Proving G/H is Abelian: Normal Subgroups in Abelian Groups

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that the quotient group G/H is abelian when H is a normal subgroup of an abelian group G. The student’s proof begins correctly by identifying elements of G/H as cosets of H in G, denoted as Hg. However, the instructor anticipates confusion in the proof's subsequent steps, particularly regarding the treatment of elements a and b. The conversation highlights the importance of clearly defining cosets and their equivalence in group theory.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of group theory concepts, specifically normal subgroups.
  • Familiarity with quotient groups and their properties.
  • Knowledge of abelian groups and their characteristics.
  • Ability to manipulate cosets and equivalence relations in mathematical proofs.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of normal subgroups in detail.
  • Learn about the structure and properties of quotient groups.
  • Explore examples of abelian groups and their normal subgroups.
  • Review proofs involving cosets and their implications in group theory.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for students of abstract algebra, particularly those studying group theory, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to normal subgroups and quotient groups.

ehrenfest
Messages
2,001
Reaction score
1
[SOLVED] group theory question

Homework Statement


A student is asked to show that if H is a normal subgroup of an abelian group G, then G/H is abelian. THe student's proof starts as follows:

"We must show that G/H is abelian. Let a and b be two elements of G/H."

Why does the instructor reading this proof expect to find nonsense from here on in the student's paper?

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


That's probably how I would start my proof...I don't see anything wrong with it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Elements of G/H look like Hg, i.e. they are cosets of H in G. Some authors use the notation [g] = Hg to stand for the elements that are "H equivalent" to g.
 
Yeah. I would have then said a must be equal to xH and b must be equal to yH, but I guess it really makes more sense to forget about a and b. Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K