Using the fact that G is abelian in this abstract algebra problem

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem in abstract algebra, specifically focusing on the properties of abelian groups and their subgroups. Participants are examining the implications of a group G being abelian in relation to a subset that may or may not be a subgroup.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand whether they can use commutative multiplication in their reasoning, given uncertainty about the subset being a subgroup. Some participants clarify that any subgroup of an abelian group is also abelian, while others emphasize the need to prove the subset is a subgroup first.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the concepts of abelian groups and subgroups. There is a mix of clarification on properties and ongoing questioning about the original poster's approach to proving subgroup status. No explicit consensus has been reached, but guidance has been offered regarding the nature of abelian groups.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted uncertainty regarding the subgroup status of the subset in question, which is central to the discussion. The original poster is navigating the implications of G being abelian while trying to establish the necessary conditions for subgroup verification.

jdinatale
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
I'll post the problem and my attempt at solution all in one picture:

jdjd.jpg




In the red step, I'm using commutative multiplication. Am I allowed to do this? I'm not sure, because the subset of G might not be a subgroup, so I don't know if its necessarily abelian like G is. Or does the fact that G is abelian override this somehow?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Any subgroup of an abelian group is abelian.
 
deluks917 said:
Any subgroup of an abelian group is abelian.

i'm trying to PROVE it's a subgroup. That's the question itself.
 
That looks good. I don't see the confusion. In an abelian group, it always holds that

[tex](ab)^n=a^nb^n[/tex]

You don't need any subgroups to prove this.
 
Sorry any subset of an abelian group is abelian.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K