What Defines a Normal Subgroup in Group Theory?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the definitions of normal subgroups in group theory, specifically whether the definitions involving inclusion and equality of the form xHx^{-1} are equivalent. The scope includes theoretical exploration and mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states that a normal subgroup H of a group G is defined by the condition xHx^{-1} = H for all x in G, questioning the necessity of equality versus inclusion.
  • Another participant asserts that the two definitions are equivalent.
  • A further participant explores the implications of assuming xHx^{-1} ⊆ H and attempts to prove that this leads to xHx^{-1} = H through a contradiction argument.
  • Another participant challenges the clarity of the proof and suggests that the proof can be simplified without contradiction, proposing a direct argument instead.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the equivalence of the two definitions of normal subgroups, with some asserting they are equivalent while others raise questions about the clarity and correctness of the arguments presented.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of normal subgroups and the implications of the proposed proofs. The discussion reflects varying levels of understanding and clarity in the arguments made.

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, [itex]xHx^{-1}\subset H \Leftrightarrow xHx^{-1}= H[/itex].

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, [itex]xHx^{-1}\subset H[/itex]" and "H is is normal subgroup of G if for all x in G, [itex]xHx^{-1}= H[/itex]" 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, [itex]xHx^{-1}\subset H \Rightarrow xHx^{-1}= H[/itex] 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 [itex]xHx^{-1}\subset H[/itex], i.e. [itex]h=x^{-1}h'x\in H[/itex].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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K