MHB Permutation question concerning cycle shapes

Confusedalways
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Consider the subset of $S_4$ defined by

$$K_4=\{(1)(2)(3)(4),(12)(34),(13)(24),(14)(23)\}$$

Show that for all $f \in K_4$ and all $h \in S_4$, we have $h^{-1}fh \in K_4$

I showed all the possible cycle shapes of h and am trying to show that $h^{-1}fh$ must always have cycle shape $(2,2)$, excluding the case of identity permutation.

Just don't know where to go from here
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi, Confusedalways! Welcome. (Wave)

You're on the right track. Consider the following fact. If $\sigma = (a_1 \cdots a_r)$ is a cycle in $S_n$ and $\tau\in S_n$, then $\tau \sigma \tau^{-1} = (\tau(a_1)\cdots \tau(a_r))$. Take for instance $(12)(34)$. For all $h\in S_4$, $$h(12)(34)h^{-1} = h(12)h^{-1}h(34)h^{-1} = (h(1)\;h(2))\,(h(3)\;h(4))$$

so $h(12)(34)h^{-1}$ has cycle structure $(2,2)$. The same argument applies to the others.
 
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...
##\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...

Similar threads

Back
Top