Proof: (⇐) We clearly have a∈(b)=Rb, and since u−1a=u−1(ub)=b, we have b∈(a)=Ra. Therefore, Ra=(a)⊆(b) and Rb=(b)⊆(a) so that (a)=(b). (⇒) If either of a or b are zero, then both are zero, and the case clearly holds, so assume a≠0≠b. We must have a=ub and va=b for some u,v∈R. We can compare the two to obtain va=vub=b, so that vub−b=(vu−1)b=0, and now vu−1=0 implying vu=uv=1, i.e. u is a unit as claimed. ◻
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Principle Ideals in Integral Domains (7.4.8)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 7.4, exercise 8:
MathJax TeX Test Page
Let R be an integral domain with a,b∈R. Prove (a)=(b) if and only if a=ub for some unit u.
Proof: (⇐) We clearly have a∈(b)=Rb, and since u−1a=u−1(ub)=b, we have b∈(a)=Ra. Therefore, Ra=(a)⊆(b) and Rb=(b)⊆(a) so that (a)=(b). (⇒) If either of a or b are zero, then both are zero, and the case clearly holds, so assume a≠0≠b. We must have a=ub and va=b for some u,v∈R. We can compare the two to obtain va=vub=b, so that vub−b=(vu−1)b=0, and now vu−1=0 implying vu=uv=1, i.e. u is a unit as claimed. ◻
Proof: (⇐) We clearly have a∈(b)=Rb, and since u−1a=u−1(ub)=b, we have b∈(a)=Ra. Therefore, Ra=(a)⊆(b) and Rb=(b)⊆(a) so that (a)=(b). (⇒) If either of a or b are zero, then both are zero, and the case clearly holds, so assume a≠0≠b. We must have a=ub and va=b for some u,v∈R. We can compare the two to obtain va=vub=b, so that vub−b=(vu−1)b=0, and now vu−1=0 implying vu=uv=1, i.e. u is a unit as claimed. ◻
Nilpotency and the Augmentation Ideal (7.4.3)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 7.4, exercise 3:
MathJax TeX Test Page
(a) Let G be an abelian group of order pn. Prove Aug(FpG)=N(FpG).
(b) Let G={g1,...,gn} be a group and assume R is commutative. Prove r∈Aug(RG)⇒r(g1+...+gn)=0.
Proof: (a) (⊆) By the preceding exercise, Aug(FpG) is generated by {g−1 | g∈G}, so for arbitrary x∈Aug(FpG) write x=∑g∈Gag(g−1) for some ag∈FpG for all g∈G. Prove (g−1)pn=0 and is thus nilpotent for any g∈G, so that by the idealness of N(FpG) we have x is nilpotent. By the binomial theorem for commutative rings, since pn divides p^n \choose k = \dfrac{p^n!}{k!(n-k)!} when 0 < k < p^n, we can observe (g-1)^{p^n}=g^{p^n}-1=1-1=0. (\supseteq) Since \mathbb{F}_pG/Aug(\mathbb{F}_pG)≅\mathbb{F}_p is a field, we have Aug(\mathbb{F}_pG) is a maximal ideal, so that \mathfrak{N}(\mathbb{F}_pG)∈\{Aug(\mathbb{F}_pG),\mathbb{F}_pG\}, and is evidently not the latter as 1∈\mathbb{F}_pG is not nilpotent.~\square
(b) Once again write r=r'(g-1) for some r'∈RG, and recalling that the action of multiplication on a group by one of its elements is a permutation of that group's elements, we observe r(g_1+...+g_n)=r'(g-1)(g_1+...+g_n)=r'(g(g_1+...+g_n)-(g_1+...+g_n))=r'((g_1+...+g_n)-(g_1+...+g_n))=r'0=0~\square
(b) Let G={g1,...,gn} be a group and assume R is commutative. Prove r∈Aug(RG)⇒r(g1+...+gn)=0.
Proof: (a) (⊆) By the preceding exercise, Aug(FpG) is generated by {g−1 | g∈G}, so for arbitrary x∈Aug(FpG) write x=∑g∈Gag(g−1) for some ag∈FpG for all g∈G. Prove (g−1)pn=0 and is thus nilpotent for any g∈G, so that by the idealness of N(FpG) we have x is nilpotent. By the binomial theorem for commutative rings, since pn divides p^n \choose k = \dfrac{p^n!}{k!(n-k)!} when 0 < k < p^n, we can observe (g-1)^{p^n}=g^{p^n}-1=1-1=0. (\supseteq) Since \mathbb{F}_pG/Aug(\mathbb{F}_pG)≅\mathbb{F}_p is a field, we have Aug(\mathbb{F}_pG) is a maximal ideal, so that \mathfrak{N}(\mathbb{F}_pG)∈\{Aug(\mathbb{F}_pG),\mathbb{F}_pG\}, and is evidently not the latter as 1∈\mathbb{F}_pG is not nilpotent.~\square
(b) Once again write r=r'(g-1) for some r'∈RG, and recalling that the action of multiplication on a group by one of its elements is a permutation of that group's elements, we observe r(g_1+...+g_n)=r'(g-1)(g_1+...+g_n)=r'(g(g_1+...+g_n)-(g_1+...+g_n))=r'((g_1+...+g_n)-(g_1+...+g_n))=r'0=0~\square
Friday, April 26, 2013
Nonisomorphicity of Z[x] and Q[x] (7.3.2)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 7.3, exercise 2:
MathJax TeX Test Page
Prove \mathbb{Z}[x] \not ≅ \mathbb{Q}[x].
Proof: Lemma 1: If φ:R→S is a surjective ring homomorphism and R is generated by a subset X (i.e. every element of R is writable as a sum of products with subtraction [or a series of operations] of elements from X), then S is generated by φ(X). Proof: Let s be an arbitrary element of S. For some r∈R, we have s=φ(r) and since r is a series of operations of elements from X, due to the homomorphism's nature we have s is a series of operations of elements from φ(X).~\square
We can see that \mathbb{Z}[x] is generated by \{x,1\}, since the latter generates \mathbb{Z} (all potential coefficients) and the former generates x^n for all n∈\mathbb{Z}^+. This implies \mathbb{Q}[x] is generated by two elements, and in particular \mathbb{Q} is generated by two elements (since we have a surjective homomorphism φ:\mathbb{Q}[x] → \mathbb{Q} by p(x) \mapsto p(0)). Letting \dfrac{a}{b} and \dfrac{c}{d} denote these generators, we have ad \cdot \dfrac{1}{bd} = \dfrac{a}{b} and bc \cdot \dfrac{1}{bd}=\dfrac{c}{d}, so that in fact \mathbb{Q} is generated by one element; further refer to it as \dfrac{1}{z}. Letting p \not \mid z be prime, we must have \dfrac{1}{p} is generated by a series of operations of \dfrac{1}{z} despite the fact that every such operation can be condensed into some fraction \dfrac{y}{z^n}, which cannot simplify to \dfrac{1}{p}.~\square
Proof: Lemma 1: If φ:R→S is a surjective ring homomorphism and R is generated by a subset X (i.e. every element of R is writable as a sum of products with subtraction [or a series of operations] of elements from X), then S is generated by φ(X). Proof: Let s be an arbitrary element of S. For some r∈R, we have s=φ(r) and since r is a series of operations of elements from X, due to the homomorphism's nature we have s is a series of operations of elements from φ(X).~\square
We can see that \mathbb{Z}[x] is generated by \{x,1\}, since the latter generates \mathbb{Z} (all potential coefficients) and the former generates x^n for all n∈\mathbb{Z}^+. This implies \mathbb{Q}[x] is generated by two elements, and in particular \mathbb{Q} is generated by two elements (since we have a surjective homomorphism φ:\mathbb{Q}[x] → \mathbb{Q} by p(x) \mapsto p(0)). Letting \dfrac{a}{b} and \dfrac{c}{d} denote these generators, we have ad \cdot \dfrac{1}{bd} = \dfrac{a}{b} and bc \cdot \dfrac{1}{bd}=\dfrac{c}{d}, so that in fact \mathbb{Q} is generated by one element; further refer to it as \dfrac{1}{z}. Letting p \not \mid z be prime, we must have \dfrac{1}{p} is generated by a series of operations of \dfrac{1}{z} despite the fact that every such operation can be condensed into some fraction \dfrac{y}{z^n}, which cannot simplify to \dfrac{1}{p}.~\square
Thursday, April 25, 2013
A Ring of Homomorphisms (7.1.30)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 7.1, exercise 30:
MathJax TeX Test Page
Let A=\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z} ... be the direct product of copies of \mathbb{Z} indexed by positive integers and let R be the ring of homomorphisms from A to itself. Let φ be the element of R defined by φ(a_1,a_2,a_3,...)=(a_2,a_3,...). Let ψ be the element of R defined by ψ(a_1,a_2,a_3,...)=(0,a_1,a_2,a_3,...).
(a) Prove φψ=1≠ψφ.
(b) Exhibit infinitely many right inverses for φ.
(c) Find a nonzero \pi∈R such that φ\pi = 0 ≠ \piφ.
(d) Prove \nexists \lambda∈R~(\lambdaφ=0).
Proof: (a)(φψ)(a_1,a_2,a_3,...)=φ(ψ(a_1,a_2,a_3,...))=φ(0,a_1,a_2,...)=(a_1,a_2,a_3,...)(b) Let \pi be the homomorphism defined in part (c). We claim \pi^n+ψ is a right inverse for any n∈\mathbb{Z}^+. We have φ(\pi^n+ψ)=φ\pi\pi^{n-1}+φψ=φψ=1, so now it suffices to prove \pi^n+ψ≠\pi^m+ψ for any m≠n: \pi^n+ψ=\pi^m+ψ⇒\pi^n=\pi^m⇒\pi^n(1,0,...)=\pi^m(1,0,...)⇒(2^n,0,...)=(2^m,0,...)⇒n=m(c) Let \pi be defined by \pi(a_1,a_2,a_3,...)=(2a_1,0,0,...). Prove it is a homomorphism: \pi((a_1,a_2,...)+(b_1,b_2,...))=\pi((a_1+b_1,a_2+b_2,...)=(2(a_1+b_1),0,...)=(2a_1,0,...)+(2b_1,0,...)=\pi(a_1,a_2,...)+\pi(b_1,b_2,...). We have (φ\pi)(a_1,a_2,...)=φ(\pi(a_1,a_2,))=φ(2a_1,0,...)=(0,0,...), so that φ\pi=0. Now, (\piφ)(0,1,0,0,...)=(2,0,0,...), so that \piφ≠0.
(d) By exercise 28(b), since φ has ψ a right inverse, φ is not a right zero divisor.~\square
(a) Prove φψ=1≠ψφ.
(b) Exhibit infinitely many right inverses for φ.
(c) Find a nonzero \pi∈R such that φ\pi = 0 ≠ \piφ.
(d) Prove \nexists \lambda∈R~(\lambdaφ=0).
Proof: (a)(φψ)(a_1,a_2,a_3,...)=φ(ψ(a_1,a_2,a_3,...))=φ(0,a_1,a_2,...)=(a_1,a_2,a_3,...)(b) Let \pi be the homomorphism defined in part (c). We claim \pi^n+ψ is a right inverse for any n∈\mathbb{Z}^+. We have φ(\pi^n+ψ)=φ\pi\pi^{n-1}+φψ=φψ=1, so now it suffices to prove \pi^n+ψ≠\pi^m+ψ for any m≠n: \pi^n+ψ=\pi^m+ψ⇒\pi^n=\pi^m⇒\pi^n(1,0,...)=\pi^m(1,0,...)⇒(2^n,0,...)=(2^m,0,...)⇒n=m(c) Let \pi be defined by \pi(a_1,a_2,a_3,...)=(2a_1,0,0,...). Prove it is a homomorphism: \pi((a_1,a_2,...)+(b_1,b_2,...))=\pi((a_1+b_1,a_2+b_2,...)=(2(a_1+b_1),0,...)=(2a_1,0,...)+(2b_1,0,...)=\pi(a_1,a_2,...)+\pi(b_1,b_2,...). We have (φ\pi)(a_1,a_2,...)=φ(\pi(a_1,a_2,))=φ(2a_1,0,...)=(0,0,...), so that φ\pi=0. Now, (\piφ)(0,1,0,0,...)=(2,0,0,...), so that \piφ≠0.
