Is H a Subgroup of GL(n,R)?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cmj1988
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    General Group Linear
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around whether the set H, defined as {g in GL(n,R) : det g in A} where A is a subgroup of R* (the reals under multiplication), is itself a subgroup of GL(n,R). Participants are focused on proving the existence of inverses within this context, exploring the implications of determinants and subgroup properties.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant claims that for every g in GL(n,R), there exists a g^{-1} in GL(n,R) and attempts to prove this by using the property of determinants.
  • Another participant suggests that it is unnecessary to prove g^{-1} is in GL(n,R) since it is a group property, but questions the relevance of the subgroup A.
  • A different participant emphasizes that the proof must show that the inverse is in H, not just in GL(n,R), and notes that the determinant of products being the product of determinants supports this.
  • There is a reiteration that since det(g) is non-zero, it implies that the inverse exists and has a non-zero determinant, which is a requirement for membership in H.
  • Participants express confusion over the initial argument regarding the necessity of assuming g^{-1} is in GL(n,R) when that is the claim being proved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the approach to proving that H is a subgroup. There are competing views on the necessity of certain assumptions and the clarity of the arguments presented.

Contextual Notes

There is a lack of clarity regarding the implications of A being a subgroup of R* and how that affects the membership of elements in H. The discussion also highlights the importance of understanding the properties of determinants in relation to subgroup criteria.

cmj1988
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Let A be a subgroup of R* (the reals closed under multiplication). Let H = {g in GL(n,R) : det g in A} Prove that H is a subgroup of GL(n,R).

Well my problem here was just proving an inverse exists. I'm just wondering if it has an easy answer.

Claim: For every g in GL(n,R), there exists a g^{-1} in GL(n,R).

Proof:

Suppose a g and g^{-1} in GL(n,R)

det(g)det(g^{-1})=det(gg^{-1})=det(I)=1 which is a nonzero determinant. In addition to that, the multiplication of reals produces a real numbers. So it is closed under R*.

Is this correct, or is there more?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
you can take it as a given that [tex]g^{-1} \in GL(n, \textbf{R})[/tex] by virtue of the fact that it's a group.

But what you have doesn't address the question at all.

What would the subgroups of R* be?
 
cmj1988 said:
Let A be a subgroup of R* (the reals closed under multiplication). Let H = {g in GL(n,R) : det g in A} Prove that H is a subgroup of GL(n,R).

Well my problem here was just proving an inverse exists. I'm just wondering if it has an easy answer.

Claim: For every g in GL(n,R), there exists a g^{-1} in GL(n,R).

Proof:

Suppose a g and g^{-1} in GL(n,R)
No, you cannot suppose g-1 is in GL(n, R) when that is what you want to prove!

det(g)det(g^{-1})=det(gg^{-1})=det(I)=1 which is a nonzero determinant. In addition to that, the multiplication of reals produces a real numbers. So it is closed under R*.

Is this correct, or is there more?
You can say that, since det(g) is a non-zero real number, g has an inverse whose determinant is also non-zero. It is that simple, after you know that det(g) is non-zero.

Now, what part of "Let A be a subgroup of R* (the reals closed under multiplication)" tells you that 0 is not in A?
 
HallsofIvy said:
No, you cannot suppose g-1 is in GL(n, R) when that is what you want to prove!
No it must be in GL(n,R) since it is a group and g is in GL(n,R). The issue is proving that the inverse is in H and thus H is also a group (subgroup) which is pretty straightforward since the determinant of products is the product of determinants.
 
cmj1988 said:
Let A be a subgroup of R* (the reals closed under multiplication). Let H = {g in GL(n,R) : det g in A} Prove that H is a subgroup of GL(n,R).

Well my problem here was just proving an inverse exists. I'm just wondering if it has an easy answer.

Claim: For every g in GL(n,R), there exists a g^{-1} in GL(n,R).

Proof:

Suppose a g and g^{-1} in GL(n,R)

det(g)det(g^{-1})=det(gg^{-1})=det(I)=1 which is a nonzero determinant. In addition to that, the multiplication of reals produces a real numbers. So it is closed under R*.

Is this correct, or is there more?

Your argument confuses me. The inverse must be in H because A is a subgroup of R*.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
7K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K