What Defines a Normal Subgroup in Group Theory?

Click For Summary
A normal subgroup H of a group G is defined such that for all elements x in G, the condition xHx^{-1} = H holds. However, some argue that the inclusion xHx^{-1} ⊆ H is sufficient for normality. The discussion revolves around proving the equivalence of these two definitions. A contradiction approach is proposed to show that if xHx^{-1} ⊆ H, then it must also imply xHx^{-1} = H. Ultimately, the consensus is that both definitions of a normal subgroup are indeed equivalent.
quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32
My professor of topology gave us a quick overview of the group theory results we will be needing later and among the things he said, is that a normal subgroup of a group G is a subgroup H such that for all x in G, xHx^{-1}=H.

Is this correct? The wiki article seems to indicate that equality btw xHx^{-1} and H is unnecessary, but rather that inclusion is sufficient.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They are easily shown to be equivalent.
 
Mmmh... So for all x in G, xHx^{-1}\subset H \Leftrightarrow xHx^{-1}= H.

For a fixed x, suppose there exists h' in H such that there are no h in H with h'=xhx^{-1}. This is nonsense since h=x^{-1}h'x does the trick.
 
Last edited:
But then how do you know h is in H? And I don't see what this has to do with your original question.
 
My original question was (essentially) Are the two definitions of normal subgroup "H is is normal subgroup of G if for all x in G, xHx^{-1}\subset H" and "H is is normal subgroup of G if for all x in G, xHx^{-1}= H" equivalent?

Then matt grime said "Yes". Then I tried to prove this assertion, so I said the following: "To show they are equivalent, I only need to show that for all x in G, xHx^{-1}\subset H \Rightarrow xHx^{-1}= H since the converse is immediate."

So let's proceed by contradiction by supposing that for a certain fixed x in G, there exists an h' in H such that there are no h in H with h' = xhx^{-1}. This is automatically seen to be an absurdity since the element h of G defined by h=x^{-1}h'x is such that h' = xhx^{-1} and it is in H because by hypothesis, h' is in H and xHx^{-1}\subset H, i.e. h=x^{-1}h'x\in H.I had to write it all in large to convince myself fully that it is correct, and still seems so to me. Do you still have an objection StatusX?
 
Last edited:
That's clearer than your last post, but still a little hard to follow, with an unnecessary proof by contradiction. The proof is easy:

Assume for all x in G, xHx^-1 is a subset of H. Then for all h in H, we can define h'=x^-1hx, which is in H, and so h=xh'x^-1, ie, H is a subset of xHx^-1.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
559
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K