(d) By exercise 28(b), since φ has ψ a right inverse, φ is not a right zero divisor.~\square
Order of Conductor f (7.1.23)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 7.1, exercise 23:
MathJax TeX Test Page
Define \mathcal{O}_f=\mathbb{Z}[f\omega]=\{a+b\omega~|~a,b∈\mathbb{Z}\}. Letting [R] denote the abelian group in the ring R, prove:R = \mathcal{O}_f ⇔ R~\text{subring of}~\mathcal{O} \land 1∈R \land |[\mathcal{O}] : [R]|=f
Proof: Lemma 1: For H≤G groups and φ an isomorphism, we have |G:H|=|φ(G):φ(H)|. Proof: Let n_1,... be a complete set of coset-distinct representatives for H in G. We claim that their images are a complete set of coset-distinct representatives of φ(H) in φ(G). For any g∈G, we have g=n_ih for some index i and h∈H. Therefore, we have φ(g)=φ(n_ih)=φ(n_i)φ(h). Assuming φ(n_i) and φ(n_j) are in the same coset of φ(H), we have φ(n_i)=φ(n_j)φ(h)=φ(n_jh), so that n_i=n_jh and n_i and n_j are in the same coset of H, a contradiction. Thus, there are just as many coset representatives of φ(H) in φ(G) as H in G.~\square
(⇒) (1) All that needs to be done is to prove closure under subtraction and multiplication. We have (a+bf\omega)-(c+df\omega)=(a-c)+(b-d)f\omega. As well, \omega^2=D or \dfrac{D-1}{4}+\dfrac{1+\sqrt{D}}{2} depending on D modulo 4, so(a+bf\omega)(c+df\omega)=(ac)+(bc+ad)f\omega+bdf^2\omega^2is evidently within the ring as well. (2) Clearly 1∈\mathcal{O}_f; set a=1 and b=0. (3) Construct a mapping φ:[\mathcal{O}]→\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z} by a+b\omega \mapsto (a,b). This is well defined by unique a,b form of the argument, clearly surjective and injective, andφ((a+b\omega)+(c+d\omega))=φ((a+c)+(b+d)\omega)=(a+c,b+d)=(a,b)+(c,d)=φ(a+b\omega)+φ(c+d\omega)so that φ is homomorphic and now an isomorphism. So [\mathcal{O}]≅\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z} and by definition we can tell [\mathcal{O}_f] ≅ φ([\mathcal{O}_f])=\mathbb{Z} \times f\mathbb{Z}. By 5.1.14, we have (\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z})/(\mathbb{Z} \times f\mathbb{Z})≅(\mathbb{Z}/\mathbb{Z})\times(\mathbb{Z}/f\mathbb{Z})≅\mathbb{Z}/f\mathbb{Z} is a group of order f, so that f=|\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z} : \mathbb{Z} \times f\mathbb{Z}|=|φ([\mathcal{O}]):φ([\mathcal{O}_f])|=|[\mathcal{O}]:[\mathcal{O}_f]|.
Lemma 2: Any nontrivial subgroup of \mathbb{Z} is of the form n\mathbb{Z} for some n∈\mathbb{Z}^+. Proof: Let distinct a,b be chosen with n=|a-b| minimal; we thus have n\mathbb{Z} is contained within the subgroup. Assume there is an element x not within n\mathbb{Z}: We have x=qn+r with 0 < r < n, and since qn∈n\mathbb{Z}, we have x-qn < n=|a-b|, a contradiction. So n\mathbb{Z} is precisely the subgroup in question.~\square
(\Leftarrow) R's identity must be 1, as n(a+bf\omega)≠a+bf\omega for any n≠1 and a≠0≠b. Therefore, we have 1\mathbb{Z} \times 0=\mathbb{Z} \times 0≤φ([R]). For any (a,b)∈φ([R]), we also have (a,0)∈φ([R]), so that (0,b)∈φ([R]), implying the second factor of φ([R]) is a subgroup of \mathbb{Z} and therefore of the form n\mathbb{Z}. Since | \mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z}:\mathbb{Z} \times n\mathbb{Z}|=n, we have n=f and now φ([R])=\mathbb{Z} \times f\mathbb{Z}=φ([\mathcal{O}_f]) and now [R]=[\mathcal{O}_f]. Since the specifications of multiplication are predefined in \mathbb{C}, we have R=\mathcal{O}_f.~\square
(⇒) (1) All that needs to be done is to prove closure under subtraction and multiplication. We have (a+bf\omega)-(c+df\omega)=(a-c)+(b-d)f\omega. As well, \omega^2=D or \dfrac{D-1}{4}+\dfrac{1+\sqrt{D}}{2} depending on D modulo 4, so(a+bf\omega)(c+df\omega)=(ac)+(bc+ad)f\omega+bdf^2\omega^2is evidently within the ring as well. (2) Clearly 1∈\mathcal{O}_f; set a=1 and b=0. (3) Construct a mapping φ:[\mathcal{O}]→\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z} by a+b\omega \mapsto (a,b). This is well defined by unique a,b form of the argument, clearly surjective and injective, andφ((a+b\omega)+(c+d\omega))=φ((a+c)+(b+d)\omega)=(a+c,b+d)=(a,b)+(c,d)=φ(a+b\omega)+φ(c+d\omega)so that φ is homomorphic and now an isomorphism. So [\mathcal{O}]≅\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z} and by definition we can tell [\mathcal{O}_f] ≅ φ([\mathcal{O}_f])=\mathbb{Z} \times f\mathbb{Z}. By 5.1.14, we have (\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z})/(\mathbb{Z} \times f\mathbb{Z})≅(\mathbb{Z}/\mathbb{Z})\times(\mathbb{Z}/f\mathbb{Z})≅\mathbb{Z}/f\mathbb{Z} is a group of order f, so that f=|\mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z} : \mathbb{Z} \times f\mathbb{Z}|=|φ([\mathcal{O}]):φ([\mathcal{O}_f])|=|[\mathcal{O}]:[\mathcal{O}_f]|.
Lemma 2: Any nontrivial subgroup of \mathbb{Z} is of the form n\mathbb{Z} for some n∈\mathbb{Z}^+. Proof: Let distinct a,b be chosen with n=|a-b| minimal; we thus have n\mathbb{Z} is contained within the subgroup. Assume there is an element x not within n\mathbb{Z}: We have x=qn+r with 0 < r < n, and since qn∈n\mathbb{Z}, we have x-qn < n=|a-b|, a contradiction. So n\mathbb{Z} is precisely the subgroup in question.~\square
(\Leftarrow) R's identity must be 1, as n(a+bf\omega)≠a+bf\omega for any n≠1 and a≠0≠b. Therefore, we have 1\mathbb{Z} \times 0=\mathbb{Z} \times 0≤φ([R]). For any (a,b)∈φ([R]), we also have (a,0)∈φ([R]), so that (0,b)∈φ([R]), implying the second factor of φ([R]) is a subgroup of \mathbb{Z} and therefore of the form n\mathbb{Z}. Since | \mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{Z}:\mathbb{Z} \times n\mathbb{Z}|=n, we have n=f and now φ([R])=\mathbb{Z} \times f\mathbb{Z}=φ([\mathcal{O}_f]) and now [R]=[\mathcal{O}_f]. Since the specifications of multiplication are predefined in \mathbb{C}, we have R=\mathcal{O}_f.~\square
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Commutativity of Boolean Rings (7.1.15-16)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 7.1, exercises 15-16:
MathJax TeX Test Page
15. A ring R is a Boolean ring if a^2=a for all a∈R. Prove that every Boolean ring is commutative.
16. Prove that the only Boolean integral domain is \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}.
Proof: (15) Take any a,b∈R. Note that we necessarily have (-x)^2=-x for any x∈R as well as (-x)^2=(-x)(-x)=x^2=x, so that -x=x. Now, notice that (a+b)^2=a+b by the Boolean property. By distributing, we have (a+b)^2=a^2+ab+ba+b^2=a+ab+ba+b. Comparing the two, we have ab+ba=0, so that ab=-ba=ba.~\square
(16) For any a in a Boolean integral domain, we have a(a-1)=a^2-a=a-a=0, so that either a=0 or a-1=0 implying a=1.~\square
16. Prove that the only Boolean integral domain is \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}.
Proof: (15) Take any a,b∈R. Note that we necessarily have (-x)^2=-x for any x∈R as well as (-x)^2=(-x)(-x)=x^2=x, so that -x=x. Now, notice that (a+b)^2=a+b by the Boolean property. By distributing, we have (a+b)^2=a^2+ab+ba+b^2=a+ab+ba+b. Comparing the two, we have ab+ba=0, so that ab=-ba=ba.~\square
(16) For any a in a Boolean integral domain, we have a(a-1)=a^2-a=a-a=0, so that either a=0 or a-1=0 implying a=1.~\square
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Free Groups and Nilpotency/Solvability (6.3.12)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 6.3, exercise 12:
MathJax TeX Test Page
Let S be a set and let c be a positive integer. Formulate the notion of a free nilpotent group on S of nilpotence class c and prove it has the appropriate universal property with respect to nilpotent groups of class ≤c.
Proof: Let N be any group of nilpotence class ≤c and let ψ: S → N be a set map with G = \langle~\text{img}~ψ~\rangle. We have a unique homomorphism φ : F(S) → N (fixing S) so that F(S)/\text{ker}~φ ≅ G. We prove that there is a unique homomorphism \Phi : F(S)/F(S)^c → N such that \Phi\mid_{\pi(S)} = ψ (where \pi is the natural homomorphism from F(S) to F(S)/F(S)^c). Assume F(S)^c \not ≤ \text{ker}~φ; we then have a contradiction: G^c≅(F(S)/\text{ker}~φ)^c=F(S)^c/\text{ker}~φ≠1Therefore there is the desired homomorphism afforded by:(F(S)/F(S)^c)/(\text{ker}~φ/F(S)^c)≅F(S)/\text{ker}~φ≅GAssume \Phi_1 ≠ \Phi_2 are two homomorphisms from F(S)/F(S)^c to N fixing \pi(S); then \Phi_1 \circ \pi ≠ \Phi_2 \circ \pi are two homomorphisms from F(S) to G fixing S, a contradiction. We thus have \text{ker}~φ factors through F(S)^c, and the following diagram commutes:
\square
Note that this theorem can be paralleled to produce a similar result regarding a free solvable group on a set S.
Proof: Let N be any group of nilpotence class ≤c and let ψ: S → N be a set map with G = \langle~\text{img}~ψ~\rangle. We have a unique homomorphism φ : F(S) → N (fixing S) so that F(S)/\text{ker}~φ ≅ G. We prove that there is a unique homomorphism \Phi : F(S)/F(S)^c → N such that \Phi\mid_{\pi(S)} = ψ (where \pi is the natural homomorphism from F(S) to F(S)/F(S)^c). Assume F(S)^c \not ≤ \text{ker}~φ; we then have a contradiction: G^c≅(F(S)/\text{ker}~φ)^c=F(S)^c/\text{ker}~φ≠1Therefore there is the desired homomorphism afforded by:(F(S)/F(S)^c)/(\text{ker}~φ/F(S)^c)≅F(S)/\text{ker}~φ≅GAssume \Phi_1 ≠ \Phi_2 are two homomorphisms from F(S)/F(S)^c to N fixing \pi(S); then \Phi_1 \circ \pi ≠ \Phi_2 \circ \pi are two homomorphisms from F(S) to G fixing S, a contradiction. We thus have \text{ker}~φ factors through F(S)^c, and the following diagram commutes:

Note that this theorem can be paralleled to produce a similar result regarding a free solvable group on a set S.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Presentation of the Quaternion Group (6.3.7)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 6.3, exercise 7:
MathJax TeX Test Page
Prove the following is a valid presentation:Q_8 = \langle~a,b~\mid~a^2=b^2,~a^{-1}ba=b^{-1}~\rangleProof: By the first, we have a^2b^{-2}=1. However, by the second, we also have a^2b^{-2}=a^2(a^{-1}ba)(a^{-1}ba)=ab^2a, so that ab^2a=1, then a^{-2}=b^2=a^2 so a^4=1. Now, a^2=b^2⇒a^4=1=b^4.
