Is there a relationship between right cosets and orbits in group theory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cmj1988
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Orbits
cmj1988
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
I'm just wondering if there is some sort of relationship between right coset and orbit of x. We just got to cosets, and it seems like the properties of cosets are eerily similar to orbits.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Of course their is a relationship.

First of all, I think you answered your own question.

Second, a random book I picked up had a section on cosets right after the section on orbits and cyclic groups.

Q.E.D.
 
I'd like to note, you specifically mentioned the right coset and orbit of 'x'. Be careful if you choose a different variable, say, 'z'.

Z has mystical properties that defy abstract algebra.
 
cmj1988 said:
I'm just wondering if there is some sort of relationship between right coset and orbit of x. We just got to cosets, and it seems like the properties of cosets are eerily similar to orbits.
You might be interested in theorem 3 on page 4 of this article.
The study of group actions thus divides neatly into two problems: the internal problem of understanding the action within single orbits (equivalent to studying the canonical action in coset spaces) and the external problem of understanding how the orbits are put together to form the set X.
 
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...
##\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...
Back
Top