Showing Two Groups are Isomorphic

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Oxymoron
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Groups
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of showing that two groups are isomorphic, specifically through the examination of group homomorphisms and the properties required for isomorphism. Participants explore examples involving different mathematical structures, including positive real numbers and integers, and discuss the necessary conditions for a mapping to be considered an isomorphism.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that to show two groups are isomorphic, one must demonstrate a bijection and that the mapping preserves operation.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need to show that the mapping is a homomorphism, questioning whether squaring is a homomorphism from the positive numbers under multiplication.
  • There is a discussion about whether having an inverse for a mapping is sufficient to establish that it is a bijection.
  • One participant argues that the function φ(n) = n² is not a homomorphism for integers under addition, leading to questions about the implications for isomorphism.
  • Another participant clarifies that the failure of one specific mapping does not imply that the groups themselves cannot be isomorphic through other mappings.
  • Concerns are raised about the importance of correctly identifying the sets being discussed, particularly distinguishing between positive reals and integers.
  • Participants discuss the necessity of showing that a mapping preserves operations, with one suggesting a more rigorous approach to demonstrate this property.
  • There is a mention of the determinant function as a potential homomorphism, with participants debating its injectivity and surjectivity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the requirements for establishing isomorphism, particularly regarding the necessity of homomorphism and bijection. Some agree on the importance of demonstrating these properties, while others raise questions about specific examples and their implications. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the general conditions for isomorphism across different mappings.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the definitions of the groups involved are crucial to the discussion, particularly regarding the operations defined on them. There are also mentions of potential pitfalls in reasoning about group properties, especially concerning the preservation of operations.

  • #31
So if my set S was the set of all real numbers excluding -1. And (S, *) was a group where x*y = x + y + xy. How would I start proving that * is a binary operation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
you would show it satisfied all the axioms defining a binary operation, that's all. It's a "just do it" proof. Clearly given two inputs there is a unique output, how about closure? Note, since you've called (S,*) a group, then * must be a binary operation, or it isn't a group.
 
  • #33
The hints here have been outstanding. I wanted to add something though, and I can only think of this summary of what has been said:

1. to show two groups are isomorphic, you must find an isomorphism between them,

2. to show two groups are not isomorphic, you must show there cannot be any isomorphism, not just that one particular attempt fails. this is harder, as your argument has to apply to all potential isomorphisms. hence you need to find a property of groups that would be preserved by all isomorphisms, and yet which your two groups do not share, such as being commutative (which is called "abelian" for groups, in honor of Niels Abel).

In general the search for properties that would be preserved by all isomorphisms is a deep and fundamental one in every area, sometimes called the search for "invariants".

for example in algebraic curve theory, to show the projective plane curve x^3 + y^3 = z^3, is not rationally isomorphic to the line, can be done by outright cleverness, but is most efficiently done by producing the invariant called the genus. I.e. topoloogically the cubic is a doughnut and the "line" is a sphere.

the proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra in topology, is done by finding some way of discerning the difference between the punctured plane and the plane itself, which eventually becomes the first homology group. i.e. you have to show why the unit circle cannot be pulled away from the origin without passing through the origin. this is usually done by computing the integral of dtheta, and applying greens theorem from calculus.

in number theory one uses reduction "mod n" which says that any solution of an equation in integers would also yield a solution mod every n. Hence, since after division by 4, the equation x^2 = 2 has no solution (the left side always has remainder 0 or 1 after division by 4,) hence the equation x^2 = 204,840,962 also has no solution.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K