MHB Proving N(H) is a Subgroup of G Containing H

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jen917
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Subgroup
Jen917
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Let G be a group and let H be a subgroup.

Define N(H)={x∈G|xhx-1 ∈H for all h∈H}. Show that N(H) is a subgroup of G which contains H.

To be a subgroup I know N(H) must close over the operations and the inverse, but I am not sure hot to show that in this case.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Jen917 said:
Let G be a group and let H be a subgroup.

Define N(H)={x∈G|xhx-1 ∈H for all h∈H}. Show that N(H) is a subgroup of G which contains H.

To be a subgroup I know N(H) must close over the operations and the inverse, but I am not sure hot to show that in this case.

Hi Jen917! Welcome to MHB! (Smile)

To prove that the operation is closed, we need to prove that for all $x, y \in N(H)$:
$$\forall h \in H: (xy)h(xy)^{-1} \overset ?\in H$$
Can we find that using $xhx^{-1} \in H$ and $yhy^{-1} \in H$? (Wondering)To prove that the inverse belongs to the set, we need a sub step first.
Either way, it requires that $H$ is finite. Is it?

Suppose $x$ is an element of $N(H)$.
Now consider the function $H\to H$ given by $h \mapsto xhx^{-1}$.
Is it a bijection? (Wondering)
 
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