oblixps
- 35
- 0
If \(X\) is a subset of \(G\) such that \(xy = yx\) for all \(x,y\in X\), then \(<X>\) is Abelian.
I'm trying to understand the proof to the above statement in my book. This may be trivial but for some reason I am not seeing it.
It starts with saying [tex]X \subset C_{G}(X)[/tex] by the hypothesis and since [tex]C_{G}(X)[/tex] is a subgroup, we must have [tex]<X> \subset C_{G}(X)[/tex] and so [tex]X \subset C_{G}(<X>)[/tex]. Then, just as above we have [tex]<X> \subset C_{G}(<X>)[/tex] and so <X> is abelian as desired.
i didn't understand how the book went from saying [tex]<X> \subset C_{G}(X)[/tex] and concluding that [tex]X \subset C_{G}(<X>)[/tex]. it seems to me that [tex]X \subset C_{G}(<X>)[/tex] is clear from the hypothesis and i don't see why it was even needed to show that [tex]<X> \subset C_{G}(X)[/tex].
am i missing something here?
I'm trying to understand the proof to the above statement in my book. This may be trivial but for some reason I am not seeing it.
It starts with saying [tex]X \subset C_{G}(X)[/tex] by the hypothesis and since [tex]C_{G}(X)[/tex] is a subgroup, we must have [tex]<X> \subset C_{G}(X)[/tex] and so [tex]X \subset C_{G}(<X>)[/tex]. Then, just as above we have [tex]<X> \subset C_{G}(<X>)[/tex] and so <X> is abelian as desired.
i didn't understand how the book went from saying [tex]<X> \subset C_{G}(X)[/tex] and concluding that [tex]X \subset C_{G}(<X>)[/tex]. it seems to me that [tex]X \subset C_{G}(<X>)[/tex] is clear from the hypothesis and i don't see why it was even needed to show that [tex]<X> \subset C_{G}(X)[/tex].
am i missing something here?
Last edited by a moderator: