Normal and Simple Subgroups in Finite Group G: Proof of Equality for K and H

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bleys
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Groups Normal
Bleys
Messages
74
Reaction score
0
H,K are normal subgroups of a (finite) group G, and K is also normal in H. If G/K and G/H are simple, does it follow that H=K?
I'm almost convinced it does, but I'm having trouble proving it. I mean, the cosets of H partition G and the cosets of K partition G in the same way and on top of that partition H, right? I'm not sure when to bring in normality and the fact that the quotients are simple.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What if G=H?
 
no, sorry, I should have included that. H and K are proper normal subgroups in G.
 
Okay. Now, can you describe the relationship(s) between G/H, G/K and H/K?
 
This is actually where I had trouble.
G/H = \left\{ H, g_{1}H, g_{2}H,... \right\} and G/K = \left\{ K, g_{1}K, ... \right\} = \left\{ K, g_{1}K, ... \right\} \cup \left\{ K, h_{1}K, ... \right\} for g_{i} \in G-H and h_{j} \in H
That last on is G/K = \left\{ K, g_{1}K, ... \right\} \cup H/K for g_{i} \in G-H. Then, can you say that G/H = \left\{ K, g_{1}K, ... \right\} for g_{i} \in G-H, since the intersection of H/K and \left\{ K, g_{1}K, ... \right\} is just the identity element, K. Then the cosets of H in G must coincide with the cosets of K in G. Thus H=K?
Or am I totally missing it. I must be, since I haven't used either normality and simple quotients...
 
I have to run, so I'll leave you with a quick exercise (or reminder, in case you've seen this result previously): (G/K)/(H/K) = G/H. This isomorphism pretty much solves your problem. One way to prove it is to write down an obvious map G/K -> G/H and look at its kernel.
 
oh alright. So the proof of the isomorphism uses normality of K in G and H in G (specifically for the map to be a group homomorphism) and the First Isomorphism Theorem. Now, the kernel of the map is normal in its domain (ie G/K), so ker = H/K is normal in G/K. But G/K is simple, so either H/K = {1} or H/K = G/K. If H/K = G/K then (G/K)/(H/K) = {1} and so G/H = {1}. But this implies G=H, which is not the case. Therefore H/K = {1}, and so H=K. Great, thanks a lot!

But one more thing. I didn't use the fact the G/H is simple. Does it mean you can relax that condition to just exclude it?
 
Back
Top