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

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.
 
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...
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...
##\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...
Back
Top