Lagrange's Theorem: Understanding Cosets of H in G

  • Thread starter Thread starter fk378
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Lagrange's Theorem states that the order of a group G is equal to the number of left cosets of a subgroup H in G multiplied by the order of H. Each element m in G belongs to exactly one left coset, mH, which contains the same number of elements as H. The discussion clarifies that kH represents a single left coset and cannot encompass all left cosets of H. Consequently, the order of G is determined by the relationship between the number of left cosets and the order of H, confirming that the order of any subgroup must divide the order of the group.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of group theory concepts, specifically groups and subgroups.
  • Familiarity with the definition and properties of left cosets.
  • Knowledge of the identity element in group theory.
  • Basic understanding of mathematical proofs and logical reasoning.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof of Lagrange's Theorem in detail.
  • Explore the concept of normal subgroups and their significance in group theory.
  • Learn about the application of Lagrange's Theorem in finite group classification.
  • Investigate the relationship between cosets and quotient groups.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of abstract algebra, and anyone interested in deepening their understanding of group theory and its foundational theorems.

fk378
Messages
366
Reaction score
0
In Lagrange's Theorem, it states that the order of G is the number of cosets of H in G multiplied by the order of H.


What I don't understand is what if H is just a subgroup among other elements in G? Let's say there is some k in G then kH consists of all the left cosets of H. But there is also m in G that do not go into any cosets. Then how can the order of G only include the left cosets?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
fk378 said:
In Lagrange's Theorem, it states that the order of G is the number of cosets of H in G multiplied by the order of H.


What I don't understand is what if H is just a subgroup among other elements in G? Let's say there is some k in G then kH consists of all the left cosets of H.
Have you misunderstood what a left coset is? If k is a member of G then kH is one left coset of G, not "all the left cosets of H". kH is defined as the set {kh} where h runs through all member of H. kH cannot have more member than H since we get, at most, one member of kH for each H. In order that there be less, we would have to have kh= kh' for h and h' distinct members of H. But that can't be true: multiplying both sides of kh= kh' by the inverse of k (and every member of a group has an inverse) gives h= h' contradicting the hypothesis that they were distinct. That is: kH is a single subset of G having the same number of members as H.

But there is also m in G that do not go into any cosets.[/quote]
No, there isn't. Since H is a subgroup, it includes the indentity, e, so mH includes me= m. Every member, m, of G is in at least one left coset, mH itself.

Now, suppose m were in some other coset, say kH for some k in G, k not equal to m. Then we must have m= kn for some n in H. Then k= mh-1 so that any member of kH, ka, say, is equal to (mh-1)a= m(h-1a) and since h-1 and a are both members of H, so is h-1a. Every member of kH is of the form mb for b some member of H and so is also a member of mH. Of course, the opposite way is true for exactly the same reasons: if kH and mH have a single member in common, they have all members in common: they are exactly the same.

Then how can the order of G only include the left cosets?
Your assumptions are incorrect. There is NO k in G such that "kH consists of all the left cosets of H", kH is always a single left coset, never all of them (unless G itself contains only a single member). There is no "m in G that do not go into any cosets", every member of G is in exactly one coset. Suppose H has N left cosets. Then every member of G is in exactly one of the cosets all of which have |H| members: |G|= N|H| which leads immediately to Lagrange's theorem that the order of any subset of G must evenly divide the order of G.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K