Prove by induction that b^ka=ab^{-k}. The case holds for k=1 by the presentation, and b^{k+1}a=bb^ka=bab^{-k}=ab^{-1}b^{-k}=ab^{-(k+1)}. By extension, ab^k=b^{-k}a. We can see by repeated multiplication the left by a, that generally a^ib^k=b^{\pm k}a^i.
Attempt to observe any element with a reduced width n greater than 2, necessarily in either the form ...a^{e_{n-2}}b^{e_{n-1}}a^{e_n}=...a^{e_{n-2}+e_n}b^{\pm e_{n-1}} or ...b^{e_{n-2}}a^{e_{n-1}}b^{e_n}=...b^{e_{n-2} \pm e_n}a^{e_{n-1}}, a contradiction in any case. So every element can be reduced to the form a^xb^y or b^xa^y (with 0 ≤ x,y ≤ 3), the latter of which can be ignored as b^xa^y=a^yb^{\pm x}. Using the relations we have been given and have established, we can easily establish equivalency classes among these sixteen candidates to provide a maximum of eight distinct elements (e.g. ab^3=aa^2b=a^3b). Since i,j∈Q_8 fulfill the relations presented above for a,b and \langle~i,j~\rangle = Q_8, we have the presentation validated.~\square
Prove by induction that b^ka=ab^{-k}. The case holds for k=1 by the presentation, and b^{k+1}a=bb^ka=bab^{-k}=ab^{-1}b^{-k}=ab^{-(k+1)}. By extension, ab^k=b^{-k}a. We can see by repeated multiplication the left by a, that generally a^ib^k=b^{\pm k}a^i.
Attempt to observe any element with a reduced width n greater than 2, necessarily in either the form ...a^{e_{n-2}}b^{e_{n-1}}a^{e_n}=...a^{e_{n-2}+e_n}b^{\pm e_{n-1}} or ...b^{e_{n-2}}a^{e_{n-1}}b^{e_n}=...b^{e_{n-2} \pm e_n}a^{e_{n-1}}, a contradiction in any case. So every element can be reduced to the form a^xb^y or b^xa^y (with 0 ≤ x,y ≤ 3), the latter of which can be ignored as b^xa^y=a^yb^{\pm x}. Using the relations we have been given and have established, we can easily establish equivalency classes among these sixteen candidates to provide a maximum of eight distinct elements (e.g. ab^3=aa^2b=a^3b). Since i,j∈Q_8 fulfill the relations presented above for a,b and \langle~i,j~\rangle = Q_8, we have the presentation validated.~\square
Saturday, April 20, 2013
Linear Systems of Two Variables and Equivalency (1.2.6)
Hoffman and Kunze Linear Algebra, section 1.2, exercise 6:
MathJax TeX Test Page
Let F_1 and F_2 be homogeneous systems of linear equations in two unknowns. Prove that if their solution sets are identical, then they are equivalent.
Proof: Lemma 1: Admit two linear systems with one equation each, A : ax_1+bx_2=0 and B : cx_1+dx_2=0. We have A equivalent to B if and only if A and B have the same solution set if and only if \dfrac{a}{c}=\dfrac{b}{d}. Proof: (1 ⇒ 2) Theorem 1 ensures this. (2 ⇒ 3) Any solution (n_1,m_1) of A must satisfy (n_1,-\dfrac{an_1}{b}), and this is seen to be a valid solution so these tuples form the solution set of A. Similarly, the solution set of B is of the form (n_2,-\dfrac{cn_2}{d}). Due to these solution sets' equivalence, we have (1,-\dfrac{c}{d}) is a solution of A, so that a(1)+b(-\dfrac{c}{d})=0, entailing (3). (3 ⇒ 1) Let c_1 = \dfrac{c}{a} = \dfrac{d}{b}. Evidently c_1(ax_1+bx_2)=cx_1+dx_2=c_1(0)=0.~\square
Lemma 2: Let ax_1+bx_2=0 and cx_1+dx_2=0 be two equations that aren't scalar products of each other. We have their shared solution set is (0,0). Proof: The solution sets of both are (n_1,-\dfrac{an_1}{b}) and (n_2,-\dfrac{cn_2}{d}) respectively. Assume they share a nontrivial solution. Then n_1=n_2≠0 and -\dfrac{an_1}{b}=-\dfrac{cn_2}{d}=-\dfrac{cn_1}{d}, entailing \dfrac{a}{c}=\dfrac{b}{d} and these two equations are scalar products by the first lemma, a contradiction.~\square
Let F_1 contain n equations and F_2 contain m equations. Assume \dfrac{A_{j_1 1}}{A_{k_1 1}}=\dfrac{A_{j_1 2}}{A_{k_1 2}} and \dfrac{B_{j_2 1}}{B_{k_2 1}}=\dfrac{B_{j_2 2}}{B_{k_2 2}} for all 1 ≤ j_1,k_1 ≤ n and 1 ≤ j_2,k_2 ≤ m, i.e. all the equations of F_1 are scalar products of each other, and the same pertaining to F_2, as by the first lemma. Now, (n,-\dfrac{nA_{1 1}}{A_{1 2}}) is the solution set of F_1. Let B_{v 1}x_1 + B_{v 2}x_2 = 0 be an arbitrary equation of F_2. We have (1,-\dfrac{A_{1 1}}{A_{1 2}}) is a solution of this equation, so that B_{v 1}+B_{v 2}(\dfrac{A_{1 1}}{A_{1 2}})=0 and now \dfrac{A_{1 1}}{B_{v 1}}=\dfrac{A_{1 2}}{B_{v 2}} so that by the first lemma this arbitrary equation of F_2 is a scalar product of the equation from F_1, and now F_2 is a linear combination of F_1. Reversing the argument, we obtain F_1 is a linear combination of F_2, and now F_1 and F_2 are equivalent.
So assume that there exist two equations in one of the systems that are not scalar products of each other, and designate their system F_1. These equations are ax_1+bx_2=0 and cx_1+dx_2=0, and evidently at least one of a or c must be nontrivial for their assumption to hold; let it be c. Let nx_1+mx_2=0 be an arbitrary equation of F_2. This equation is a linear combination of the two former by scalars c_1 and c_2 if (and only if) c_1a+c_2c=n and c_1b+c_2d=m; solving these two nonhomogenous equations, we obtainc_1=\dfrac{m-\dfrac{dn}{c}}{b-\dfrac{da}{c}}~\text{and}~c_2=\dfrac{n-c_1a}{c}are such solution scalars. These avoid division by zero as c≠0 and b-\dfrac{da}{c}=0 ⇒ \dfrac{a}{c}=\dfrac{b}{d}, a contradiction by the first lemma and this paragraph's assumption. Thus F_2 is a linear combination of F_1.
F_1 having two mutually non-scalar-product equations implies the same for F_2, since by the second lemma the solution set of F_1 is (0,0), the same applies for F_2, yet the first lemma would entail a nontrivial solution set for F_2 if its equations were all scalar products of each other in two unknowns. Thus the argument above can be reversed to obtain F_1 is a linear combination of F_2 and now F_1 is equivalent to F_2.~\square
Proof: Lemma 1: Admit two linear systems with one equation each, A : ax_1+bx_2=0 and B : cx_1+dx_2=0. We have A equivalent to B if and only if A and B have the same solution set if and only if \dfrac{a}{c}=\dfrac{b}{d}. Proof: (1 ⇒ 2) Theorem 1 ensures this. (2 ⇒ 3) Any solution (n_1,m_1) of A must satisfy (n_1,-\dfrac{an_1}{b}), and this is seen to be a valid solution so these tuples form the solution set of A. Similarly, the solution set of B is of the form (n_2,-\dfrac{cn_2}{d}). Due to these solution sets' equivalence, we have (1,-\dfrac{c}{d}) is a solution of A, so that a(1)+b(-\dfrac{c}{d})=0, entailing (3). (3 ⇒ 1) Let c_1 = \dfrac{c}{a} = \dfrac{d}{b}. Evidently c_1(ax_1+bx_2)=cx_1+dx_2=c_1(0)=0.~\square
Lemma 2: Let ax_1+bx_2=0 and cx_1+dx_2=0 be two equations that aren't scalar products of each other. We have their shared solution set is (0,0). Proof: The solution sets of both are (n_1,-\dfrac{an_1}{b}) and (n_2,-\dfrac{cn_2}{d}) respectively. Assume they share a nontrivial solution. Then n_1=n_2≠0 and -\dfrac{an_1}{b}=-\dfrac{cn_2}{d}=-\dfrac{cn_1}{d}, entailing \dfrac{a}{c}=\dfrac{b}{d} and these two equations are scalar products by the first lemma, a contradiction.~\square
Let F_1 contain n equations and F_2 contain m equations. Assume \dfrac{A_{j_1 1}}{A_{k_1 1}}=\dfrac{A_{j_1 2}}{A_{k_1 2}} and \dfrac{B_{j_2 1}}{B_{k_2 1}}=\dfrac{B_{j_2 2}}{B_{k_2 2}} for all 1 ≤ j_1,k_1 ≤ n and 1 ≤ j_2,k_2 ≤ m, i.e. all the equations of F_1 are scalar products of each other, and the same pertaining to F_2, as by the first lemma. Now, (n,-\dfrac{nA_{1 1}}{A_{1 2}}) is the solution set of F_1. Let B_{v 1}x_1 + B_{v 2}x_2 = 0 be an arbitrary equation of F_2. We have (1,-\dfrac{A_{1 1}}{A_{1 2}}) is a solution of this equation, so that B_{v 1}+B_{v 2}(\dfrac{A_{1 1}}{A_{1 2}})=0 and now \dfrac{A_{1 1}}{B_{v 1}}=\dfrac{A_{1 2}}{B_{v 2}} so that by the first lemma this arbitrary equation of F_2 is a scalar product of the equation from F_1, and now F_2 is a linear combination of F_1. Reversing the argument, we obtain F_1 is a linear combination of F_2, and now F_1 and F_2 are equivalent.
So assume that there exist two equations in one of the systems that are not scalar products of each other, and designate their system F_1. These equations are ax_1+bx_2=0 and cx_1+dx_2=0, and evidently at least one of a or c must be nontrivial for their assumption to hold; let it be c. Let nx_1+mx_2=0 be an arbitrary equation of F_2. This equation is a linear combination of the two former by scalars c_1 and c_2 if (and only if) c_1a+c_2c=n and c_1b+c_2d=m; solving these two nonhomogenous equations, we obtainc_1=\dfrac{m-\dfrac{dn}{c}}{b-\dfrac{da}{c}}~\text{and}~c_2=\dfrac{n-c_1a}{c}are such solution scalars. These avoid division by zero as c≠0 and b-\dfrac{da}{c}=0 ⇒ \dfrac{a}{c}=\dfrac{b}{d}, a contradiction by the first lemma and this paragraph's assumption. Thus F_2 is a linear combination of F_1.
