Order of Join and Intersection of Subgroups

  • Thread starter Thread starter wnorman27
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Intersection
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem in group theory, specifically concerning the orders of subgroups and their intersections within a finite group. The original poster is tasked with proving an inequality involving the orders of two subgroups and their intersection and join.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to relate the orders of the subgroups and their intersection, referencing Lagrange's theorem and exploring the implications of the set ST formed by the products of elements from the two subgroups. Other participants question the necessity and clarity of certain results used in the proof, particularly regarding the relationship between the orders of ST and the subgroups.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, providing insights and clarifications about the relationships between the subgroup orders. Some guidance has been offered regarding the standard results that may simplify the proof, and there is acknowledgment of the challenges faced by the original poster in navigating the material.

Contextual Notes

The original poster notes the lack of certain isomorphism theorems in their primary textbook, which may contribute to their difficulty in solving the problem. There is also mention of varying levels of familiarity with the material among participants, as well as the original poster's self-study approach.

wnorman27
Messages
14
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


If S and T are subgroups of a finite group G, prove that
[S:1][T:1] ≤ [S\capT:1][S\veeT:1]

Homework Equations


Notation: [A:B] is the number of cosets of B in A for some subgroup B of A.
note that [A:1] is the order of A.

Lagrange's Theorem:
For some subgroup S of G.
[G:1]=[G:S][S:1]

The Attempt at a Solution


[S:1] ≤[S\veeT:1]
and many other statements like this... none of them seem to help much.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What can you say about the order of the set

ST = \{st | s \in S, t \in T\}?

Can you relate this to the orders that appear in the desired inequality?
 
|ST| = Sum of orders of distinct cosets of S of the form St for some element t.

For two cosets St and St', we have that St=St' iff St*t'^{-1}=S, which means t*t'^{-1}\in S. But t*t'^{-1}\in T also, so we must have t*t'^{-1}\in (S\cap T). Then (S\cap T)t=(S\cap T)t' so that there are the same number of cosets St in ST ([ST:S]) as there are cosets (S\cap T)t\ of\ (S\cap T)\ in\ T \ \ [T:(S\cap T)]. Applying Lagrange's theorem twice:

[ST:S]=[T:(S\cap T)] implies:

\frac{|ST|}{|S|}=\frac{|T|}{|S\cap T|}, so that

|ST|=\frac{|S||T|}{|S\cap T|} and since clearly ST\subset(S\vee T)

\frac{|S||T|}{|S\cap T|}=|ST|≤|S\vee T|, so

|S||T|≤|S\vee T||S\cap T|

I got the proof that [ST:S]=[T:(S\cap T)] from Dummit and Foote - this is not in the book I'm working through (MacLane and Birkhoff), which is where this problem is from. Is this supposed to be obvious? I don't know how I would have ever done this problem without just happening upon this result. Thanks!
 
Your solution looks good. The key result you used, [ST : S] = [T : (S \cap T)] is a standard one which most books either prove or assign as an exercise (so at least the statement appears in the book). I guess having that result makes your problem quite easy, so perhaps MacLane and Birkhoff expected you to discover it for yourself, or perhaps to solve the problem in some other way. Are you using their elementary text (A Survey of Modern Algebra) or the more advanced one (Algebra)?

Do they prove the 2nd ismorphism theorem? Namely, if N is a normal subgroup and H is any subgroup, then NH/N is isomorphic to H/(N \cap N). This implies the order result you used in the case where one subgroup is normal. From this, it's not a major stretch to conjecture that the order result might be true even if neither subgroup is normal.
 
Hi Jbunniii,

Thanks for all your help! I'm using Algebra (the advanced one) - as my primary text as I work through abstract algebra for the first time, but I've been reading parts of a few other algebra textbooks (Dummit+Foote, Fraleigh, Artin, and some course notes from a prof at uc berkeley). I'm studying the subject on my own, which is proving to be a bit insane, though this forum helps.

They don't prove any isomorphism theorems until 300 pages after this problem (in a chapter called "The Structure of Groups"). Due to your hint about ST, I was reminded that I had seen reference to such a set in D+F, which turned out to be right next to the section on the isomorphism theorems. In MacLane and Birkhoff, the definitions of kernel, image, and normal subgroup don't even appear until the next section!

The only thing I can think of is that they expect you to contemplate the nature of |S∨T| until you get the idea to consider |ST:S|?

Thanks again for your help, I feel I'd have been stuck on this forever.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K