Question about invariant w.r.t. a group action

  • Thread starter Thread starter mnb96
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group Invariant
mnb96
Messages
711
Reaction score
5
Hello,

I have a group (G,\cdot) that has a subgroup H \leq G, and I consider the action of H on G defined as follows:
\varphi(h,g)=h\cdot g
In other words, the action is simply given by the group operation.

Now I am interested in finding a (non-trivial) invariant function w.r.t. the action of H, which means finding a function \chi:G\rightarrow G' such that \chi(h\cdot g)=\chi(g) for all h\in H and g\in G.

I realized that I can easily impose sufficient conditions on \chi to ensure that it is an invariant function w.r.t. H.
Such conditions are:
  1. \chi has the form \chi(g) = \gamma(g)^{-1}\cdot g
  2. \gamma is an automorphism of the group G
  3. \gamma fixes the subgroup H, \quadi.e. \gamma(h)=h for all h\in H
The proof is very easy (just apply \chi as defined in 1. to (h\cdot g) and use 2. and 3.)

My question is: Are the above conditions already well-known, perhaps in a more general form?
Is my construction just a specific application of some more general theorem in group theory?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your three conditions seem to not work but maybe I don't understand what you are saying.

In any case,,any group homomorphism whose kernel contains the normalizer of H would seem to work.
 
Hi Lavinia,

thanks for replying. I was wondering why you said that the three conditions I listed do not work. The proof went like this:

\chi(hg)= \gamma(hg)^{-1}hg \quad\quad (definition of \chi)
= \gamma(g)^{-1} \gamma(h)^{-1} hg \quad\quad (\gamma is an automorphism)
= \gamma(g^{-1}) \gamma(h^{-1}) hg \quad\quad(\gamma is an automorphism)
= \gamma(g^{-1}) h^{-1}hg \quad\quad(\gamma fixes H)
= \gamma(g^{-1}) g
= \chi(g)

Did I miss something? I think I have used all the three assumptions mentioned in my previous post.

I feel that what I have done here is essentially the consequence of some well-known construction/theorem in group theory, but I don't know which one. I didn't get completely your argument about the normalizer.
 
Your calculation is correct. I was confused.

A homomorphism whose kernel contains H will satisfy your required condition since all of the elements of H are sent to the identity. The normalizer is automatically in the kernel.
 
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...
##\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...

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
13
Views
570
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
436
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top