Understanding the < > Notation for Subgroups: A Closer Look

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Gear300
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integral Set
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of the notation for a set S in the context of group theory, particularly focusing on the subgroup generated by a set of elements. Participants explore the implications of this notation when applied to specific examples, such as the subgroup <9, 12> in the group of integers under addition.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the notation for a set S, questioning what represents compared to the notation for an individual element.
  • Another participant clarifies that if the group operation is addition, then <9, 12> represents all linear combinations of 9 and 12, which leads to the conclusion that it contains all multiples of 3.
  • There is a suggestion that for any two integers a and b, the subgroup is equivalent to the subgroup generated by their greatest common divisor, .
  • One participant reflects on their misunderstanding of the notation, initially thinking it only represented integral powers of elements, and seeks confirmation that it can also be interpreted as linear combinations.
  • There is a discussion about whether the notation was defined in the referenced text, with some participants affirming that denotes the subgroup generated by S.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the notation refers to the subgroup generated by the set S, but there is uncertainty regarding the specific interpretation of and how it relates to the subgroup generated by multiple elements versus a single element.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the definition of as the set of all integral powers may not fully encompass the meaning of when S contains multiple elements, leading to potential ambiguity in understanding the notation.

Gear300
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
9
I'm having a bit of a tough time interpreting <S> for a set S. I know for an element a, <a> is the set of all integral powers of a with respect to a given operation, but for a set S = {a, b, c}, what would <a, b, c> turn out as?

Edit: The source of my trouble is with this: The subgroup <9, 12> of the group of integers with addition as the operation contains 12 + (-9) = 3 (in order for it to be a group). Here is what the text says: "Therefore <9, 12> must contain all multiples of 3." I thought <9, 12> would only consist of multiples of 9 and 12, but apparently, there is more to it.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Not knowing more about the group in question, I am assuming that the group operation is addition. Then [itex]\langle 9, 12 \rangle[/itex] is going to be all linear combinations of 9 and 12, i,.e. [itex]9m+12n[/itex] for integers m and n. It turns out that that this is identical to the set of all multiples of 3.

I suspect that for any two intgers a and b that [itex]\langle a,b \rangle = \langle \gcd (a,b) \rangle[/itex].

--Elucidus
 
Thanks for the reply...it seems as though it never came to me anywhere in the text. I was thinking the notation for <a1, a2 ... an> was simply the set of all integral powers of the elements.

So from this, I'm assuming that < > with respect to addition can be interpreted as a linear combination between elements in the group, right?
 
Are you sure < > notation was never defined in that book? From your comments, I am guessing that (for that book) <S> means the subgroup generated by S.
 
g_edgar said:
Are you sure < > notation was never defined in that book? From your comments, I am guessing that (for that book) <S> means the subgroup generated by S.

Yup...that was part of its definition. The definition it gave was: <a> is the set of all integral powers of a for a given operation. They then went into further analysis. I just wasn't sure what <S> of a set S = {a, b, c, ...} was since the definition they gave was for a single element a.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
6K