MHB Proof: G/H1 is Isomorphic to H2/K for G with Normal Subgroups H1 and H2

Click For Summary
In the discussion, it is established that for a group G with normal subgroups H1 and H2, where H2 is not a subset of H1, if G/H1 is simple, then G/H1 is isomorphic to H2/K, with K defined as the intersection of H1 and H2. The initial approach of using K as the kernel for a homomorphism was deemed ineffective due to the non-normality of H2 in H1. However, it was clarified that the simplicity of G/H1 implies that any normal subgroup of G/H1 must be the whole group, leading to the conclusion that the kernel of the homomorphism from H2 must equal K. Ultimately, the realization that the earlier ideas were correct reinforces the proof's validity.
Poirot1
Messages
243
Reaction score
0
Let
G be a group with normal subgroups H1 and H2 with H2 not a subset of H1. Let K = H1 intersect H2.


Show that if G/H1 is simple, then G/H1 is isomorphic to H2/K.


My first thought was to set up a homomorphism with K as the kernel but soon realized that the fact that H2 was not normal is H1 scuppered this tactic. G/H1 being simple implies that H1 is the largest proper normal subgroup but where to go from there?



 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just realized that my last sentence is incorrect. G/H1 being simple means there is no normal subgroup A of G which H1 is normal in.
 
The quotient map $\pi:G\to G/H_1$ maps $H_2$ to a normal subgroup of $G/H_1$. This normal subgroup contains more than just the identity element, so by simplicity it must be the whole of $G/H_1$. Now show that the kernel of the homomorphism $\pi|_{H_2}$ is equal to $K$.
 
Opalg said:
The quotient map $\pi:G\to G/H_1$ maps $H_2$ to a normal subgroup of $G/H_1$. This normal subgroup contains more than just the identity element, so by simplicity it must be the whole of $G/H_1$. Now show that the kernel of the homomorphism $\pi|_{H_2}$ is equal to $K$.

Ah, my first ideas were correct.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
445
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
796