Subgroups of Relatively Prime Index

  • Thread starter Thread starter e(ho0n3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Index Prime
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that if H and K are subgroups of a group G with finite indices [G:H] and [G:K] that are relatively prime, then G must equal the product of the two subgroups, denoted as G = HK. The participants reference the counting principle, specifically |HK| = |H||K|/|H ∩ K|, and emphasize the importance of understanding the relationship between the indices and the cosets involved. The proof hinges on demonstrating that [G:HK] equals 1 or directly showing G = HK through the properties of cosets.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of group theory concepts, particularly subgroups and indices.
  • Familiarity with the counting principle in group theory.
  • Knowledge of cosets and their properties in relation to subgroups.
  • Basic grasp of finite and infinite groups and their implications.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of subgroup indices in group theory.
  • Learn about the counting principle in the context of group theory.
  • Research the concept of cosets and their bijections in relation to subgroups.
  • Explore examples of finite and infinite groups to understand their differences in subgroup behavior.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in abstract algebra, students studying group theory, and anyone interested in advanced topics related to subgroup structures and indices.

e(ho0n3
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
Let H and K be subgroups of G of finite index such that [G:H] and [G:K] are relatively prime. Prove that G = HK.

The attempt at a solution
All I know is that [G:H intersect K] = [G:H] [G:K]. What would be nice is if [G:HK] = [G:H] [G:K] / [G:H intersect K], for then I would be done. Anywho, I must somehow show that [G:HK] = 1 or prove that G = HK directly. Any tips?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
morphism said:
Funny. The poster knows the part of the proof I do not and I know the part of the proof that the poster does not. Do you know what counting principle the poster is talking about? In any case, the poster states that "it will come down to saying that |HK|=c|G| for some multiple c", but then the poster is assuming that G is finite.
 
If HK is finite, then

|HK| = \frac{|H||K|}{|H \cap K|}.

This is the counting principle the was poster was referring to.

Of course it won't do us much good here, because G isn't finite (something I missed when I looked at your post). The problem is more difficult without this assumption; here's a hint: use the fact that [G:H intersect K]=[G:H][G:K] to deduce that [G:K]=[H:H intersect K]. Then show that this implies that G=HK (look at the cosets of K in G and the cosets of H intersect K in H).
 
If [G:K]=[H:H intersect K], there must be some kind of bijection between the cosets of K in G and the cosets of H intersect K in H. However, I'm unable to figure out what that bijection could possibly be. Hmm...this is harder than I thought.
 
I think you should try to finish this off by yourself. It's one of those problems that'll give you a massive headache until you finally notice the right way to go about doing them. This is a valuable educational experience! Good luck.
 
OK. I'll try. Thanks for your help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K