F_1 having two mutually non-scalar-product equations implies the same for F_2, since by the second lemma the solution set of F_1 is (0,0), the same applies for F_2, yet the first lemma would entail a nontrivial solution set for F_2 if its equations were all scalar products of each other in two unknowns. Thus the argument above can be reversed to obtain F_1 is a linear combination of F_2 and now F_1 is equivalent to F_2.~\square
Friday, April 19, 2013
Free Groups and Rank (6.3.1)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 6.3, exercise 1:
MathJax TeX Test Page
Let \langle~a_1,...,a_n~\rangle=F_1 and \langle~b_1,...,b_m~\rangle=F_2 be free groups. Prove that F_1≅F_2 if and only if n=m. Consider the case when the two's ranks are infinite, as well.
Proof: (⇒) Assume n≠m, and generally n is of smaller cardinality than m. Let φ be the isomorphism from F_1 to F_2. For an arbitrary element x∈F_2, we have x=φ(a_1^{k_1}...a_n^{k_r})=φ(a_1)^{k_1}...φ(a_r)^{k_r}, so that F_2 is generated by a number of elements of smaller than or equal cardinality to those of F_1, a contradiction. (\Leftarrow) Let there be a bijection between the generators of F_1 and the generators of F_2, operating on the index by \pi. Define a mapping φ : F_1 → F_2 by φ(a_i)=b_{\pi(i)} and homomorphically extend it. For any two generators in F_1, we have:φ(a_i)^x=φ(a_j)^y⇒b_{\pi(i)}^x=b_{\pi(j)}^y⇒\pi(i)=\pi(j)⇒i=j⇒a_i=a_jNow observe: φ(a_1^{k_1}...a_r^{k_r})=φ(a_1^{j_1}...a_s^{j_s})⇒b_{\pi(1)}^{k_1}...b_{\pi(r)}^{k_r}=b_{\pi(1)}^{j_1}...b_{\pi(s)}^{j_r}⇒∀i[b_{\pi(i)}^{k_i}=b_{\pi(i)}^{j_i}]⇒∀i[φ(a_i)^{k_i}=φ(a_i)^{j_i}]⇒∀i[a_i^{k_i}=a_i^{j_i}]⇒a{\pi(1)}^{k_1}...a_{\pi(r)}^{k_r}=a_1^{j_1}...a_s^{j_s}So that φ is an injective homomorphism. Similarly, we can construct an injective homomorphism from F_2 into F_1, therefore providing an isomorphism. This argument did not assume the finiteness of rank, merely the equivalency of cardinality, so is therefore applicable to infinite groups as well.~\square
Warning: Invalid proof and erroneous extension of the Bernstein-Schroeder theorem.
Proof: (⇒) Assume n≠m, and generally n is of smaller cardinality than m. Let φ be the isomorphism from F_1 to F_2. For an arbitrary element x∈F_2, we have x=φ(a_1^{k_1}...a_n^{k_r})=φ(a_1)^{k_1}...φ(a_r)^{k_r}, so that F_2 is generated by a number of elements of smaller than or equal cardinality to those of F_1, a contradiction. (\Leftarrow) Let there be a bijection between the generators of F_1 and the generators of F_2, operating on the index by \pi. Define a mapping φ : F_1 → F_2 by φ(a_i)=b_{\pi(i)} and homomorphically extend it. For any two generators in F_1, we have:φ(a_i)^x=φ(a_j)^y⇒b_{\pi(i)}^x=b_{\pi(j)}^y⇒\pi(i)=\pi(j)⇒i=j⇒a_i=a_jNow observe: φ(a_1^{k_1}...a_r^{k_r})=φ(a_1^{j_1}...a_s^{j_s})⇒b_{\pi(1)}^{k_1}...b_{\pi(r)}^{k_r}=b_{\pi(1)}^{j_1}...b_{\pi(s)}^{j_r}⇒∀i[b_{\pi(i)}^{k_i}=b_{\pi(i)}^{j_i}]⇒∀i[φ(a_i)^{k_i}=φ(a_i)^{j_i}]⇒∀i[a_i^{k_i}=a_i^{j_i}]⇒a{\pi(1)}^{k_1}...a_{\pi(r)}^{k_r}=a_1^{j_1}...a_s^{j_s}So that φ is an injective homomorphism. Similarly, we can construct an injective homomorphism from F_2 into F_1, therefore providing an isomorphism. This argument did not assume the finiteness of rank, merely the equivalency of cardinality, so is therefore applicable to infinite groups as well.~\square
Warning: Invalid proof and erroneous extension of the Bernstein-Schroeder theorem.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
The Millionaire (6.2.28)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 6.2, exercises 28:
MathJax TeX Test Page
Let G be simple and of order 3^3*7*13*409=1,004,913. Calculate the number of Sylow p-subgroups for each prime dividing |G|.
Proof: Preliminary Sylow analysis shows:n_3∈\{7,13,91,409,2863,5317,37219\}~~~~~n_7∈\{351,47853\}~~~~~n_{13}∈\{27,25767\}~~~~~n_{409}∈\{819\}Removing the numbers that violate the index restrictions, we have all of them solved except for n_3. Assume n_3=409, and we have |N_G(P_3)|=3^3*7*13, so for some P_7 we have P_3P_7 is a subgroup of N_G(P_3), so that naturally P_7 \trianglelefteq P_3P_7, meaning |P_3P_7|=189 \mid |N_G(P_7)|=21, a contradiction. Assuming n_3=5317, we end up with the same contradiction as then |N_G(P_3)|=3^3*7.
A brief digression: By counting the elements of order 7, 13, and 409, we obtain 930,474 elements. If there is an element x of order 21, then P_7 \trianglelefteq \langle~x~\rangle so that \langle~x~\rangle = N_G(P_7) by order, so that by 6.2.16's first lemma there are 12*47853=574,236 elements of order 21, overloading G.
Now assume n_3=37219, and since 37129 \not ≡ 1 \mod{3^2}, we have an order-3^2 intersection of two Sylow 3-subgroups P_3∩Q_3, whose normalizer is of order 3^3*7,3^3*13, or 3^3*7*13. If 3^3*7, then by the above the only order the elements in this normalizer can take are 1, 7, and powers of 3. Sylow shows n_3=7 (by 6.2.13) and n_7=1, so that there are 3^3*7-6=183 elements in the Sylow 3-subgroups. Without taking intersections into account, there is a maximum of 7*26+1=183 elements possible, so that there is no intersection between Sylow 3-subgroups taking place, despite P_3,Q_3 ≤ N_G(P_3∩Q_3) and P_3∩Q_3 ≠ 1, or 6.2.13 in general. If 3^3*13 or 3^3*7*13, the order of the normalizer forces only one Sylow 3-subgroup, despite once again P_3,Q_3 ≤ N_G(P_3∩Q_3) being distinct Sylow 3-subgroups. Therefore, n_3=2863 by default.~\square
Proof: Preliminary Sylow analysis shows:n_3∈\{7,13,91,409,2863,5317,37219\}~~~~~n_7∈\{351,47853\}~~~~~n_{13}∈\{27,25767\}~~~~~n_{409}∈\{819\}Removing the numbers that violate the index restrictions, we have all of them solved except for n_3. Assume n_3=409, and we have |N_G(P_3)|=3^3*7*13, so for some P_7 we have P_3P_7 is a subgroup of N_G(P_3), so that naturally P_7 \trianglelefteq P_3P_7, meaning |P_3P_7|=189 \mid |N_G(P_7)|=21, a contradiction. Assuming n_3=5317, we end up with the same contradiction as then |N_G(P_3)|=3^3*7.
A brief digression: By counting the elements of order 7, 13, and 409, we obtain 930,474 elements. If there is an element x of order 21, then P_7 \trianglelefteq \langle~x~\rangle so that \langle~x~\rangle = N_G(P_7) by order, so that by 6.2.16's first lemma there are 12*47853=574,236 elements of order 21, overloading G.
Now assume n_3=37219, and since 37129 \not ≡ 1 \mod{3^2}, we have an order-3^2 intersection of two Sylow 3-subgroups P_3∩Q_3, whose normalizer is of order 3^3*7,3^3*13, or 3^3*7*13. If 3^3*7, then by the above the only order the elements in this normalizer can take are 1, 7, and powers of 3. Sylow shows n_3=7 (by 6.2.13) and n_7=1, so that there are 3^3*7-6=183 elements in the Sylow 3-subgroups. Without taking intersections into account, there is a maximum of 7*26+1=183 elements possible, so that there is no intersection between Sylow 3-subgroups taking place, despite P_3,Q_3 ≤ N_G(P_3∩Q_3) and P_3∩Q_3 ≠ 1, or 6.2.13 in general. If 3^3*13 or 3^3*7*13, the order of the normalizer forces only one Sylow 3-subgroup, despite once again P_3,Q_3 ≤ N_G(P_3∩Q_3) being distinct Sylow 3-subgroups. Therefore, n_3=2863 by default.~\square
Groups of Order 168 (6.2.26)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 6.2, exercise 26:
MathJax TeX Test Page
Evaluate the validity of the following statement: |G|=168 \land~n_7(G)>1 ⇒ G~\text{is simple}
Proof: The statement is false. Let Z_2^3 \rtimes Z_7 denote the semidirect product afforded by a homomorphism of the generator of Z_7 into a generator of a cyclic Sylow 7-subgroup of Aut(Z_2^3)≅GL_3(Z_2) of order 168=2^3*3*7. This implies Z_7 \not \trianglelefteq Z_2^3 \rtimes Z_7, so that n_7(Z_7 \rtimes Z_2^3)>1. Now, observe the group G=(Z_2^3 \rtimes Z_7) \times Z_3 of order 168. We have the former group as a subgroup of this one, so that n_7(G)>1. Furthermore, if ((a,b),c)∈P_3∈Syl_3(G), then ((a,b),c)^3=((a,b)^3,c^3)=((1,1),1), and since (a,b) is an element of the subgroup of order 56, we must have (a,b)=(1,1) so that there are only |Z_3|=3 distinct elements of G satisfying x^3=1, therefore n_3(G)=1, P_3 \trianglelefteq G and G is not simple.~\square
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Restrictions of Groups of Small Order (6.2.18-20)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 6.2, exercises 18-20:
