, because the identity element is in each of them. It follows that their union does not contain enough elements to span the whole of $G$.
 
thanks for the reply. I now pick the subgroup of index 2 to be H_1 so since |G: H_1| = 2, i know that |H_1| = |G|/2 and I was able to deduce that G = H_{1}H_{i} and |H_i : H_{1} \cap H_{i}| = 2 for i = 2, 3 (this was another hint given with the problem as well). I'm having a hard time thinking of what to do next.

I have tried writing |H_2| = 2|H_{1} \cap H_{2}| and |H_3| = 2|H_{1} \cap H_{3}| and i tried using the inclusion exclusion principle so that |G| = |H_1| + |H_2| + |H_3| - |H_{1} \cap H_{2}| - |H_{1} \cap H_{3}| - |H_{2} \cap H_{3}| + |H_{1} \cap H_{2} \cap H_{3}|. Substituting everything i know so far, i have |G|/2 = |H_{1} \cap H_{2}| + |H_{1} \cap H_{3}| - |H_{2} \cap H_{3}| + H_{1} \cap H_{2} \cap H_{3}|. but the trouble is i don't know anything about the last 2 terms. is this the way to go? or is there a better way of using this 2nd hint?
 
oblixps said:
thanks for the reply. I now pick the subgroup of index 2 to be H_1 so since |G: H_1| = 2, i know that |H_1| = |G|/2 and I was able to deduce that G = H_{1}H_{i} and |H_i : H_{1} \cap H_{i}| = 2 for i = 2, 3 (this was another hint given with the problem as well). I'm having a hard time thinking of what to do next.

I have tried writing |H_2| = 2|H_{1} \cap H_{2}| and |H_3| = 2|H_{1} \cap H_{3}| and i tried using the inclusion exclusion principle so that |G| = |H_1| + |H_2| + |H_3| - |H_{1} \cap H_{2}| - |H_{1} \cap H_{3}| - |H_{2} \cap H_{3}| + |H_{1} \cap H_{2} \cap H_{3}|. Substituting everything i know so far, i have |G|/2 = |H_{1} \cap H_{2}| + |H_{1} \cap H_{3}| - |H_{2} \cap H_{3}| + H_{1} \cap H_{2} \cap H_{3}|. but the trouble is i don't know anything about the last 2 terms. is this the way to go? or is there a better way of using this 2nd hint?
You have identified the most important fact, which is that $|H_i : H_{1} \cap H_{i}| = 2$. If I can express it informally, that means that half of the elements of $H_i$ are in $H_1$ ( for $i=2,3$). The other half are in the coset $G\setminus H_1$, which is half the size of $G$. If either $H_2$ or $H_3$ has index $\geqslant 3$ then that $H_i$ is at most 1/3 the size of $G$, so the half of it in the coset $G\setminus H_1$ is at most 1/6 the size of $G$. As before, that will not be enough for the two groups $H_2$ and $H_3$ together to cover the whole coset.
 
Last edited:
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 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
960
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K