Subgroup conjugation and cosets

  • Thread starter Thread starter ttm7nana
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cosets Subgroup
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around proving that if H is a subgroup of G such that Ha≠Hb implies aH≠bH, then gHg^(-1) is a subset of H. The user initially struggles with manipulating the equation and understanding how to apply the given condition to show that elements in gHg^(-1) belong to H. After some guidance, they successfully demonstrate that if gHg^(-1) is not a subset of H, it leads to a contradiction. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the relationship between cosets and subgroup properties in group theory. The user expresses gratitude for the assistance received in clarifying their proof.
ttm7nana
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hello, I am having trouble with the following problem.

Suppose that H is a subgroup of G such that whenever Ha≠Hb then aH≠bH. Prove that gHg^(-1) is a subset of H.

I have tried to manipulate the following equation for some ideas

H = Hgg^(-1) = gg^(-1)H

but I don't know how to go from here. I can't figure out how I can use the conditions to show that every element in gHg^(-1) is also in H.
I also know that gHg^(-1) is a subgroup of G, but I don't know if this fact can be used here.
It well be great if someone can point me in the right direction. Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try it this way. Can you use "Ha≠Hb then aH≠bH" to show that ab \not \in H iff ba \not \in H? Apply that to ghg^(-1) where h is an element of H. Oh, and welcome to the forums!
 
Last edited:
Hi, thanks for your help and the welcome!
I think I've got it. Can you check my work?

Let ab\notinH. From this we get Ha ≠Hb^(-1). Using Ha≠Hb then aH≠bH, aH ≠ b^(-1)H. This implies that ba\notinH. And the other direction is the same procedure. Therefore ab\notinH iff ba\notinH

Now assume for a sake of contradiction that gHg^(-1)is not a subset of H. Then we get ghg^(-1)\notinH for some h\inH. Then from ab\notinH iff ba\notinH, we get g^(-1)gh=h\notinH. Which is a contradiction because h\inH. Therefore gHg^(-1)\subsetH.

I'm not very confident about the first half of the proof.
 
ttm7nana said:
Hi, thanks for your help and the welcome!
I think I've got it. Can you check my work?

Let ab\notinH. From this we get Ha ≠Hb^(-1). Using Ha≠Hb then aH≠bH, aH ≠ b^(-1)H. This implies that ba\notinH. And the other direction is the same procedure. Therefore ab\notinH iff ba\notinH

Now assume for a sake of contradiction that gHg^(-1)is not a subset of H. Then we get ghg^(-1)\notinH for some h\inH. Then from ab\notinH iff ba\notinH, we get g^(-1)gh=h\notinH. Which is a contradiction because h\inH. Therefore gHg^(-1)\subsetH.

I'm not very confident about the first half of the proof.

I think you've got it. The justification for the first part is that if c \notin H iff cH \neq H. You might want to explicitly mention that.
 
Okay, thank you very much!

If I may ask, what was your thought process in first showing ab\notinH iff ba\notinH? I would have never thought of that step on my own.
 
ttm7nana said:
Okay, thank you very much!

If I may ask, what was your thought process in first showing ab\notinH iff ba\notinH? I would have never thought of that step on my own.

Sure. If you skip to the end the question is whether ghg^(-1) is 'in H or not'. So then I looked at Ha≠Hb and tried to figure out what that was telling me about something being 'in H or not'. And, of course, it's telling you ab^(-1) 'is not in H'. aH≠bH says b^(-1)a is not in H. So that looks like it's telling me if the product of two elements is not in H, then I can commute them and it's still not in H. Etc.
 
Okay, that makes sense.
Thank you again for your help!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
523
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K