group theory: G is a group, H is a normal subgroup of G prove: G/H is cyclic iff there exists a in G s.t. for all x in G there exists n in Z s.t. x*a^n is in H
=> G/H is cyclic so H(ab) = H(ba) for a,b in G so (ab)(ba)^(-1) in in H (from theorem that states Ha=Hb iff ab^-1 is in H) so ab*a^(-1)*b^(-1) = h for some h in H since H is normal for any x in G we have x*h*x^(-1) is in H so x*(ab*a^(-1)*b(-1))*x^(-1) is in H and aba^(-1)b^(-1)x^(-1) is in G so we have shown what we need to show?
do I need to even do all this or can I say e is in H so e = x*a*a^(-1)*x^(-1) = x*(a*a^(-1)*x^(-1)) = a*g is in H where g = a*a^(-1)*x^(-1)
I don't know. Lol. This is abstract algebra?
yes
Hmm..I don't remember seeing this at all. Is this for part I or II?
its a 300 level group theory class. We don't have part 1 or 2. Its about cosets and fundamental homomorphism theorem.
I'm not quite sure how you get the first implication.
which part?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but where have you shown that there exists an \(a\in G\) such that for all \(x\in G\) there exists an \(n\in\mathbb{Z}\) such that \(x\cdot a^n\in H\)?
e = x*a*a^(-1)*x^(-1) = x*(a*a^(-1)*x^(-1)) = a*g is in H where g = a*a^(-1)*x^(-1) for this one there exists a in G ((a*a^(-1)*x^(-1)) <-- this is my element in g) st for any x in G there exists n in Z (n=1) so x*(a*a^(-1)*x^(-1) = e is in H
I don't know what Im doing lol
Ah. That doesn't work. You're choosing a specific \(x\), not a general one. Give me a couple minutes to see if I can get something better.
ahh your right... Im going to delete all that stuff as not to confuse anyone else...lol. The wife just sait dinner is ready, ill be back in a bit.. sorry.
Don't delete it. I might use some of it.
the book says Ha = Hb iff a*b^(-1) is in H is key
ok
Since \(G\) is a group, we know that \(xg\in H\) for some \(g\in G\). We also know that \(G/H=\langle aH\rangle\) for some \(a\in G\). So \(g \in a^k H\) for some \(k\in\mathbb{Z}\). Then \(a^k H=g H\) since \(H\lhd G\). But since \(xg\in H\), we know that \(xg H=H=xa^k H\). Thus, \(xa^k\in H\). I think this works for the first direction.
Now for the other direction. Let \(a\in G\) such that for all \(x\in G\) there exists \(n\in\mathbb{Z}\) such that \(xa^n\in H\). Now notice that \(x^{-1}H=a^n H\) (since \(xa^n\in H\)). For simplicity, since \(x\) is general, let \(x^{-1}\) be our new \(x\). So \(x H=a^n H\) for all \(x\in G\), and some \(n\in\mathbb{Z}\). Thus, \(G/H=\langle aH\rangle\), so \(G/H\) is cyclic.
hmm, Since G is a group, we know that xg∈H for some g∈G . We also know that G/H=⟨aH⟩ for some a∈G
how do we know these things?
ok the second one I get
Well, the first we know since \(xx^{-1}=e\in H\). But we also know that \(xg\neq xh\) for all \(g\neq h\). So just by going through all of the possible \(g\in G\), \(xg\) is every possible element; including the ones in \(H\).
so that is saying for an x in G we know there exists an a in G s.t. ga is in H?
I think I understand
That's basically it.
OK I got to go write it down and look at it for a bit, ty
Send me a message or reply if anything needs explaining. I've got to go in a few.
Im confused on " So g∈a k H for some k∈Z "
so since xg is in H xg = h for some h so g = x^(-1)h so g is in one of the cosets? is that what that is saying?
ahh because G/H is a partition of G, so g has to be in some g'H where g' is in G
Yup. And we might as well call it gH instead of g'H since they're equal.
right. ok im picking up what your putting down :)
Hey @KingGeorge I'm confused on we got \[H=Hxa^{k}\]
On how we got*
so we know ab^(-1) is in H iff Ha = Hb so take x in G then Hx = Ha^n for some a in G and n in N and \[Ha^{n} = H(a^{-1})^{k}\] so \[Hx = H(a^{k})^{-1}\] so xa^k is in H
does that work?
We know that \(xgH=xa^kH\) since \(a^kH=gH\). But from our assumption, \(xg\in H\). So \(xgH=H\). Thus, \(xa^kH=H\) by the transitivity of equality. Therefore \(xa^k\in H\).
ok I hear ya, I just have never seen the prrof that aH=bH implies xaH=xbH how to you think the way I did it looks?
Well, the proof for that is fairly obvious since you multiplied by the same element x. And I think your way also works.
yeah after I said that I noticed, its just aH=bH implies a=bH so xa=xbH so xa is in xbH so xaH = xbH as far as mine, does a^nH = (a^-1)^kH for some n and k in Z?
That's the one step I'm not entirely sure about. Give me a couple minutes to see if I can prove/disprove that.
Since \(a^na^{-n}=e\in H\), you know that \(a^nH=a^{-n}H\), so it does work.
And of course, \(a^{-n}=(a^{-1})^n\)
ty
You're welcome.
@kinggeorge the them says a*b^-1 off Ha=Hb did you use something different?
Theroem * iif *
I used that theorem for the \(\Leftarrow\) direction, but not the other direction.
a*a^-1 implies Ha =Ha not Ha =Ha^-1
OK sorry I was on my tablet and this site is hard to use on it... \[Ha=Hb \iff a*b^{-1} \in H\] you have shown \[a*a^{-1} \in H\] and thus \[Ha=Ha\]
@Zarkon can you help on this one? This is what I have so we know ab^(-1) is in H iff Ha = Hb so take x in G then Hx = Ha^n for some a in G and some n in Z so Ha^n =H(a^−1)^k for some k in Z (this is the statement I am worried about, in other words I cant prove it:)) so Hx=H(a^k )^(-1) so xa^k is in H
I have a few things to say about that. First, I think that's a valid way of doing it. Second, you might want to say that \(Hx=Ha^n\) for some \(a\in G\) and \(n\in\mathbb{Z}\) because \(G/H\) is cyclic. Third, that statement you can't prove, is true if you let \(k=n\). Then since \((a^{-1})^n=(a^n)^{-1}\), you know that \(a^n\cdot (a^{-1})^n=e\), which is in \(H\) since \(H\) is a subgroup (and thus non-empty).
Yeah I just said since a^n is in G it has and inverse, and is then itself an inverse of some other element....and renamed is a^-1
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!