Why Does Conjugation in Abelian Groups Imply Triviality for Normal Subgroups?

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
1 reply · 2K views
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
32

Homework Statement


G is abelian, A is normal in G, B is a subgroup, a1, a2 in A, b1,b2 in B, c_g denotes the congugation by g automorphism. why must

[tex]a_1c_{b_1}(a_2) = a_2c_{b_2}(a_1)[/tex]

imply that [tex]c_{b_1}(a_2)=a_2[/tex] and [tex]c_{b_2}(a_1)=a_1[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



In other words, why couldn't there exists a, a' in A such that [tex]c_{b_1}(a_2)=a[/tex] and [tex]c_{b_2}(a_1)=a'[/tex] and [tex]a_1a=a_2a'[/tex]??
 
Physics news on Phys.org