MHB This suggests that both H and K are normal subgroups of L. What am I missing?

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around determining the normality of subgroups H and K within the matrix group L. The user is trying to show that one of these subgroups is normal while the other is not, specifically focusing on the behavior of matrix multiplication and conjugation. They express confusion about the results of their calculations involving the products of matrices from L and the subgroups. The user believes they are obtaining lower triangular matrices consistently, which complicates their understanding of normality. Clarification on the properties of conjugation in relation to the structure of the subgroups is sought to resolve their confusion.
11hannab
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Question about matrix groups and conjugate subgroups?

This question concerns the group of matrices
L = { (a 0)
(c d) : a,c,d ∈ R, ad =/ 0}
under matrix multiplication, and its subgroups
H = { (p 0, (p - q) q) : p,q ∈ R, pq =/ 0} and K = { (1 0, r 1) : r ∈ R}Show that one of H and K is a normal subgroup of L and that the other is not.

Any pointers would be fantastic! Struggling and is from a previous assignment but just can't seem to figure this out?!
I understand that klk^-1 gives a lower triangular matric similar to L. Which would be this is a subgroup of L

But when i multiply together lhl-1 is seem to also get a lower traingular matrix?

Any pointer to where i am going wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It seems to me that for every $a$, $c$ and $d$ and for every $r$ there exists an $r'$ such that
\[
\begin{pmatrix}a&0\\c&d\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}1&0\\r&1\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}1&0\\r'&1\end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix}a&0\\c&d\end{pmatrix}
\]
 
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 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K