Normalizer subgroup proof proving the inverse

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of the existence of an inverse in the context of normalizers in group theory, specifically focusing on the normalizer defined as NG(H)={g-1Hg=H}. The proof presented by the user references the book "Groups, Rings, and Fields" by D.A.R. Wallace, demonstrating that if eHe holds, then g-1 is indeed in NG(H). The user questions the validity of an alternative proof approach that leads to the same conclusion, highlighting the nuances in proving the existence of inverses in this mathematical framework.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of group theory concepts, specifically normalizers.
  • Familiarity with the notation and operations involving group elements, such as g-1.
  • Knowledge of the properties of identity elements in groups.
  • Access to "Groups, Rings, and Fields" by D.A.R. Wallace for reference.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of normalizers in group theory.
  • Explore the implications of the inverse element in group operations.
  • Review additional proofs of normalizer properties in advanced group theory texts.
  • Learn about the significance of normalizers in the context of subgroup structure.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in abstract algebra, students studying group theory, and anyone interested in the properties of normalizers and their inverses.

cmj1988
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
This specifically relates more towards the argument as to why an inverse exists.

First the problem

The normalizer is defined as follows, NG(H)={g-1Hg=H} for some g in NG(H). I get why identity exists and why the operation is closed. It is in arguing that an inverse exists that I have beef. Specifically this argument:

eHe= (g-1)-1g-1Hgg-1=(g-1)-1Hg-1

so g-1 is in NG(H)

This above proof I found in the book Groups, rings, and fields by D.A.R. Wallace.

I wondering why this is more valid than this:

H=gHg-1
g-1H=Hg-1
g-1Hg=H

So g-1 is in NG(H)

I'm sorry if this question is so dense someone has an aneurysm
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I have another proof, but I'm not sure why this is any more valid. It follows the same route as the first one I presented up to this point:

gHg^{-1}
This is equivalent to
(g^{-1})^{-1}Hg^{-1}

Therefore g^{-1} is in N_G(H)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
3K