Proving Normality of a Quotient Group: A Shortcut Method

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hjensen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group quotient
Hjensen
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
I have a question I need to resolve before my exam on thursday. It relates to the following result:

Let N be a normal subgroup of G, and let K be any subgroup of G containing N. Then K/N is a subgroup of G/N. Furthermore, K/N is normal in G/N if and only if K is normal in G.

The first part is rather simple, and half of the other statement is just from the third isomorphism theorem. What I want to prove is, that K/N normal in G/N implies that K is normal in G. I suppose I could define a homomorphism like

G\rightarrow G/N\rightarrow (G/N)/(K/N)

with kernel K. That just seems like a lot of work to prove something which is probably rather simple. If I have to go through this at my exam, I'd prefer not to spend much time on this particular result. Does anyone have an idea for a short proof?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You need to prove for every k\in K that gkg^{-1}\in K.
But if we do the calculation in G/N, then we get by normality of K/N that

[gkg^{-1}]=[g][k][g]^{-1}\in K/N

By definition, this means that there is a k' in K and a n in N such that gkg^{-1}=k^\prime n. But N is a subset of K, thus gkg^{-1}\in K.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Using the isomorphism theorems here seems like "killing a fly with a nuke" or whatever the saying is (although your idea of that homomorphism does seem interesting.) micromass seems to have covered the rest.
 
##\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...
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...
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...
Back
Top