MathJax TeX Test Page
18. Prove |G|=36⇒n_2 = 1 \lor n_3 = 1.
19. Prove |G|=12~\land \nexists H(H ≤ G \land |H| = 6)⇒G≅A_4.
20. Prove |G|=24~\land \nexists g(g∈G \land |g| = 6)⇒G≅S_4.
Proof: (18) Sylow analysis reveals:n_2∈\{3,9\}~~~~~n_3=4Let G act by left multiplication on the four cosets of N_G(P_3)=P_3; the kernel N of this action is the largest normal subgroup of G contained in P_3. Since P_3 \not \trianglelefteq G and N=1 allows G isomorphic passage into S_4 of order 24, we must have |N|=3. We have |G/N|=12, so there is either a normal Sylow 2-subgroup or a normal Sylow 3-subgroup of G/N. Assuming the latter, we have K/N \trianglelefteq G/N is of order 3, so that its preimage K is of order 9 and normal in G, a contradiction. Therefore let K/N \trianglelefteq G/N be of order 4 so that K \trianglelefteq G is of order 12. It contains some Sylow 2-subgroup of G, and by its normality it contains all of them, so n_2=3. Let K act by left multiplication on the three cosets of P_3 it contains; once again, we must have a normal subgroup T of order 2 in K. This can only be the 2-core of K, which is characteristic in K, and now normal in G. We have TN is a normal subgroup of order 6, so that P_3(TN) is a subgroup; since P_3 \not ≤ TN and P_3∩TN=1 implies P_3(TN) is a subgroup of order 54, we must have |P_3∩TN|=3 and P_3(TN) is a subgroup of order 18. This subgroup is normal by its index, contains a Sylow 3-subgroup and thus contains all of them, and yet Sylow purports n_3=1.~\square
(19) Since G \not ≅ A_4 by assumption, we have n_3=1. Take x of order 2 and we have \langle~x~\rangle P_3 is a subgroup of order 6.~\square
(20) We have:n_2∈\{1,3\}~~~~~n_3∈\{1,4\}If n_3=4, then letting G act on the cosets of P_3 allows isomorphic passage into S_4 so that by order G≅S_4. In addition, assume n_2=1; then G=P_2P_3 ≅ P_2 \times P_3. If Z(P_2)=P_2, then Z(G) ≅ Z(P_2) \times Z(P_3) = P_2 \times P_3, so that G is abelian and the elements x and y of orders 2 and 3 respectively combine for a product xy of order 6. If |Z(P_2)|=2 (the only other option for Z(P_2)), then Z(P_2)~\text{char}~P_2 \trianglelefteq G so that Z(P_2) \trianglelefteq G and now Z(P_2)P_3 ≅ Z_6. Ultimately, n_2=3. Since 3 \not ≡ 1 \mod{2^2} we have P_2∩Q_2 of order 4; by exercise 13, we must have N_G(P_2∩Q_2)=G so that P_2∩Q_2 \trianglelefteq G, and by 4.5.37 P_2∩Q_2 is contained in every Sylow 2-subgroup, so that the sum of the distinct elements of order 2, 4, and 8 can be explicitly calculated; there is the intersection point of order 4 minus the identity, and the three Sylow 3-subgroups that each provide 4 unique elements (lest the intersection between two distinct Sylow 2-subgroups be greater than 4, an impossibility), yielding 15 such elements. Comparing this with the following chart of possible orders of elements that can be determined thus far:
we invariably end up with only 18 elements of G, a contradiction.~\square
19. Prove |G|=12~\land \nexists H(H ≤ G \land |H| = 6)⇒G≅A_4.
20. Prove |G|=24~\land \nexists g(g∈G \land |g| = 6)⇒G≅S_4.
Proof: (18) Sylow analysis reveals:n_2∈\{3,9\}~~~~~n_3=4Let G act by left multiplication on the four cosets of N_G(P_3)=P_3; the kernel N of this action is the largest normal subgroup of G contained in P_3. Since P_3 \not \trianglelefteq G and N=1 allows G isomorphic passage into S_4 of order 24, we must have |N|=3. We have |G/N|=12, so there is either a normal Sylow 2-subgroup or a normal Sylow 3-subgroup of G/N. Assuming the latter, we have K/N \trianglelefteq G/N is of order 3, so that its preimage K is of order 9 and normal in G, a contradiction. Therefore let K/N \trianglelefteq G/N be of order 4 so that K \trianglelefteq G is of order 12. It contains some Sylow 2-subgroup of G, and by its normality it contains all of them, so n_2=3. Let K act by left multiplication on the three cosets of P_3 it contains; once again, we must have a normal subgroup T of order 2 in K. This can only be the 2-core of K, which is characteristic in K, and now normal in G. We have TN is a normal subgroup of order 6, so that P_3(TN) is a subgroup; since P_3 \not ≤ TN and P_3∩TN=1 implies P_3(TN) is a subgroup of order 54, we must have |P_3∩TN|=3 and P_3(TN) is a subgroup of order 18. This subgroup is normal by its index, contains a Sylow 3-subgroup and thus contains all of them, and yet Sylow purports n_3=1.~\square
(19) Since G \not ≅ A_4 by assumption, we have n_3=1. Take x of order 2 and we have \langle~x~\rangle P_3 is a subgroup of order 6.~\square
(20) We have:n_2∈\{1,3\}~~~~~n_3∈\{1,4\}If n_3=4, then letting G act on the cosets of P_3 allows isomorphic passage into S_4 so that by order G≅S_4. In addition, assume n_2=1; then G=P_2P_3 ≅ P_2 \times P_3. If Z(P_2)=P_2, then Z(G) ≅ Z(P_2) \times Z(P_3) = P_2 \times P_3, so that G is abelian and the elements x and y of orders 2 and 3 respectively combine for a product xy of order 6. If |Z(P_2)|=2 (the only other option for Z(P_2)), then Z(P_2)~\text{char}~P_2 \trianglelefteq G so that Z(P_2) \trianglelefteq G and now Z(P_2)P_3 ≅ Z_6. Ultimately, n_2=3. Since 3 \not ≡ 1 \mod{2^2} we have P_2∩Q_2 of order 4; by exercise 13, we must have N_G(P_2∩Q_2)=G so that P_2∩Q_2 \trianglelefteq G, and by 4.5.37 P_2∩Q_2 is contained in every Sylow 2-subgroup, so that the sum of the distinct elements of order 2, 4, and 8 can be explicitly calculated; there is the intersection point of order 4 minus the identity, and the three Sylow 3-subgroups that each provide 4 unique elements (lest the intersection between two distinct Sylow 2-subgroups be greater than 4, an impossibility), yielding 15 such elements. Comparing this with the following chart of possible orders of elements that can be determined thus far:
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Search for Simplicity (6.2.16)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 6.2, exercise 16:
MathJax TeX Test Page
Prove there are no simple groups of odd composite order < 10,000.
Proof: I will record some difficult cases:
1575: Sylow analysis gives us n_5=21. Since 21≠1 \mod{5^2}, we have P_5∩Q_5 of order 5 and due to index crunching we obtain |N_G(P_5∩Q_5)|=3*5^2. But now n_5(N_G(P_5∩Q_5))=1, even though P_5≠Q_5 and P_5,Q_5∈Syl_5(N_G(P_5∩Q_5)).
3465: Lemma 1: Let G be a group, let P∈Syl_p(G) and assume N_G(P) is cyclic. Then there are precisely n_p \cdot φ(|N_G(P)|) elements of order |N_G(P)| in G. Proof: Since P \trianglelefteq N_G(P), we have distinct normalizers of Sylow p-subgroups for distinct Sylow p-subgroups, so that there are n_p distinct normalizers. As well, if |x| = |N_G(P)|, then for some Q∈Syl_p(G) we have Q \trianglelefteq \langle~x~\rangle so that \langle~x~\rangle=N_G(Q), and now every element of such an order is contained in a normalizer. Since these normalizers are conjugate to one another and are thus cyclic as well, we have each normalizer contains φ(|N_G(P)|) elements of the specified order, and since no two distinct normalizers share elements of this order, we have the lemma proven.~\square
Lemma 2: A group G of order 231=3*7*11 has an element of order 33. Proof: We have P_{11} \trianglelefteq G, so that P_3P_{11} ≅ Z_{33} is a subgroup of G.~\square
By Sylow analysis on 3465, we obtain:n_3∈\{7,55,385\}~~~~~n_5∈\{11,21,231\}~~~~~n_7∈\{15,99\}~~~~~n_{11}=45This reveals that N_G(P_{11}) ≅ Z_{77} (in particular, this implies G has no elements of order 33). By the first lemma, there are 45*60=2700 elements of order 77 in G. By n_{11}=45, we obtain 450 elements of order 11. Now, if n_7=99, this would produce 594 elements of order 7, which overloads the order of G. Therefore n_7=15, and now |N_G(P_7)|=231 and contains an element of order 33 by the second lemma, a terminating contradiction.
9765: By Sylow analysis and index crunching, we obtain:n_3∈\{31,217\}~~~~~n_5∈\{31,651\}~~~~~n_7=155~~~~~n_{31}=63We have |N_G(P_7)|=3^2*7. Now, if n_5=31, we have |N_G(P_5)|=3^2*5*7, so that P_7 \trianglelefteq P_5P_7 and then 35 \mid |N_G(P_7)|=63, a contradiction. So n_5=651 and N_G(P_5)≅Z_{15}, so that by lemma 1 we have 5208 elements of order 15. With Sylow, we obtain at least 5208+651*4+155*6+63*30=10,632 elements in G, an impossibility.~\square
Proof: I will record some difficult cases:
1575: Sylow analysis gives us n_5=21. Since 21≠1 \mod{5^2}, we have P_5∩Q_5 of order 5 and due to index crunching we obtain |N_G(P_5∩Q_5)|=3*5^2. But now n_5(N_G(P_5∩Q_5))=1, even though P_5≠Q_5 and P_5,Q_5∈Syl_5(N_G(P_5∩Q_5)).
3465: Lemma 1: Let G be a group, let P∈Syl_p(G) and assume N_G(P) is cyclic. Then there are precisely n_p \cdot φ(|N_G(P)|) elements of order |N_G(P)| in G. Proof: Since P \trianglelefteq N_G(P), we have distinct normalizers of Sylow p-subgroups for distinct Sylow p-subgroups, so that there are n_p distinct normalizers. As well, if |x| = |N_G(P)|, then for some Q∈Syl_p(G) we have Q \trianglelefteq \langle~x~\rangle so that \langle~x~\rangle=N_G(Q), and now every element of such an order is contained in a normalizer. Since these normalizers are conjugate to one another and are thus cyclic as well, we have each normalizer contains φ(|N_G(P)|) elements of the specified order, and since no two distinct normalizers share elements of this order, we have the lemma proven.~\square
Lemma 2: A group G of order 231=3*7*11 has an element of order 33. Proof: We have P_{11} \trianglelefteq G, so that P_3P_{11} ≅ Z_{33} is a subgroup of G.~\square
By Sylow analysis on 3465, we obtain:n_3∈\{7,55,385\}~~~~~n_5∈\{11,21,231\}~~~~~n_7∈\{15,99\}~~~~~n_{11}=45This reveals that N_G(P_{11}) ≅ Z_{77} (in particular, this implies G has no elements of order 33). By the first lemma, there are 45*60=2700 elements of order 77 in G. By n_{11}=45, we obtain 450 elements of order 11. Now, if n_7=99, this would produce 594 elements of order 7, which overloads the order of G. Therefore n_7=15, and now |N_G(P_7)|=231 and contains an element of order 33 by the second lemma, a terminating contradiction.
9765: By Sylow analysis and index crunching, we obtain:n_3∈\{31,217\}~~~~~n_5∈\{31,651\}~~~~~n_7=155~~~~~n_{31}=63We have |N_G(P_7)|=3^2*7. Now, if n_5=31, we have |N_G(P_5)|=3^2*5*7, so that P_7 \trianglelefteq P_5P_7 and then 35 \mid |N_G(P_7)|=63, a contradiction. So n_5=651 and N_G(P_5)≅Z_{15}, so that by lemma 1 we have 5208 elements of order 15. With Sylow, we obtain at least 5208+651*4+155*6+63*30=10,632 elements in G, an impossibility.~\square
Friday, April 12, 2013
Normalizers of Sylow Intersections (6.2.13)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 6.2, exercise 13:
MathJax TeX Test Page
Let G be a group with more than one Sylow p-subgroup. Choose P,Q∈Syl_p(G) such that |P \cap Q| is maximal. Prove that N_G(P∩Q) has more than one Sylow p-subgroup, any two distinct Sylow p-subgroups intersect in P∩Q, and p \cdot q \cdot |P∩Q| divides |N_G(P∩Q)| for some prime q other than p.
Proof: Note that since p-groups are nilpotent, P∩Q < N_P(P∩Q) and P∩Q < N_Q(P∩Q), so that p \cdot |P∩Q| divides |N_G(P∩Q)|. Prove that N_P(P∩Q) and N_Q(P∩Q) are distinct Sylow p-subgroups of N_G(P∩Q). If N_P(P∩Q) is not a Sylow subgroup, then place it in one, and call this group P^*. This is a p-group in G, so place P^* in a Sylow p-subgroup P^{**}. Note that if P^{**}=P, then since P^* ≤ N_G(P∩Q) we have P^*∩P = P^* ≤ N_P(P∩Q), a contradiction. Therefore P and P^{**} are distinct Sylow p-subgroups of G and P∩Q < N_P(P∩Q) ≤ P∩P^{**}, a contradiction by the maximality of P∩Q. The case for N_Q(P∩Q)∈Syl_p(N_G(P∩Q)) is similar. Now prove that N_P(P∩Q)≠N_Q(P∩Q): Assuming the contrary, we have P∩Q < N_P(P∩Q) ≤ P∩Q, a clear impossibility.
