mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Blogorrhea > enzocreti

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2019-05-22, 06:07   #1
enzocreti
 
Mar 2018

2×5×53 Posts
Default KaKb=Kab

In grioup theory
If K is normal in G


KaKb=Kab


Which is the proof?
enzocreti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-22, 07:39   #2
Nick
 
Nick's Avatar
 
Dec 2012
The Netherlands

32468 Posts
Default

Step 1: prove that KK=K.
Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-22, 07:44   #3
enzocreti
 
Mar 2018

2·5·53 Posts
Default I am following a book

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick View Post
Step 1: prove that KK=K.


thge book says given Ka=Ka1 and Kb=Kb1 we must show that Kab=Ka1b1, equivalently that ab(a1b1)^(-1) belongs to K.
This last statement can be proven so:


if Ka=Ka1 and Kb=Kb1,


then Kab=Ka1b1, right cancelletion gives Kab(a1b1)^(-1)=K. So ab(a1b1)^(-1) must belong to K because of the property of closure of the subgroup K? or better Kab=Ka1b1 then by left cancellation ab(a1b1)^(-1)=1 belonging to K?

Last fiddled with by enzocreti on 2019-05-22 at 07:52
enzocreti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-22, 07:56   #4
enzocreti
 
Mar 2018

2·5·53 Posts
Default I don't undestand this equivalence

[QUOTE=enzocreti;517453]thge book says given Ka=Ka1 and Kb=Kb1 we must show that Kab=Ka1b1, equivalently that ab(a1b1)^(-1) belongs to K.
This last statement can be proven so:


if Ka=Ka1 and Kb=Kb1,










I dont understand this equivalence:


Kab=Ka1b1 is equivalent to say that ab(a1b1)^(-1) belongs to K
enzocreti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-22, 13:15   #5
Nick
 
Nick's Avatar
 
Dec 2012
The Netherlands

2·23·37 Posts
Default

Your book appears to define KaKb=Kab and then prove that this is well-defined, i.e. it does not depend on the choices of a and b.
That is not wrong but it is unnecessarily complicated.

It is simpler to define the product of A and B for any subsets A, B of the group G as follows:
\[AB=\{ab:a\in A, b\in B\}\]
and then prove as a result that KaKb=Kab if K is a normal subgroup of G.
Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-22, 13:32   #6
enzocreti
 
Mar 2018

10000100102 Posts
Default how to proof

how to proof that the inverse of Ka when K is not normal is a^(-1)K?
enzocreti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2019-05-22, 14:32   #7
Nick
 
Nick's Avatar
 
Dec 2012
The Netherlands

2·23·37 Posts
Default

If K is a subgroup of a group G then K is closed under the group operation and K contains the neutral/identity element of the group.
So for all \(a,b\in K\) we have \(ab\in K\) too, giving \(KK\subset K\)
and, for all \(a\in K\) we have \(a=a\cdot 1\in KK\) so \(K\subset KK\) as well
hence \(KK=K\).

Once you have that, everything is easy:
\(Kaa^{-1}K=K\cdot1\cdot K=KK=K. \)
And, if K is a normal subgroup of G then \(aK=Ka\) so
\( KaKb=KKab=Kab.\)
Nick is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



All times are UTC. The time now is 04:45.


Sat Jul 17 04:45:40 UTC 2021 up 50 days, 2:32, 1 user, load averages: 2.37, 2.24, 2.21

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.