Show that $G_i/G_{i+1} twoheadrightarrow (G_i +N)/ (G_{i+1} +N)$.
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
From Aluffi's book of Algebra:
in which it refers to Theorem 7.12 :
[Red underlined:] I can't see any connection with Theorem 7.12! Actually I don't know how the $+$ appears. How to show that $G_i/G_{i+1} twoheadrightarrow (G_i +N)/ (G_{i+1} +N)$?
abstract-algebra proof-explanation
asked Nov 18 at 8:43
72D
52516
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
From Aluffi's book of Algebra:
in which it refers to Theorem 7.12 :
[Red underlined:] I can't see any connection with Theorem 7.12! Actually I don't know how the $+$ appears. How to show that $G_i/G_{i+1} twoheadrightarrow (G_i +N)/ (G_{i+1} +N)$?
abstract-algebra proof-explanation
asked Nov 18 at 8:43
72D
52516
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
From Aluffi's book of Algebra:
in which it refers to Theorem 7.12 :
[Red underlined:] I can't see any connection with Theorem 7.12! Actually I don't know how the $+$ appears. How to show that $G_i/G_{i+1} twoheadrightarrow (G_i +N)/ (G_{i+1} +N)$?
abstract-algebra proof-explanation
asked Nov 18 at 8:43
72D
52516
From Aluffi's book of Algebra:
in which it refers to Theorem 7.12 :
[Red underlined:] I can't see any connection with Theorem 7.12! Actually I don't know how the $+$ appears. How to show that $G_i/G_{i+1} twoheadrightarrow (G_i +N)/ (G_{i+1} +N)$?
abstract-algebra proof-explanation
abstract-algebra proof-explanation
asked Nov 18 at 8:43
72D
52516
asked Nov 18 at 8:43
72D
52516
edited Nov 18 at 18:34
asked Nov 18 at 8:43
72D
52516
asked Nov 18 at 8:43
72D
52516
asked Nov 18 at 8:43
72D
52516
52516
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Since $G$ is understood to be a multiplicative group, I think the $+$ is a typo.
Let $G'=(G_iN)/(G_{i+1}N)$ and
begin{align}
&varphi:G_itwoheadrightarrow G'&
&xmapsto xG_{i+1}N
end{align}
Since $G_{i+1}subseteqoperatorname{Ker}varphi$, theorem 7.12 asserts that there exists one and only one group homomorphism $barvarphi:G_i/G_{i+1}to G'$ making the following diagram commutative:
$require{AMScd}$
begin{CD}
G_i@>varphi>>G'\
@Vpi VV @|\
G_i/G_{i+1}@>>barvarphi>G'
end{CD}
where $pi:G_ito G_i/G_{i+1}$ is the canonical projection onto the factor group.
Since $varphi$ is surjective, $barvarphi$ is surjective as well.
If $G_i/G_{i+1} $ is simple, then $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi={1} $ or $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi=G_i/G_{i+1} $, hence $barvarphi $ is an isomorphism or is trivial.
answered Nov 18 at 20:44
Fabio Lucchini
7,68511226
Why surjectivity of $barvarphi$ implies $G'$ is either trivial or isomorphic to $G_i/G_{i+1}$? I can't figure that out even knowing $G_i/G_{i+1}$ is simple.
– 72D
Nov 18 at 22:14
1
If $G_i/G_{i+1} $ is simple, then $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi={1} $ or $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi=G_i/G_{i+1} $.
– Fabio Lucchini
Nov 18 at 22:32
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Since $G$ is understood to be a multiplicative group, I think the $+$ is a typo.
Let $G'=(G_iN)/(G_{i+1}N)$ and
begin{align}
&varphi:G_itwoheadrightarrow G'&
&xmapsto xG_{i+1}N
end{align}
Since $G_{i+1}subseteqoperatorname{Ker}varphi$, theorem 7.12 asserts that there exists one and only one group homomorphism $barvarphi:G_i/G_{i+1}to G'$ making the following diagram commutative:
$require{AMScd}$
begin{CD}
G_i@>varphi>>G'\
@Vpi VV @|\
G_i/G_{i+1}@>>barvarphi>G'
end{CD}
where $pi:G_ito G_i/G_{i+1}$ is the canonical projection onto the factor group.
Since $varphi$ is surjective, $barvarphi$ is surjective as well.
If $G_i/G_{i+1} $ is simple, then $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi={1} $ or $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi=G_i/G_{i+1} $, hence $barvarphi $ is an isomorphism or is trivial.
answered Nov 18 at 20:44
Fabio Lucchini
7,68511226
Why surjectivity of $barvarphi$ implies $G'$ is either trivial or isomorphic to $G_i/G_{i+1}$? I can't figure that out even knowing $G_i/G_{i+1}$ is simple.
– 72D
Nov 18 at 22:14
1
If $G_i/G_{i+1} $ is simple, then $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi={1} $ or $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi=G_i/G_{i+1} $.
– Fabio Lucchini
Nov 18 at 22:32
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Since $G$ is understood to be a multiplicative group, I think the $+$ is a typo.