Assume N_G(P∩Q) is a p-group, and thus place it in a Sylow p-subgroup of G, calling it M. If M=P, then N_Q(P∩Q) ≤ P, so that N_Q(P∩Q) ≤ P∩Q, untenable. Therefore M≠P and P∩Q < N_P(P∩Q) ≤ M∩P, another contradiction. Therefore q divides |N_G(P∩Q)|.
Finally, let A,B∈Syl_p(N_G(P∩Q)) with A ≠ B, and prove A∩B = P∩Q. (\supseteq) Let P∩Q ≤ C for some Sylow p-subgroup of N_G(P∩Q) with gCg^{-1}=A for some g∈N_G(P∩Q). We have g(P∩Q)g^{-1}=P∩Q≤A. The case is parallel for P∩Q ≤ B. (\subseteq) A and B are p-subgroups of G, so let A≤D and B≤E for some D,E∈Syl_p(G). Assume D=E: Since A≠B and A,B≤D, we have \langle~A,~B~\rangle is a p-subgroup (because it is in D) properly containing A and B, a contradiction (since \langle~A,~B~\rangle ≤ N_G(P∩Q) and A and B are supposed to be Sylow in N_G(P∩Q)). So D≠E. We have A∩B≤D∩E so that |A∩B|≤|D∩E|≤|P∩Q| and now A∩B=P∩Q.~\square
Proof: Note that since p-groups are nilpotent, P∩Q < N_P(P∩Q) and P∩Q < N_Q(P∩Q), so that p \cdot |P∩Q| divides |N_G(P∩Q)|. Prove that N_P(P∩Q) and N_Q(P∩Q) are distinct Sylow p-subgroups of N_G(P∩Q). If N_P(P∩Q) is not a Sylow subgroup, then place it in one, and call this group P^*. This is a p-group in G, so place P^* in a Sylow p-subgroup P^{**}. Note that if P^{**}=P, then since P^* ≤ N_G(P∩Q) we have P^*∩P = P^* ≤ N_P(P∩Q), a contradiction. Therefore P and P^{**} are distinct Sylow p-subgroups of G and P∩Q < N_P(P∩Q) ≤ P∩P^{**}, a contradiction by the maximality of P∩Q. The case for N_Q(P∩Q)∈Syl_p(N_G(P∩Q)) is similar. Now prove that N_P(P∩Q)≠N_Q(P∩Q): Assuming the contrary, we have P∩Q < N_P(P∩Q) ≤ P∩Q, a clear impossibility.
Assume N_G(P∩Q) is a p-group, and thus place it in a Sylow p-subgroup of G, calling it M. If M=P, then N_Q(P∩Q) ≤ P, so that N_Q(P∩Q) ≤ P∩Q, untenable. Therefore M≠P and P∩Q < N_P(P∩Q) ≤ M∩P, another contradiction. Therefore q divides |N_G(P∩Q)|.
Finally, let A,B∈Syl_p(N_G(P∩Q)) with A ≠ B, and prove A∩B = P∩Q. (\supseteq) Let P∩Q ≤ C for some Sylow p-subgroup of N_G(P∩Q) with gCg^{-1}=A for some g∈N_G(P∩Q). We have g(P∩Q)g^{-1}=P∩Q≤A. The case is parallel for P∩Q ≤ B. (\subseteq) A and B are p-subgroups of G, so let A≤D and B≤E for some D,E∈Syl_p(G). Assume D=E: Since A≠B and A,B≤D, we have \langle~A,~B~\rangle is a p-subgroup (because it is in D) properly containing A and B, a contradiction (since \langle~A,~B~\rangle ≤ N_G(P∩Q) and A and B are supposed to be Sylow in N_G(P∩Q)). So D≠E. We have A∩B≤D∩E so that |A∩B|≤|D∩E|≤|P∩Q| and now A∩B=P∩Q.~\square
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Analysis of Groups of Order 2205 (6.2.6)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 6.2, exercise 6 (excerpt):
MathJax TeX Test Page
Prove there are no simple groups of order 2205=3^2 \cdot 5 \cdot 7^2.
Proof: Assume G to be a contradiction. By Sylow analysis, we have:n_3∈\{7,49\}~~~~~n_5∈\{21,441\}~~~~~n_7=15Index considerations disallow n_3=7, though we need only look at n_7=15. Since 15 \not ≡ 1 \mod{7^2}, set P_0=P_1∩P_2 for P_1,P_2∈Syl_7(G) such that |P_0|=7. We have P_0 \trianglelefteq P_1, P_2 so that 7^2 \mid |N_G(P_0)| ≠ 7^2. Due to index considerations once more, we have |N_G(P_0)|=3 \cdot 7^2. But in this case n_7(N_G(P_0))=1, so that there is a unique Sylow 7-subgroup of N_G(P_0), despite P_1 and P_2 being distinct groups of order 7^2 contained therein.~\square
Proof: Assume G to be a contradiction. By Sylow analysis, we have:n_3∈\{7,49\}~~~~~n_5∈\{21,441\}~~~~~n_7=15Index considerations disallow n_3=7, though we need only look at n_7=15. Since 15 \not ≡ 1 \mod{7^2}, set P_0=P_1∩P_2 for P_1,P_2∈Syl_7(G) such that |P_0|=7. We have P_0 \trianglelefteq P_1, P_2 so that 7^2 \mid |N_G(P_0)| ≠ 7^2. Due to index considerations once more, we have |N_G(P_0)|=3 \cdot 7^2. But in this case n_7(N_G(P_0))=1, so that there is a unique Sylow 7-subgroup of N_G(P_0), despite P_1 and P_2 being distinct groups of order 7^2 contained therein.~\square
Sunday, April 7, 2013
Hall's Theorem of Solvable Groups (6.1.33)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 6.1, exercise 33:
MathJax TeX Test Page
Let \pi be any set of primes. A subgroup H of G is called a Hall \pi-subgroup if the only primes dividing |H| are in \pi and (|H|,|G:H|)=1. When \pi=\{p\}, these groups are known as Sylow p-subgroups. Prove the following generalization of Sylow's Theorem for solvable groups: If G is a finite solvable group, then for any set of primes \pi, the set of Hall \pi-subgroups is nonempty and all of its elements are conjugate to each other in G. [Let M be a minimal normal subgroup of G, so M is a p-group. If p∈\pi, then proceed by induction on G/M. If p \not ∈\pi, then reduce to the case where |G|=p^an, where n is the order of a Hall \pi-subgroup. In this case let N/M be a minimal normal q-subgroup of G/M, and let Q∈Syl_q(N). If Q \trianglelefteq G, then proceed with Q in place of M. If not, then use Frattini's argument to show N_G(N) is a Hall \pi-subgroup and establish conjugacy as well.]
Proof: Let the overbar denote passage into G/M. If p∈\pi, then by induction there is a Hall \pi-subgroup of \overline{G} of order n/p^a, so that its preimage in G is of order n, and is thus a Hall \pi-subgroup. Furthermore, if any Hall \pi-subgroup H does not contain M, then H∩M≠M, so that p divides | M : H∩M |, so that by the Second Isomorphism Theorem p divides | HM : H |, which implies p divides |G:HM| \cdot |HM : H|=|G:H|, a contradiction. Now, for any two Hall \pi-subgroups H_1 and H_2, we have \overline{H_1} and \overline{H_2} are Hall \pi-subgroups of \overline{G}, and by induction they are conjugate, so that \overline{g}\overline{H_1}\overline{g}^{-1}=\overline{gH_1g^{-1}}=\overline{H_2}. Since |gH_1g^{-1}|=n we have gH_1g^{-1} is a Hall \pi-subgroup, and now both these groups contain M so that gH_1g^{-1}=H_2.
Therefore assume p \not ∈ \pi. Taking the Hall \pi-subgroup \overline{H} of \overline{G} and taking its preimage HM of order p^an, we can be assured that if HM < G, then by induction we can recognize Hall \pi-subgroups of HM for the existence condition. For any two Hall \pi-subgroups H_1 and H_2 of G, since H_1∩M=H_2∩M=1, we have Hall \pi-subgroups \overline{H_1} and \overline{H_2} of \overline{G}, so that \overline{g}\overline{H_1}\overline{g}^{-1}=\overline{H_2} by induction, and now gH_1g^{-1}M=gH_1Mg^{-1}=H_2M, so that gH_1g^{-1}≤H_2M. This reveals H_1 is conjugate to some Hall \pi-subgroup of H_2M, and by induction this one is conjugate to H_2, so that finally H_1 is conjugate to H_2.
So assume HM=G and |G|=p^an. If G is a p-group the proposition is evident, so we can take a minimal normal subgroup \overline{N} (of order q^b with q≠p) of \overline{G}, and observe Q∈Syl_q(N). If Q \trianglelefteq G, then we can argue with Q in place of M as above. Therefore assume N_G(Q) < G. Since \overline{N} \trianglelefteq \overline{G} ⇒ N \trianglelefteq G, we can apply Frattini's Argument to N. Notice: |G|=p^an=\dfrac{|N| \cdot |N_G(Q)|}{|N∩N_G(Q)|}=\dfrac{p^aq^b \cdot |N_G(Q)|}{|N∩N_G(Q)|} Since Q≤N and Q≤N_G(Q), we have q^b divides |N∩N_G(Q)|. Therefore, letting n=q^{\alpha_0}p_1^{\alpha_1}...p_r^{\alpha_r}, we observe that q^{\alpha_0} and p_i^{\alpha_i} divides |N_G(Q)| for all i, ensuring that n divides |N_G(Q)| and now by induction there exist Hall \pi-subgroups of G. Establish conjugacy: Take an arbitrary Hall \pi-subgroup T of G. Since MT=G and M≤N, we have:\dfrac{|N| \cdot |T|}{|N∩T|}=|G|⇒\dfrac{p^aq^b \cdot n}{|N∩T|}=p^an⇒|N∩T|=q^b=|Q|So that N∩T is a Sylow q-subgroup of N and is thus conjugate to Q; let g(N∩T)g^{-1}=Q. Since clearly T≤N_G(N∩T), we have gTg^{-1}≤gN_G(N∩T)g^{-1}=N_G(g(N∩T)g^{-1})=N_G(Q), so that every Hall \pi-subgroup of G is conjugate to some Hall \pi-subgroup of N_G(Q), whose Hall \pi-subgroups are inductively assumed to be conjugate to each other.~\square
Proof: Let the overbar denote passage into G/M. If p∈\pi, then by induction there is a Hall \pi-subgroup of \overline{G} of order n/p^a, so that its preimage in G is of order n, and is thus a Hall \pi-subgroup. Furthermore, if any Hall \pi-subgroup H does not contain M, then H∩M≠M, so that p divides | M : H∩M |, so that by the Second Isomorphism Theorem p divides | HM : H |, which implies p divides |G:HM| \cdot |HM : H|=|G:H|, a contradiction. Now, for any two Hall \pi-subgroups H_1 and H_2, we have \overline{H_1} and \overline{H_2} are Hall \pi-subgroups of \overline{G}, and by induction they are conjugate, so that \overline{g}\overline{H_1}\overline{g}^{-1}=\overline{gH_1g^{-1}}=\overline{H_2}. Since |gH_1g^{-1}|=n we have gH_1g^{-1} is a Hall \pi-subgroup, and now both these groups contain M so that gH_1g^{-1}=H_2.
