Order of groups in relation to the First Isomorphism Theorem.

sairalouise
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Given H,K and general finite subgroups of G,

ord(HK) = [(ord(H))(ord(K))] / ord(H intersection K)

I know by the first isomorphism theorem that Isomorphic groups have the same order, but the left hand side of the equation is not a group is it?

I am struggling to show this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, HK is not necessarily a group, but this is irrelevant. The identity you posted follows from an easy counting argument. The only theorem you need is Lagrange's. Here's a hint: HK = \cup_{h \in H} hK. So ord(HK) = ord(K) * number of distinct cosets of K of the form hK.
 
This doesn't help your problem, but if one of the subgroups, say H, is normal in G, then HK is a subgroup of G and (HK)/H and K/(H ∩ K) are isomorphic (this is the so-called second isomorphism theorem), from which the statement about the orders follows easily.
 
##\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...
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...
Back
Top