MHB "structure" on the cosets → normal?

Swlabr1
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Let $H\leq G$, where $G$ is some infinite group, and there exists some $g\in G$ such that the set $\{g^n: n\in\mathbb{Z}\}$ is a transversal for $G/H$. Then is $H$ normal in $G$?

I suspect not. However, I cannot seem to find a counter-example.

(By "a transversal for $G/H$" I mean that

1) $g^nH=g^mH\Rightarrow m=n$

2) if $hH$ is a coset of $G/H$ then there exists some $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that $g^nh^{-1}\in H$

so the powers of $g$ form a set of coset representatives for $G/H$, and no two of these representatives lie in the same coset.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: "structure" on the cosets $\Rightarrow$ normal?

Swlabr said:
Let $H\leq G$, where $G$ is some infinite group, and there exists some $g\in G$ such that the set $\{g^n: n\in\mathbb{Z}\}$ is a transversal for $G/H$. Then is $H$ normal in $G$?

I suspect not. However, I cannot seem to find a counter-example.

(By "a transversal for $G/H$" I mean that

1) $g^nH=g^mH\Rightarrow m=n$

2) if $hH$ is a coset of $G/H$ then there exists some $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that $g^nh^{-1}\in H$

so the powers of $g$ form a set of coset representatives for $G/H$, and no two of these representatives lie in the same coset.)

Hi Swlabr, :)

Does \(G/H\) stands for the quotient group ? In that case all the other parts of the question are redundant since by definition of quotient groups \(H\) should be normal in \(G\).

Kind Regards,
Sudharaka.
 
Re: "structure" on the cosets $\Rightarrow$ normal?

What about the (non-normal) subgroup $\mathbb{Z}/2$ as a subgroup of the infinite dihedral group? More precisely, let $G = \langle u,t\ |\ u^2=1,\ utu=t^{-1} \rangle$. Let $H = \{1,u\}$, and take $g=t$ for the generator of the transversal.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
373
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
956
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
687
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
737
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K