Solving Groups: Proving AB is Solvable w/ A Normal in G

  • Thread starter Thread starter bham10246
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Groups
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that the product of two solvable subgroups, A and B, within a group G, is also solvable when A is normal in G. The user proposes constructing a chain of normal subgroups in A and B, leveraging the property that their quotients are abelian. The key challenge identified is demonstrating that the quotient (A_{i+1}B)/(A_i B) is abelian, which is crucial for completing the proof. The user also considers applying the fundamental isomorphism theorem to aid in this proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of group theory, specifically solvable groups
  • Familiarity with normal subgroups and their properties
  • Knowledge of the fundamental isomorphism theorem
  • Experience with quotient groups and their structures
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of solvable groups in group theory
  • Research normal subgroups and their implications in group structures
  • Learn about the fundamental isomorphism theorem and its applications
  • Explore examples of quotient groups and their abelian properties
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in abstract algebra, group theorists, and students seeking to understand the solvability of group products.

bham10246
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
I've been working on this problem and I need just a small hint.

Let A and B be solvable subgroups of a group G and suppose that A\triangleleft G. Prove that AB is solvable.


My idea:

So we have a chain of normal subgroups of A so that their quotient is abelian. We also have a chain of normal subgroups of B so that their quotient is abelian. Since A is normal in G, should I multiply the normal subgroups A_i in A by B to obtain B=1*B=A_0 B \triangleleft A_1 B \triangleleft ... \triangleleft A_k B = AB, but how do we know that (A_{i+1}B)/(A_i B) is abelian?

If I understand this one thing, then I think I can finish the rest of the proof. Thank you!

This is a right approach, right?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
somehow i am tempted to use the fundamental isomorphism theorem about

the structure of (AB)/A.
 
Thanks, I'll try that. I thought that the above construction B=1*B=A_0 B \triangleleft A_1 B \triangleleft ... \triangleleft A_k B = AB is correct but I'm not even sure that A_i B is normal in A_{i+1}B?!
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
567
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
914
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K