MHB The Correspondence Theorem for Groups .... Rotman, Proposition 1.82 ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Groups Theorem
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading the book: "Advanced Modern Algebra" (Second Edition) by Joseph J. Rotman ...

I am currently focused on Chapter 1: Groups I ...

I need help with an aspect of the proof of Proposition 1.82 (Correspondence Theorem) ...

Proposition 1.82 reads as follows:
View attachment 7993
View attachment 7994
In the above proof by Rotman we read the following:

" ... ... For the reverse inclusion let $$a \in \pi^{-1} \pi (S)$$, so that $$\pi (a) = \pi (s)$$ for some $$s \in S$$. It follows that $$as^{-1} \in \text{ ker } \pi = K$$ ... ... "Can someone please explain exactly how/why $$\pi (a) = \pi (s)$$ implies that $$as^{-1} \in \text{ ker } \pi = K$$ ... ... Peter
===========================================================================================***EDIT***

Just had some thoughts ... BUT ... unfortunately my logic does not seem to line up with Rotman's logic ...

My thoughts are as follows:

$$\pi (a) = \pi (s) $$

$$\Longrightarrow aK = sK$$

$$\Longrightarrow a = sk$$ for some $$k \in K$$ since $$a$$ must belong to $$sK$$ ... ... (is this a legitimate step ...)

$$\Longrightarrow s^{-1} a = k$$

$$\Longrightarrow as^{-1} = k$$

$$\Longrightarrow as^{-1} \in \text{ker } \pi = K$$ Is that correct?

BUT note ... logic is different from Rotman's set of steps ... ... what is Rotman's logic ...?Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi, Peter.

The reasoning in your EDIT section copied below is correct, including the step where you ask if $a=sk$ is legitimate (it is because $K$ is a (sub)group and so must contain the identity, which implies $a\in aK$).

Peter said:
Just had some thoughts ... BUT ... unfortunately my logic does not seem to line up with Rotman's logic ...

My thoughts are as follows:

$$\pi (a) = \pi (s) $$

$$\Longrightarrow aK = sK$$

$$\Longrightarrow a = sk$$ for some $$k \in K$$ since $$a$$ must belong to $$sK$$ ... ... (is this a legitimate step ...)

$$\Longrightarrow s^{-1} a = k$$

$$\Longrightarrow as^{-1} = k$$

$$\Longrightarrow as^{-1} \in \text{ker } \pi = K$$ Is that correct?

BUT note ... logic is different from Rotman's set of steps ... ... what is Rotman's logic ...?

Indeed, your reasoning is expressed a little different from Rotman's (with yours on the level of elements from $G$ throughout and with Rotman's given on the level of cosets and group homomorphisms), but it is equally valid and yields the same conclusion, well done!

Peter said:
Can someone please explain exactly how/why $$\pi (a) = \pi (s)$$ implies that $$as^{-1} \in \text{ ker } \pi = K$$ ... ...

For any group homomorphism, say $h:G_{1}\rightarrow G_{2},$ $h(g^{-1})=\left[h(g)\right]^{-1}$ (a short but good exercise to try for yourself if you're not already familiar with this fact). Hence, $\pi(a)=\pi(s)\Longrightarrow\left[\pi(a)\right]^{-1}=\left[\pi(s)\right]^{-1}.$

Now we compute: $\pi(as^{-1})=\pi(a)\pi(s^{-1})=\pi(a)\left[\pi(s)\right]^{-1}=\pi(a)\left[\pi(a)\right]^{-1}=\text{Identity in}~G/K=K.$
 
GJA said:
Hi, Peter.

The reasoning in your EDIT section copied below is correct, including the step where you ask if $a=sk$ is legitimate (it is because $K$ is a (sub)group and so must contain the identity, which implies $a\in aK$).
Indeed, your reasoning is expressed a little different from Rotman's (with yours on the level of elements from $G$ throughout and with Rotman's given on the level of cosets and group homomorphisms), but it is equally valid and yields the same conclusion, well done!
For any group homomorphism, say $h:G_{1}\rightarrow G_{2},$ $h(g^{-1})=\left[h(g)\right]^{-1}$ (a short but good exercise to try for yourself if you're not already familiar with this fact). Hence, $\pi(a)=\pi(s)\Longrightarrow\left[\pi(a)\right]^{-1}=\left[\pi(s)\right]^{-1}.$

Now we compute: $\pi(as^{-1})=\pi(a)\pi(s^{-1})=\pi(a)\left[\pi(s)\right]^{-1}=\pi(a)\left[\pi(a)\right]^{-1}=\text{Identity in}~G/K=K.$
Thanks GJA ...

... most helpful !

Peter
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top