I Understanding Proof: Clarifying the Relationship Between K and H

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr Davis 97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44
https://imgur.com/a/jThCPLA

I'm trying to understand the proof here, and there is just one point that I get tripped up on. In the last paragraph, I'm not seeing exactly why ##K\cap H < H## based upon our choice of ##y##. Could someone explain?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mr Davis 97 said:
https://imgur.com/a/jThCPLA

I'm trying to understand the proof here, and there is just one point that I get tripped up on. In the last paragraph, I'm not seeing exactly why ##K\cap H < H## based upon our choice of ##y##. Could someone explain?
The implicite (and missing) word is "proper". ##H\cap K## is always a subgroup of either. The fact that ##y \notin H## makes it a proper inclusion. ##K\cap H \lneq H## would have been the better sign.
 
fresh_42 said:
The implicite (and missing) word is "proper". ##H\cap K## is always a subgroup of either. The fact that ##y \notin H## makes it a proper inclusion. ##K\cap H \lneq H## would have been the better sign.
Oh, I think I got it now. One more question. Could this problem also be solved with the Fundamental Theorem of Finitely Generated Abelian Groups?
 
Help me, what theorem do you mean? The proof you have is quite short and straightforward, I don't know a better one.
 
Thread 'Derivation of equations of stress tensor transformation'
Hello ! I derived equations of stress tensor 2D transformation. Some details: I have plane ABCD in two cases (see top on the pic) and I know tensor components for case 1 only. Only plane ABCD rotate in two cases (top of the picture) but not coordinate system. Coordinate system rotates only on the bottom of picture. I want to obtain expression that connects tensor for case 1 and tensor for case 2. My attempt: Are these equations correct? Is there more easier expression for stress tensor...
Back
Top