Proving the Intersection of Subgroups is a Subgroup: A Simple Solution

  • Thread starter Thread starter bonfire09
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Intersection
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the intersection of any collection of subgroups of a group is again a subgroup. The subject area is group theory, specifically focusing on subgroup properties and intersections.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the validity of using induction in the proof, with one noting that the intersection could be infinite, which complicates the inductive approach. Others discuss whether separate cases for finite and infinite collections of subgroups are necessary or if a single argument suffices.

Discussion Status

Some participants suggest that the original proof attempt could be simplified by removing the induction step, while others propose that a unified case could address both finite and infinite intersections. There is an ongoing exploration of the foundational properties of subgroups relevant to the proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem statement allows for any collection of subgroups, which raises questions about the implications for both finite and infinite cases. The discussion highlights the need to clarify the assumptions regarding the nature of the collections involved.

bonfire09
Messages
247
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove that the intersection of any collection of subgroups of a group is again a subgroup

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


Fixed proof
Let [itex]H_1 and H_2[/itex] be subgroups on G. We first see if [itex]H_1 \cap H_2[/itex] is again a subgroup. We see if [itex]a,b\in H_1 \cap H_2[/itex] then [itex]ab\in H_1 \cap H_2[/itex]. Thus [itex]H_1 \cap H_2[/itex] is closed. Automatically the identity element has to be in [itex]H_1 \cap H_2[/itex] since [itex]H_1 and H_2[/itex] are subgroups. And if [itex]a\in H_1 \cap H_2[/itex] then it follows that [itex]a^{-1}\in H_1 \cap H_2[/itex]. Thus [itex]H_1 and H_2[/itex] is a subgroup.

I know this argument may sound redundant and in my inductive step I noticed that I never really used my assumption but would this work as a proof?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
You can't do it by induction because they never say the intersection is a finite intersection.

However as you observe you didn't really need the inductive hypothesis, so you should be able to strip out the induction and be left with a complete proof without too much work.
 
Could I have two cases then. One for finite collection of subgroups and another one for a infinite number of subgroups? Or since it says any collection so I can pick an arbitrary number of subgroups on G like I did in my fixed proof where started with the simplest case and that should suffice?
 
Last edited:
bonfire09 said:
Could I have two cases then. One for finite collection of subgroups and another one for a infinite number of subgroups? Or since it says any collection so I can pick an arbitrary number of subgroups on G like I did in my fixed proof where started with the simplest case and that should suffice?

There are two points which will solve this problem for you in a single case for both countable and uncountable collections of subgroups:

(1) Every subgroup in the collection satisfies the group axioms.
(2) An element is in the intersection if and only if it is in every subgroup in the collection.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K