Showing that Equivalence Relations are the Same.

jmjlt88
Messages
94
Reaction score
0
Let G be a group and let H be a subgroup of G.

Define ~ as a~b iff ab-1εH.

Define ~~ as a~~b iff a-1bεH.

The book I am using wanted us to prove that each was an equivalence relation, which was easy. Then, it asked if these equivalence relations were the same, if so, prove it. My initial reaction was yes. I did not prove it, but I did write down a quick idea surronded by question marks and "ask PhysicsForum!." Now that I know a bit more about cosets, I say no.

For my idea, I wrote something like this. [Remember, I am writing to me.] :redface:

"Show that a~b implies a~~b and vice versa. If a~b, then ab-1εH. Show that this implies that a and b-1 are in H... then a-1 and b are in H. Hence, a-1bεH and a~~b... Similar going the other way... But, not sure if this even works ? Ask PhysicsForum before trying to write this out."

Well, any help?? :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try to find a counterexample.

I claim that it is true for normal subgroups, can you prove that?

So to find a counterexample, pick your favorite nonnormal subgroup and do something with it.
 
Thanks! :)
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top