Proving Commutativity in Normal Subgroups with Abelian Subgroup Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter e(ho0n3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Subgroup
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving that the product of elements from two normal subgroups, N and M, of a group G, is commutative under the condition that N and M intersect only at the identity element. The subject area pertains to group theory, specifically the properties of normal subgroups and abelian groups.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to demonstrate that the product NM is abelian, expressing uncertainty about the relevance of the intersection condition N ∩ M = {e}. Participants suggest examining the expression n*m*n^(-1)*m^(-1) to explore the commutativity of n and m.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered hints and insights that guide the exploration of the problem, particularly regarding the use of the commutator. There appears to be a productive exchange of ideas, with participants building on each other's reasoning without reaching a definitive conclusion.

Contextual Notes

The discussion is constrained by the requirement to show the commutativity of elements from two normal subgroups under specific conditions, and participants are navigating the implications of the intersection of these subgroups.

e(ho0n3
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Suppose that N and M are two normal subgroups of G and that N and M share only the identity element. Show that for any n in N and m in M, nm = mn.

The attempt at a solution
I basically have to show that NM is abelian. Since N and M are normal, it follows that

[tex]nm = mn_1 = n_1m_1 = m_1n_2 = \cdots,[/tex]

where [itex]n_1,n_2,\ldots \in N[/itex] and [itex]m_1,m_2,\ldots \in M[/itex]. This is all I know. I don't know how to use the fact that [itex]N \cap M = \{e\}[/itex] or how it plays any role. Any tips?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sure. Stare at n*m*n^(-1)*m^(-1) for a little bit. If you still don't see it, I'll give you another hint.
 
Since M is normal, nmn-1 equals some m' in M and since N is normal, mn-1m equals some n' in N. This yield that m'm-1 = nn'. Aha! Then m'm and nn' must be the identity so m' is the inverse of m and n' is the inverse of n and after some rearrangement, we get that nm = mn.

Nice. What made you think of looking at nmn1m-1?
 
I thought you'd get it written in that form. nm=mn is the same thing as nmn^(-1)m^(-1)=e. It even has a name, that expression is called the commutator. I think of commuting, I think of commutator. Just experience, I guess.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K