Therefore assume p \not ∈ \pi. Taking the Hall \pi-subgroup \overline{H} of \overline{G} and taking its preimage HM of order p^an, we can be assured that if HM < G, then by induction we can recognize Hall \pi-subgroups of HM for the existence condition. For any two Hall \pi-subgroups H_1 and H_2 of G, since H_1∩M=H_2∩M=1, we have Hall \pi-subgroups \overline{H_1} and \overline{H_2} of \overline{G}, so that \overline{g}\overline{H_1}\overline{g}^{-1}=\overline{H_2} by induction, and now gH_1g^{-1}M=gH_1Mg^{-1}=H_2M, so that gH_1g^{-1}≤H_2M. This reveals H_1 is conjugate to some Hall \pi-subgroup of H_2M, and by induction this one is conjugate to H_2, so that finally H_1 is conjugate to H_2.
So assume HM=G and |G|=p^an. If G is a p-group the proposition is evident, so we can take a minimal normal subgroup \overline{N} (of order q^b with q≠p) of \overline{G}, and observe Q∈Syl_q(N). If Q \trianglelefteq G, then we can argue with Q in place of M as above. Therefore assume N_G(Q) < G. Since \overline{N} \trianglelefteq \overline{G} ⇒ N \trianglelefteq G, we can apply Frattini's Argument to N. Notice: |G|=p^an=\dfrac{|N| \cdot |N_G(Q)|}{|N∩N_G(Q)|}=\dfrac{p^aq^b \cdot |N_G(Q)|}{|N∩N_G(Q)|} Since Q≤N and Q≤N_G(Q), we have q^b divides |N∩N_G(Q)|. Therefore, letting n=q^{\alpha_0}p_1^{\alpha_1}...p_r^{\alpha_r}, we observe that q^{\alpha_0} and p_i^{\alpha_i} divides |N_G(Q)| for all i, ensuring that n divides |N_G(Q)| and now by induction there exist Hall \pi-subgroups of G. Establish conjugacy: Take an arbitrary Hall \pi-subgroup T of G. Since MT=G and M≤N, we have:\dfrac{|N| \cdot |T|}{|N∩T|}=|G|⇒\dfrac{p^aq^b \cdot n}{|N∩T|}=p^an⇒|N∩T|=q^b=|Q|So that N∩T is a Sylow q-subgroup of N and is thus conjugate to Q; let g(N∩T)g^{-1}=Q. Since clearly T≤N_G(N∩T), we have gTg^{-1}≤gN_G(N∩T)g^{-1}=N_G(g(N∩T)g^{-1})=N_G(Q), so that every Hall \pi-subgroup of G is conjugate to some Hall \pi-subgroup of N_G(Q), whose Hall \pi-subgroups are inductively assumed to be conjugate to each other.~\square
Friday, April 5, 2013
Minimal Normal Subgroups of Solvable Groups (6.1.31)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 6.1, exercise 31:
MathJax TeX Test Page
A group M is called a minimal normal subgroup of G when M \trianglelefteq G and every proper nontrivial subgroup of M is nonnormal in G. Prove that when G is finite and solvable, any minimal subgroup M is an elementary abelian p-group for some prime p. [Examine M's characteristic subgroups M' and \langle~x^p~|~x∈P~\rangle]
Proof: Let M^p denote \langle~x^p~|~x∈P~\rangle. If M is trivial, the case holds, so assume M≠1.
Lemma 1: G^n~\text{char}~G for any finitely generated group G and n∈\mathbb{Z}. Proof: x∈G^n⇔x=y_1^n...y_r^n⇔φ(x)=φ(y_1^n...y_r^n)=φ(y_1)^n...φ(y_r)^n⇔φ(x)∈G^n~\square
Since any characteristic subgroup of M is concomitantly normal in G, we must not have any proper nontrivial characteristic subgroups of M. Assume M'=M; since subgroups of a solvable group are solvable by Proposition 10(1), and yet the derived chain of M terminates before reaching the identity, we have a contradiction. So assume M'=1, and now M is abelian.
Suppose M^p=1 for some prime p. Then all the generators of M^p are trivial, which is to say x^p=1 for all x∈M and now M is elementary abelian. So assume that M^p=M for any prime p. Inductively prove that M^{n}=M for all n∈\mathbb{Z^+}, an absurd conclusion for M^{|M|}=M. The case is clear when n=1, so proceed to the inductive step. The case is assumed true for prime n, so we have prime q dividing n≠q. We have (M^{n/q})^q=M by induction, revealing that for any element of the abelian M we have a representation of the form (m_{1,1}^{n/q}...m_{1,r_1}^{n/q})^q(m_{2,1}^{n/q}...m_{2,r_2}^{n/q})^q...(m_{s,1}^{n/q}...m_{s,r_s}^{n/q})^q=m_{1,1}^n...m_{1,r_1}^nm_{2,1}^n...m_{2,r_2}^n...m_{s,1}^n...m_{s,r_s}^n∈M^n.~\square
Proof: Let M^p denote \langle~x^p~|~x∈P~\rangle. If M is trivial, the case holds, so assume M≠1.
Lemma 1: G^n~\text{char}~G for any finitely generated group G and n∈\mathbb{Z}. Proof: x∈G^n⇔x=y_1^n...y_r^n⇔φ(x)=φ(y_1^n...y_r^n)=φ(y_1)^n...φ(y_r)^n⇔φ(x)∈G^n~\square
Since any characteristic subgroup of M is concomitantly normal in G, we must not have any proper nontrivial characteristic subgroups of M. Assume M'=M; since subgroups of a solvable group are solvable by Proposition 10(1), and yet the derived chain of M terminates before reaching the identity, we have a contradiction. So assume M'=1, and now M is abelian.
Suppose M^p=1 for some prime p. Then all the generators of M^p are trivial, which is to say x^p=1 for all x∈M and now M is elementary abelian. So assume that M^p=M for any prime p. Inductively prove that M^{n}=M for all n∈\mathbb{Z^+}, an absurd conclusion for M^{|M|}=M. The case is clear when n=1, so proceed to the inductive step. The case is assumed true for prime n, so we have prime q dividing n≠q. We have (M^{n/q})^q=M by induction, revealing that for any element of the abelian M we have a representation of the form (m_{1,1}^{n/q}...m_{1,r_1}^{n/q})^q(m_{2,1}^{n/q}...m_{2,r_2}^{n/q})^q...(m_{s,1}^{n/q}...m_{s,r_s}^{n/q})^q=m_{1,1}^n...m_{1,r_1}^nm_{2,1}^n...m_{2,r_2}^n...m_{s,1}^n...m_{s,r_s}^n∈M^n.~\square
Frattini Subgroup of p-Groups (6.1.26a-b)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 6.1, exercise 26a-b:
MathJax TeX Test Page
(a) Let the overbar denote passage into P/\Phi(P). Prove \overline{P} is an elementary abelian p-group. [Prove P'≤\Phi(P) and x^p∈\Phi(P) for any x∈P]
(b) Prove that if P/N is elementary abelian, then \Phi(P)≤N.
Proof: (a) Note that p-groups are nilpotent, so that every maximal subgroup of P is normal and of prime index by 6.1.4, so that the quotient group of P over any maximal subgroup is abelian, so that by an extension of 5.4.14, P' is contained within the intersection of all maximal subgroups, which is to say P'≤\Phi(P). Similarly, since the quotient groups are of prime order, we have \overline{x}^p is trivial for any x∈P, which is to say x^p∈\Phi(P).~\square
(b) Lemma 1: \Phi(Z_p^t)=1 for any prime p and nonnegative integer t. Proof: Let (x_1,...,x_r,...,x_t) be any nontrivial element with a nontrivial coordinate designated by x_r. We have \langle~e_1,...,~e_{r-1},~e_{r+1},...,~e_t~\rangle is a subgroup of order p^{t-1} that is maximal by its index, and this particular subgroup doesn't contain (x_1,...,x_r,...,x_t). Since the nontrivial element was arbitrary, we have \Phi(Z_p^t)=1.~\square
Since P/N is elementary abelian, we have the intersection of its maximal subgroups is the identity, which is to say (by the Lattice Isomorphism Theorem) that the intersection of the set of maximal subgroups of P containing N is contained in N. By definition, N is contained within the intersection of the set of maximal subgroups of P containing N, so there is an equality. Since \Phi(P) is contained in all maximal subgroups of P, we have \Phi(P)≤N.
In other words, if φ : P → E is any homomorphism of P into an elementary abelian group E, then φ factors through \Phi(P). \begin{array}{ccc} P&\stackrel{\pi}{\longrightarrow}&{P/\Phi(P)}\\ &\searrow\scriptstyle{φ}&\downarrow\scriptstyle{ψ}\\ &&E \end{array} ~\square
(b) Prove that if P/N is elementary abelian, then \Phi(P)≤N.
Proof: (a) Note that p-groups are nilpotent, so that every maximal subgroup of P is normal and of prime index by 6.1.4, so that the quotient group of P over any maximal subgroup is abelian, so that by an extension of 5.4.14, P' is contained within the intersection of all maximal subgroups, which is to say P'≤\Phi(P). Similarly, since the quotient groups are of prime order, we have \overline{x}^p is trivial for any x∈P, which is to say x^p∈\Phi(P).~\square
(b) Lemma 1: \Phi(Z_p^t)=1 for any prime p and nonnegative integer t. Proof: Let (x_1,...,x_r,...,x_t) be any nontrivial element with a nontrivial coordinate designated by x_r. We have \langle~e_1,...,~e_{r-1},~e_{r+1},...,~e_t~\rangle is a subgroup of order p^{t-1} that is maximal by its index, and this particular subgroup doesn't contain (x_1,...,x_r,...,x_t). Since the nontrivial element was arbitrary, we have \Phi(Z_p^t)=1.~\square
Since P/N is elementary abelian, we have the intersection of its maximal subgroups is the identity, which is to say (by the Lattice Isomorphism Theorem) that the intersection of the set of maximal subgroups of P containing N is contained in N. By definition, N is contained within the intersection of the set of maximal subgroups of P containing N, so there is an equality. Since \Phi(P) is contained in all maximal subgroups of P, we have \Phi(P)≤N.
In other words, if φ : P → E is any homomorphism of P into an elementary abelian group E, then φ factors through \Phi(P). \begin{array}{ccc} P&\stackrel{\pi}{\longrightarrow}&{P/\Phi(P)}\\ &\searrow\scriptstyle{φ}&\downarrow\scriptstyle{ψ}\\ &&E \end{array} ~\square
Thursday, April 4, 2013
On Frattini Subgroups (6.1.21-25)
Dummit and Foote Abstract Algebra, section 6.1, exercises 21-25:
MathJax TeX Test Page
21. Prove \Phi(G)~\text{char}~G.
22. Prove N \trianglelefteq G ⇒ \Phi(N)≤\Phi(G). Give an explicit example where this containment does not hold when N \not \trianglelefteq G.
23. Compute \Phi(S_3),\Phi(A_4),\Phi(S_4),\Phi(A_5), and \Phi(S_5).
24. Define x~\text{is a nongenerator}~⇔∀H < G~[\langle~x,~H~\rangle ≠ G]. Prove \Phi(G)= \{x~|~x~\text{is a nongenerator}~\} when G ≠ 1.
25. Let |G|< \infty. Prove \Phi(G) is nilpotent. [Use Frattini's Argument to show ∀P∈Syl(\Phi(G))~[P \trianglelefteq \Phi(G)]]
Proof: Let \mathcal{M}=\{...,H_i,...\} be the (potentially infinite, even uncountable) set of maximal subgroups of G, and I be its indexing set.