Let $G'=(G_iN)/(G_{i+1}N)$ and
begin{align}
&varphi:G_itwoheadrightarrow G'&
&xmapsto xG_{i+1}N
end{align}
Since $G_{i+1}subseteqoperatorname{Ker}varphi$, theorem 7.12 asserts that there exists one and only one group homomorphism $barvarphi:G_i/G_{i+1}to G'$ making the following diagram commutative:
$require{AMScd}$
begin{CD}
G_i@>varphi>>G'\
@Vpi VV @|\
G_i/G_{i+1}@>>barvarphi>G'
end{CD}
where $pi:G_ito G_i/G_{i+1}$ is the canonical projection onto the factor group.
Since $varphi$ is surjective, $barvarphi$ is surjective as well.
If $G_i/G_{i+1} $ is simple, then $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi={1} $ or $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi=G_i/G_{i+1} $, hence $barvarphi $ is an isomorphism or is trivial.
answered Nov 18 at 20:44
Fabio Lucchini
7,68511226
Why surjectivity of $barvarphi$ implies $G'$ is either trivial or isomorphic to $G_i/G_{i+1}$? I can't figure that out even knowing $G_i/G_{i+1}$ is simple.
– 72D
Nov 18 at 22:14
1
If $G_i/G_{i+1} $ is simple, then $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi={1} $ or $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi=G_i/G_{i+1} $.
– Fabio Lucchini
Nov 18 at 22:32
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Since $G$ is understood to be a multiplicative group, I think the $+$ is a typo.
Let $G'=(G_iN)/(G_{i+1}N)$ and
begin{align}
&varphi:G_itwoheadrightarrow G'&
&xmapsto xG_{i+1}N
end{align}
Since $G_{i+1}subseteqoperatorname{Ker}varphi$, theorem 7.12 asserts that there exists one and only one group homomorphism $barvarphi:G_i/G_{i+1}to G'$ making the following diagram commutative:
$require{AMScd}$
begin{CD}
G_i@>varphi>>G'\
@Vpi VV @|\
G_i/G_{i+1}@>>barvarphi>G'
end{CD}
where $pi:G_ito G_i/G_{i+1}$ is the canonical projection onto the factor group.
Since $varphi$ is surjective, $barvarphi$ is surjective as well.
If $G_i/G_{i+1} $ is simple, then $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi={1} $ or $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi=G_i/G_{i+1} $, hence $barvarphi $ is an isomorphism or is trivial.
answered Nov 18 at 20:44
Fabio Lucchini
7,68511226
Since $G$ is understood to be a multiplicative group, I think the $+$ is a typo.
Let $G'=(G_iN)/(G_{i+1}N)$ and
begin{align}
&varphi:G_itwoheadrightarrow G'&
&xmapsto xG_{i+1}N
end{align}
Since $G_{i+1}subseteqoperatorname{Ker}varphi$, theorem 7.12 asserts that there exists one and only one group homomorphism $barvarphi:G_i/G_{i+1}to G'$ making the following diagram commutative:
$require{AMScd}$
begin{CD}
G_i@>varphi>>G'\
@Vpi VV @|\
G_i/G_{i+1}@>>barvarphi>G'
end{CD}
where $pi:G_ito G_i/G_{i+1}$ is the canonical projection onto the factor group.
Since $varphi$ is surjective, $barvarphi$ is surjective as well.
If $G_i/G_{i+1} $ is simple, then $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi={1} $ or $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi=G_i/G_{i+1} $, hence $barvarphi $ is an isomorphism or is trivial.
answered Nov 18 at 20:44
Fabio Lucchini
7,68511226
edited Nov 18 at 22:36
answered Nov 18 at 20:44
Fabio Lucchini
7,68511226
answered Nov 18 at 20:44
Fabio Lucchini
7,68511226
answered Nov 18 at 20:44
Fabio Lucchini
7,68511226
7,68511226
Why surjectivity of $barvarphi$ implies $G'$ is either trivial or isomorphic to $G_i/G_{i+1}$? I can't figure that out even knowing $G_i/G_{i+1}$ is simple.
– 72D
Nov 18 at 22:14
1
If $G_i/G_{i+1} $ is simple, then $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi={1} $ or $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi=G_i/G_{i+1} $.
– Fabio Lucchini
Nov 18 at 22:32
add a comment |
Why surjectivity of $barvarphi$ implies $G'$ is either trivial or isomorphic to $G_i/G_{i+1}$? I can't figure that out even knowing $G_i/G_{i+1}$ is simple.
– 72D
Nov 18 at 22:14
1
If $G_i/G_{i+1} $ is simple, then $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi={1} $ or $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi=G_i/G_{i+1} $.
– Fabio Lucchini
Nov 18 at 22:32
Why surjectivity of $barvarphi$ implies $G'$ is either trivial or isomorphic to $G_i/G_{i+1}$? I can't figure that out even knowing $G_i/G_{i+1}$ is simple.
– 72D
Nov 18 at 22:14
Why surjectivity of $barvarphi$ implies $G'$ is either trivial or isomorphic to $G_i/G_{i+1}$? I can't figure that out even knowing $G_i/G_{i+1}$ is simple.
– 72D
Nov 18 at 22:14
1
1
If $G_i/G_{i+1} $ is simple, then $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi={1} $ or $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi=G_i/G_{i+1} $.
– Fabio Lucchini
Nov 18 at 22:32
If $G_i/G_{i+1} $ is simple, then $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi={1} $ or $operatorname{Ker}barvarphi=G_i/G_{i+1} $.
– Fabio Lucchini
Nov 18 at 22:32
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3003272%2fshow-that-g-i-g-i1-twoheadrightarrow-g-i-n-g-i1-n%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
