Show Isomorphism btwn H x G_1 & H x G_2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Parmenides
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Isomorphism
Parmenides
Messages
34
Reaction score
0
Im asked to show that, given the groups H, G_1, and G_2 in which G_1 \cong G_2, that H\times{G_1} \cong H\times{G_2}


Because of the isomorphism between G_1 and G_2, their cardinalities (order) are equal, which i think will be of good use when considering their Cartesian product with H. So conceptually, it seems intuitive to believe that, almost vacuously, |H\times{G_1}| = |H\times{G_2}| But I'm not sure how to explicitly show this. Since G_1 \cong{G_2}, there exists an isomorphism between the two such that: f: G_1 \rightarrow G_2 and that it is necessary to find an F such that F: H\times{G_1} \rightarrow H \times G_2 Also, f(a) = b \forall a \in G_1, b \in G_2. I think these are some pieces to the puzzle, but how to stitch them together?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is true that |HxG1| = |HxG2| and you should be able to prove it very easily, but it's not of much help in showing the groups are isomorphic. Remember, an element of HxG1 looks like (h,g) with h in H and g in G1. So F(h,g) = (h',g') where h' is in H and g' is in G2 is going to be the function you're interested in... can you think of what F should look like? There aren't too many choices about how you can pick h' and g'.
 
Do you mean that since every element of H \times G_1 is unique and that every element of H \times G_2 can be defined as (c, f(a)) = (c, b), \forall c \in H, a \in G_1, b \in G_2 such that it is also unique, we have F: (c, a) \rightarrow (c, f(a)) = (c, b) And thus, there is a one-to-one correspondence?
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top