Lemma 1: For any φ∈Aut(G), we have φ permutes the elements of \mathcal{M}. Proof: Pick an arbitrary H_i∈\mathcal{M}. If φ(H_i) is not a maximal subgroup of G, then observe φ(H_i) < K < G. We have H_i = φ^{-1}(φ(H_i)) < φ^{-1}(K), the last term of which is properly contained in G (else K=φ(G)=G), therefore H_i < φ^{-1}(K) < G, a contradiction. Therefore φ(H_i) is a maximal subgroup, and this action of φ on \mathcal{M} is well defined, injective by nature, and surjective since φ^{-1}(H_i) will map to H_i. \square
Lemma 2: φ(\bigcap_{i∈I}H_{i})=\bigcap_{i∈I}φ(H_i) for any isomorphism φ of G, with H_i≤G for all i∈I. Proof: φ(x)∈φ(\bigcap_{i∈I}H_{i})⇔x∈\bigcap_{i∈I}H_{i}⇔∀i∈I[x∈H_i]⇔∀i∈I[φ(x)∈φ(H_i)]⇔φ(x)∈\bigcap_{i∈I}φ(H_{i})~~~\square
(21) Let \pi denote the permutation of the indices of the elements of \mathcal{M} by φ∈Aut(G) by lemma 1. We have φ(\Phi(G))=φ(\bigcap_{i∈I}H_{i})=\bigcap_{i∈I}φ(H_{i})=\bigcap_{i∈I}H_{\pi(i)}=\bigcap_{i∈I}H_{i}=\Phi(G)
since \pi(I)=I.~\square
(22) (With aid from Project Crazy Project) (Assuming G is finite) Lemma 3: Let A ≤ C ≤ G and B ≤ G. Then A(B∩C)=AB∩C. Proof: (\subseteq) x∈A(B∩C)⇒x=ad for some a∈A and d∈B∩C, so that ad∈AB and ad∈C, ergo x∈AB∩C. (\supseteq) x∈AB∩C⇒x=ab \land x∈C, so that b=a^{-1}x∈C and now b∈B∩C, hence x∈A(B∩C). ~\square
Lemma 4: \Phi(G)H < G for any H < G. Proof: Quickly done, this is a consequence of exercise 24. Proving it otherwise is a simple feat nonetheless.~\square
Now, we have \Phi(N)~\text{char}~N \trianglelefteq G⇒\Phi(N) \trianglelefteq G, so that \Phi(N)K is a subgroup for any K≤G. Observe the implications: \Phi(N) \not ≤ \Phi(G )⇒ ∃i∈I[\Phi(N) \not ≤ H_i]⇒N \not ≤ H_i ⇒ H_i∩N < N ⇒\Phi(N)(H_i∩N) < N ⇒ \Phi(N)H_i∩N < N ⇒ G∩N < N ⇒ N < N We proceed to constructing a counterexample when N \not \trianglelefteq G. This lemma will be useful for the next exercise as well: Lemma 5: \Phi(S_n)=\Phi(A_n)=1 when n \geq 5. Proof: \Phi(A_n) \triangleleft A_n, so we must have \Phi(A_n)=1. As computed in 4.6.2, the only proper normal subgroups of S_n are A_n and 1. Since A_n is a maximal subgroup and not the only one (place \langle~(1 2)~\rangle in a maximal subgroup, for instance), we must have \Phi(S_n)=1.~\square
Now, associate Q_8 with its isomorphic image in S_8. By order considerations, it is not equal to S_8,A_8, or 1, so it is nonnormal. We can see \Phi(Q_8)=\langle~-1~\rangle is nontrivial, and by the above lemma \Phi(S_8) is trivial, so the containment doesn't hold.~\square
(23) The groups of order 3 and 2 by Cauchy are maximal by their orders, and have trivial intersection, so \Phi(S_3)=1. By 3.5.8, \langle~(1 2)(3 4),~(1 3)(2 4)~\rangle and \langle~(1 2 3)~\rangle are maximal subgroups, and have trivial intersection, therefore \Phi(A_4)=1.
For \Phi(S_4), take an arbitrary subgroup M of order 12 in S_4. By Cauchy, M has an element of order 3, which must be a 3-cycle. Since conjugation of M by elements of S_4 are automorphisms of M (since M \trianglelefteq S_4 by order), we have that M contains all 3-cycles, and is thus equal to A_4. Now, \langle~(1 2),(1 2 3)~\rangle can only contain elements of S_3 due to its generators fixing 4, and indeed it does generate at least and thus exactly 6 elements. Therefore it is maximal since otherwise it is contained in a group of order 12, which must be A_4 by above, a contradiction since A_4 doesn't contain a subgroup of order 6 by 3.5.8. By this, \Phi(S_4) is either of order 1 or 3, and not the latter since \Phi(S_4) \trianglelefteq S_4 would imply \Phi(S_4) contains every 3-cycle.
By the lemma, \Phi(A_5)=\Phi(S_5)=1.~\square
(24) (Assuming G is finite)(\subseteq) Let x∈\Phi(G), and for any H < G, place H in a maximal subgroup H^*. We have x∈H^*, therefore \langle~x,~H~\rangle ≤ \langle~x,~H^*~\rangle = H^* < G. (\supseteq) Let x be a nongenerator, so that for any maximal subgroup H^*, we must have \langle~x,~H^*~\rangle = H^*, so that x∈H^*.~\square
(25) Let P be an arbitrary Sylow subgroup of \Phi(G). By Frattini, we have \Phi(G)N_G(P)=G. Since \Phi(G)N_G(P) is clearly not a proper subgroup, we must have N_G(P) is not a proper subgroup by lemma 4, which is to say N_G(P)=G and now P \trianglelefteq G, and in particular P \trianglelefteq \Phi(G), so that \Phi(G) is nilpotent by theorem 3(3).~\square
22. Prove N \trianglelefteq G ⇒ \Phi(N)≤\Phi(G). Give an explicit example where this containment does not hold when N \not \trianglelefteq G.
23. Compute \Phi(S_3),\Phi(A_4),\Phi(S_4),\Phi(A_5), and \Phi(S_5).
24. Define x~\text{is a nongenerator}~⇔∀H < G~[\langle~x,~H~\rangle ≠ G]. Prove \Phi(G)= \{x~|~x~\text{is a nongenerator}~\} when G ≠ 1.
25. Let |G|< \infty. Prove \Phi(G) is nilpotent. [Use Frattini's Argument to show ∀P∈Syl(\Phi(G))~[P \trianglelefteq \Phi(G)]]
Proof: Let \mathcal{M}=\{...,H_i,...\} be the (potentially infinite, even uncountable) set of maximal subgroups of G, and I be its indexing set.
Lemma 1: For any φ∈Aut(G), we have φ permutes the elements of \mathcal{M}. Proof: Pick an arbitrary H_i∈\mathcal{M}. If φ(H_i) is not a maximal subgroup of G, then observe φ(H_i) < K < G. We have H_i = φ^{-1}(φ(H_i)) < φ^{-1}(K), the last term of which is properly contained in G (else K=φ(G)=G), therefore H_i < φ^{-1}(K) < G, a contradiction. Therefore φ(H_i) is a maximal subgroup, and this action of φ on \mathcal{M} is well defined, injective by nature, and surjective since φ^{-1}(H_i) will map to H_i. \square
Lemma 2: φ(\bigcap_{i∈I}H_{i})=\bigcap_{i∈I}φ(H_i) for any isomorphism φ of G, with H_i≤G for all i∈I. Proof: φ(x)∈φ(\bigcap_{i∈I}H_{i})⇔x∈\bigcap_{i∈I}H_{i}⇔∀i∈I[x∈H_i]⇔∀i∈I[φ(x)∈φ(H_i)]⇔φ(x)∈\bigcap_{i∈I}φ(H_{i})~~~\square
(21) Let \pi denote the permutation of the indices of the elements of \mathcal{M} by φ∈Aut(G) by lemma 1. We have φ(\Phi(G))=φ(\bigcap_{i∈I}H_{i})=\bigcap_{i∈I}φ(H_{i})=\bigcap_{i∈I}H_{\pi(i)}=\bigcap_{i∈I}H_{i}=\Phi(G)
since \pi(I)=I.~\square
(22) (With aid from Project Crazy Project) (Assuming G is finite) Lemma 3: Let A ≤ C ≤ G and B ≤ G. Then A(B∩C)=AB∩C. Proof: (\subseteq) x∈A(B∩C)⇒x=ad for some a∈A and d∈B∩C, so that ad∈AB and ad∈C, ergo x∈AB∩C. (\supseteq) x∈AB∩C⇒x=ab \land x∈C, so that b=a^{-1}x∈C and now b∈B∩C, hence x∈A(B∩C). ~\square
Lemma 4: \Phi(G)H < G for any H < G. Proof: Quickly done, this is a consequence of exercise 24. Proving it otherwise is a simple feat nonetheless.~\square
Now, we have \Phi(N)~\text{char}~N \trianglelefteq G⇒\Phi(N) \trianglelefteq G, so that \Phi(N)K is a subgroup for any K≤G. Observe the implications: \Phi(N) \not ≤ \Phi(G )⇒ ∃i∈I[\Phi(N) \not ≤ H_i]⇒N \not ≤ H_i ⇒ H_i∩N < N ⇒\Phi(N)(H_i∩N) < N ⇒ \Phi(N)H_i∩N < N ⇒ G∩N < N ⇒ N < N We proceed to constructing a counterexample when N \not \trianglelefteq G. This lemma will be useful for the next exercise as well: Lemma 5: \Phi(S_n)=\Phi(A_n)=1 when n \geq 5. Proof: \Phi(A_n) \triangleleft A_n, so we must have \Phi(A_n)=1. As computed in 4.6.2, the only proper normal subgroups of S_n are A_n and 1. Since A_n is a maximal subgroup and not the only one (place \langle~(1 2)~\rangle in a maximal subgroup, for instance), we must have \Phi(S_n)=1.~\square
Now, associate Q_8 with its isomorphic image in S_8. By order considerations, it is not equal to S_8,A_8, or 1, so it is nonnormal. We can see \Phi(Q_8)=\langle~-1~\rangle is nontrivial, and by the above lemma \Phi(S_8) is trivial, so the containment doesn't hold.~\square
(23) The groups of order 3 and 2 by Cauchy are maximal by their orders, and have trivial intersection, so \Phi(S_3)=1. By 3.5.8, \langle~(1 2)(3 4),~(1 3)(2 4)~\rangle and \langle~(1 2 3)~\rangle are maximal subgroups, and have trivial intersection, therefore \Phi(A_4)=1.
For \Phi(S_4), take an arbitrary subgroup M of order 12 in S_4. By Cauchy, M has an element of order 3, which must be a 3-cycle. Since conjugation of M by elements of S_4 are automorphisms of M (since M \trianglelefteq S_4 by order), we have that M contains all 3-cycles, and is thus equal to A_4. Now, \langle~(1 2),(1 2 3)~\rangle can only contain elements of S_3 due to its generators fixing 4, and indeed it does generate at least and thus exactly 6 elements. Therefore it is maximal since otherwise it is contained in a group of order 12, which must be A_4 by above, a contradiction since A_4 doesn't contain a subgroup of order 6 by 3.5.8. By this, \Phi(S_4) is either of order 1 or 3, and not the latter since \Phi(S_4) \trianglelefteq S_4 would imply \Phi(S_4) contains every 3-cycle.
By the lemma, \Phi(A_5)=\Phi(S_5)=1.~\square
(24) (Assuming G is finite)(\subseteq) Let x∈\Phi(G), and for any H < G, place H in a maximal subgroup H^*. We have x∈H^*, therefore \langle~x,~H~\rangle ≤ \langle~x,~H^*~\rangle = H^* < G. (\supseteq) Let x be a nongenerator, so that for any maximal subgroup H^*, we must have \langle~x,~H^*~\rangle = H^*, so that x∈H^*.~\square
(25) Let P be an arbitrary Sylow subgroup of \Phi(G). By Frattini, we have \Phi(G)N_G(P)=G. Since \Phi(G)N_G(P) is clearly not a proper subgroup, we must have N_G(P) is not a proper subgroup by lemma 4, which is to say N_G(P)=G and now P \trianglelefteq G, and in particular P \trianglelefteq \Phi(G), so that \Phi(G) is nilpotent by theorem 3(3).~\square
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)