Subgroups of a finitely generated abelian group

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the subgroups of a finitely generated abelian group are finitely generated. The original poster presents a problem involving a group generated by a set of elements and hints at using induction on the size of this generating set.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the base case where the group is generated by one element and discuss the inductive step for groups generated by multiple elements. Questions arise regarding the role of quotient groups and the Correspondence Theorem in the proof process.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the inductive approach, while others express uncertainty about the application of certain theorems and how they relate to the problem. There is an ongoing exploration of how to connect the subgroup properties with the inductive hypothesis, particularly in the context of finitely generated groups.

Contextual Notes

Participants note constraints such as the lack of coverage on rings and the reliance on the understanding of the Isomorphism Theorems, which some feel weak about. The discussion reflects a struggle with the foundational concepts necessary for the proof.

bubchi89
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I have a homework problem which asks to prove that the subgroups of a finitely generated abelian group are finitely generated.

The hint in the book says to prove it by induction on the size of X where the group G = <X>. It also says to consider the quotient group G/an+1 (with an+1 in X) in the induction step.

I've spent a lot of time on this problem, but I've pretty much made no progress. I know that every element of G is a product (I'm thinking of it as a multiplicative group but I don't think it matters) of the elements in X. For the quotient group, I know that it is finitely generated. That's... pretty much it. Also, I can't use rings which seem to be the easiest way to prove this problem because we haven't covered it. However, I have covered three fundamental Isomorphism Theorems as well as a Correspondence Theorem. I'll be honest though, my understanding of these important theorems is weak, so if the inductive proof relies on an understanding of them then it's no surprise I haven't gotten anywhere. I don't really see why isomorphisms would be applicable which is why I haven't considered it very thoroughly. I have a hard time pursuing a path that doesn't seem fruitful at first glance (bad habit), so I've mostly been going over the same ideas in my head which haven't led me anywhere. For example, the Correspondence Theorem says that there is a bijection from a subgroup S to its quotient group S/K with K <= S. Any help would be great!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you do the case where G is generated by one element?

Then the inductive step: If the result is true for when G is generated by up to n elements, suppose that G is generated by n+1 elements a1,...,an+1. Let H be a subgroup of G. What can we say about H by examining G/<an+1>?
 
Office_Shredder said:
Can you do the case where G is generated by one element?

Then the inductive step: If the result is true for when G is generated by up to n elements, suppose that G is generated by n+1 elements a1,...,an+1. Let H be a subgroup of G. What can we say about H by examining G/<an+1>?

Ah yes, I forgot to mention (I had been up for 7 hours past my bedtime trying the problem) that I had done the base case. And by done I mean I cited a theorem I never proved correctly, but assume we did in class at one point: every subgroup of a cyclic subgroup is itself cyclic. Unfortunately I don't have time to prove it in this pset either. As for the induction step, I don't know. My understanding of quotient groups is that they partition the set into cosets... that's about it. The Correspondence theorem I know says that if H contains <an+1> then there is a bijection of each subgroup to a subgroup in that quotient group, but that isn't helpful. In particular, I don't see how the new G is related to the old G so the invocation of the induction hypothesis is unclear to me too.
 
I should give a better answer. In the case where H is a subgroup that contains elements who are a product of <n+1 elements in the generator, then we can invoke the induction hypothesis. So I guess I sort of do see how the IH plays in. However, I have no idea how the quotient group helps me in the case when H contains elements who are a product of all n+1 generators. That's when I tried using the fact that the quotient group is finitely generated by the cosets of <an+1> and coefficients a1 through an. But I didn't reach any conclusions from that

Mm, again I missed a thought I should explicate. The subgroup must contain some power of an+1 so that element lies in some member of the quotient group. We can also consider the cycle generated by that element, but I don't see how that helps either

Okay, if we consider each element to be a product, the "prefix" (my own choice of notation) of the products are the n generators in the induction hypothesis. Ignoring the an+1 element in the product, we know every element can be generated. I don't think I can say that, because this is true, we can simply tack on an an+1 to each generator and be done. Can we? I think the set generated by such a generating set would be a superset of the subgroup S we are considering. To be clear, if S had a set of n generators in the induction hypothesis, I can multiply each of them by an+1. The set created by such a generating set is bound to have every power of an+1 multiplied by the old S. This seems really iffy though, like I've incorrectly invoked the induction hypothesis. Furthermore, finitely generated doesn't say superset, it says exactly equals.
 
Last edited:
Hi.
if G = <a> then Every subgroup of G is Cyclic so generated by one element (finitely generated).
if the hypothesis is true for abelian groups that generated by less than n elements (n>=2) and G = <a1,...,an> then let H = <a1,...,an-1> and let A < G.
Now let R = {dn | d1*a1+...+dn*an is an element of A where di are in Z}.
Since 0*a1+...+0*an = 0 is in A so 0 is in R.
If R [tex]\cap[/tex] Z+ = Empty then R [tex]\cap[/tex] Z- = Empty so R = {0} then A < H so by inductive hypothesis A is finitely generated.
If R [tex]\cap[/tex] Z+ is not Empty then there is a least element in it (say dn)
then let v = d1*a1+...+dn*an is an element of A
Now the claim is that A = <v> + (A [tex]\cap[/tex] H).
Now since <v> < A and (A [tex]\cap[/tex] H) < A
we get <v> + (A [tex]\cap[/tex] H) < A.
Now if [tex]\alpha[/tex] [tex]\in[/tex] A then [tex]\alpha[/tex] = c1*a1+...+cn*an now observe that cn is divisible by dn (let cn = q*dn + r where 0<= r < dn then [tex]\alpha[/tex]-q*v = r1*a1+...+r*an [tex]\in[/tex] A so if r > 0 then r [tex]\in[/tex] R [tex]\cap[/tex] Z+ but r < dn this contradicts with the choice of dn, so r = 0).
Now [tex]\alpha[/tex]-q*v = r1*a1+...+r(n-1)*a(n-1) [tex]\in[/tex] A[tex]\cap[/tex]H
so [tex]\alpha[/tex] [tex]\in[/tex] <v> + (A [tex]\cap[/tex] H).
Now since (A [tex]\cap[/tex] H) < H by induction hypothesis it is finitely generated.
Let (A [tex]\cap[/tex] H) = <g1,...,gk>. Then claim is A = <v,g1,...,gk>.
Since v [tex]\in[/tex] A and gi [tex]\in[/tex] A we get <v,g1,...,gk> < A.
If [tex]\alpha[/tex] [tex]\in[/tex] A, [tex]\alpha[/tex] = q*v + h where h [tex]\in[/tex] (A [tex]\cap[/tex] H) Now since (A [tex]\cap[/tex] H) = <g1,...,gk>
we get [tex]\alpha[/tex] = q*v + s1*g1+ ... + sk*gk so A < <v,g1,...,gk>.
So A = <v,g1,...,gk> (A is finitely generated.)!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K