When is a group the direct sum of its normal subgroups?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conditions under which a group can be expressed as the direct sum of its normal subgroups. Participants explore theoretical aspects of group theory, particularly focusing on the relationship between normal subgroups and group structures, including semidirect and direct products.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the relationship between a normal subgroup and the direct sum, questioning under what conditions G is isomorphic to H ⊕ G/H.
  • Another participant mentions the Schur-Zassenhaus theorem, suggesting that if gcd(|N|,|G/N|)=1, then G is a semidirect product of N and G/N, and implies that G could be expressed as N ⊕ G/N if G is abelian.
  • A participant seeks clarification on the term "semidirect," questioning the necessity of G being abelian in the context of the theorem.
  • One reply provides a link to a resource on semidirect products, explaining that they generalize direct products and can apply to nonabelian groups.
  • Another participant clarifies that direct products are defined for all groups, not just abelian ones, and emphasizes that the direct product of abelian groups is always abelian.
  • A participant suggests examining simple examples to illustrate the concepts, mentioning the subgroup 2Z of the integers and its failure to split, and poses a question about the subgroup {0,3} of Z/6Z.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the definitions and implications of direct and semidirect products, with some confusion about the conditions under which these structures apply. There is no consensus on the necessity of abelian conditions or the implications of the Schur-Zassenhaus theorem.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific mathematical properties and theorems without resolving the underlying assumptions or definitions that may affect their claims. The discussion includes varying interpretations of group structures and their relationships.

nonequilibrium
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
2
I was sad to find out that if H is a normal subgroup of G, we can't say [tex]G \cong H \oplus G/H[/tex]. Now I'm wondering: in which cases does this equality hold?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This doesn't really answer the question well, but if gcd(|N|,|G/N|)=1, then G is the semidirect product of N and G/N. This is the celebrated theorem of Schur-Zassenhaus.

So I guess, if gcd(|N|,|G/N|)=1 and if G is abelian, then [tex]G=N\oplus G/N[/tex].
 
Hm, I'm not familiar with the term "semidirect", what does it mean? I'm guessing you're demanding G to be abelian because of what semidirect means? Because if the theorem would say "direct sum" instead, then I don't see why we would need G to be abelian.
 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semidirect_product
The semidirect product is a very handy generalization of the direct product. It is defined for every kind of group (not just abelians). If you're taking a course on group theory, then I'm pretty sure that this notion will pop up someday.

The semidirect product is, in general, a nonabelian group. The only situation when a semidirect product yields a abelian group, is when the semidirect product is in fact the direct product.

If you're interested, I suggest picking up a good group theory book and read about it. I recommend fully the book "The theory of finite groups" by Kurzweil and Stellmacher.
 
Hm, now I'm confused, why are direct products only defined for abelian groups?

If one defines [tex](a,\alpha) * (b,\beta) = (a*b,\alpha * \beta)[/tex] with a and b out of a certain group G and alpha and beta out of a certain group H, then we have a new group, don't we? (it's associative, has an inverse for every element and a neutral element)
 
Nonono, direct products are defined for any group, not just abelian groups. Semidirect products are also defined for all groups. Semidirect products are just a generalization of direct products.

What I said was, that if a semidirect product is abelian, then it had to be a direct product. That does certainly not mean that the direct product is always abelian or that it is only defined for abelian groups.

It's just that: the direct product of abelian groups is always abelian. But the semidirect product is never abelian (unless it was a direct product).

If you're confused, just forget everything I've said :smile:
 
it is useful to look at some simple examples. e.g. the integers Z have a subgroup 2Z which does not split this way. What do you think happens for the subgroup {0,3} of Z/6Z?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K