Is there a nice way to use the group isomorphism theorems in this proof?
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
The following theorem is an exercise in the section of a textbook dealing with the group isomorphism theorems. However, I did not use the isomorphism theorems to prove this theorem, so I wonder if there might be a cleaner way using them?
Theorem: Let $(A, cdot)$, $(B, ast)$ be groups, let $f: A mapsto B$ be a homomorphism, and let $S^ast leqslant B$. Then:
$$textrm{Ker}(f) leqslant f^{-1}(S^ast) = {x in A mid f(x) in S^ast} leqslant A $$
Proof. Let $x, y in f^{-1}(S^ast)$. Then, we know that there exists elements $f(x), f(y) in S^ast$. Since $S^ast leqslant B$, $f(x) ast f(y) in S^ast$. Since $f$ is a homomorphism, $f(x) ast f(y) = f(x cdot y) in S^ast$. This means that $x cdot y in f^{-1}(S^ast)$, so $f^{-1}(S^ast)$ is closed under the group operation.
Since $S^ast$ is a subgroup, we know that if $f(x) in S^ast$ (where $x in f^{-1}(S^ast)$), then there exists an element $f(y) in S^ast$ (where $y in f^{-1}(S^ast)$), such that $f(x) ast f(y) = textrm{id}_{B}$. Since $f$ is a homomorphism, it must be that $y = x^{-1}$. Thus, $x^{-1} in f^{-1}(S^ast)$.
Thus, we have shown that $f^{-1}(S^ast)$, and every element in it has its inverse within the set too, so $f^{-1}(S^ast)$ is a subgroup of $A$. It remains to show that $textrm{Ker}(f) subset f^{-1}(S^ast)$. Since $S^ast$ is a group, $textrm{id}_{B} in S^ast$. Therefore, $textrm{Ker}(f) = f^{-1}(textrm{id}_{B}) subset f^{-1}(S^ast)$.
group-theory alternative-proof group-isomorphism
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
The following theorem is an exercise in the section of a textbook dealing with the group isomorphism theorems. However, I did not use the isomorphism theorems to prove this theorem, so I wonder if there might be a cleaner way using them?
Theorem: Let $(A, cdot)$, $(B, ast)$ be groups, let $f: A mapsto B$ be a homomorphism, and let $S^ast leqslant B$. Then:
$$textrm{Ker}(f) leqslant f^{-1}(S^ast) = {x in A mid f(x) in S^ast} leqslant A $$
Proof. Let $x, y in f^{-1}(S^ast)$. Then, we know that there exists elements $f(x), f(y) in S^ast$. Since $S^ast leqslant B$, $f(x) ast f(y) in S^ast$. Since $f$ is a homomorphism, $f(x) ast f(y) = f(x cdot y) in S^ast$. This means that $x cdot y in f^{-1}(S^ast)$, so $f^{-1}(S^ast)$ is closed under the group operation.
Since $S^ast$ is a subgroup, we know that if $f(x) in S^ast$ (where $x in f^{-1}(S^ast)$), then there exists an element $f(y) in S^ast$ (where $y in f^{-1}(S^ast)$), such that $f(x) ast f(y) = textrm{id}_{B}$. Since $f$ is a homomorphism, it must be that $y = x^{-1}$. Thus, $x^{-1} in f^{-1}(S^ast)$.
Thus, we have shown that $f^{-1}(S^ast)$, and every element in it has its inverse within the set too, so $f^{-1}(S^ast)$ is a subgroup of $A$. It remains to show that $textrm{Ker}(f) subset f^{-1}(S^ast)$. Since $S^ast$ is a group, $textrm{id}_{B} in S^ast$. Therefore, $textrm{Ker}(f) = f^{-1}(textrm{id}_{B}) subset f^{-1}(S^ast)$.
group-theory alternative-proof group-isomorphism
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
The following theorem is an exercise in the section of a textbook dealing with the group isomorphism theorems. However, I did not use the isomorphism theorems to prove this theorem, so I wonder if there might be a cleaner way using them?
Theorem: Let $(A, cdot)$, $(B, ast)$ be groups, let $f: A mapsto B$ be a homomorphism, and let $S^ast leqslant B$. Then:
$$textrm{Ker}(f) leqslant f^{-1}(S^ast) = {x in A mid f(x) in S^ast} leqslant A $$
Proof. Let $x, y in f^{-1}(S^ast)$. Then, we know that there exists elements $f(x), f(y) in S^ast$. Since $S^ast leqslant B$, $f(x) ast f(y) in S^ast$. Since $f$ is a homomorphism, $f(x) ast f(y) = f(x cdot y) in S^ast$. This means that $x cdot y in f^{-1}(S^ast)$, so $f^{-1}(S^ast)$ is closed under the group operation.
Since $S^ast$ is a subgroup, we know that if $f(x) in S^ast$ (where $x in f^{-1}(S^ast)$), then there exists an element $f(y) in S^ast$ (where $y in f^{-1}(S^ast)$), such that $f(x) ast f(y) = textrm{id}_{B}$. Since $f$ is a homomorphism, it must be that $y = x^{-1}$. Thus, $x^{-1} in f^{-1}(S^ast)$.
Thus, we have shown that $f^{-1}(S^ast)$, and every element in it has its inverse within the set too, so $f^{-1}(S^ast)$ is a subgroup of $A$. It remains to show that $textrm{Ker}(f) subset f^{-1}(S^ast)$. Since $S^ast$ is a group, $textrm{id}_{B} in S^ast$. Therefore, $textrm{Ker}(f) = f^{-1}(textrm{id}_{B}) subset f^{-1}(S^ast)$.
group-theory alternative-proof group-isomorphism
The following theorem is an exercise in the section of a textbook dealing with the group isomorphism theorems. However, I did not use the isomorphism theorems to prove this theorem, so I wonder if there might be a cleaner way using them?
Theorem: Let $(A, cdot)$, $(B, ast)$ be groups, let $f: A mapsto B$ be a homomorphism, and let $S^ast leqslant B$. Then:
$$textrm{Ker}(f) leqslant f^{-1}(S^ast) = {x in A mid f(x) in S^ast} leqslant A $$
Proof. Let $x, y in f^{-1}(S^ast)$. Then, we know that there exists elements $f(x), f(y) in S^ast$. Since $S^ast leqslant B$, $f(x) ast f(y) in S^ast$. Since $f$ is a homomorphism, $f(x) ast f(y) = f(x cdot y) in S^ast$. This means that $x cdot y in f^{-1}(S^ast)$, so $f^{-1}(S^ast)$ is closed under the group operation.
Since $S^ast$ is a subgroup, we know that if $f(x) in S^ast$ (where $x in f^{-1}(S^ast)$), then there exists an element $f(y) in S^ast$ (where $y in f^{-1}(S^ast)$), such that $f(x) ast f(y) = textrm{id}_{B}$. Since $f$ is a homomorphism, it must be that $y = x^{-1}$. Thus, $x^{-1} in f^{-1}(S^ast)$.
Thus, we have shown that $f^{-1}(S^ast)$, and every element in it has its inverse within the set too, so $f^{-1}(S^ast)$ is a subgroup of $A$. It remains to show that $textrm{Ker}(f) subset f^{-1}(S^ast)$. Since $S^ast$ is a group, $textrm{id}_{B} in S^ast$. Therefore, $textrm{Ker}(f) = f^{-1}(textrm{id}_{B}) subset f^{-1}(S^ast)$.
group-theory alternative-proof group-isomorphism
group-theory alternative-proof group-isomorphism
edited Nov 22 at 1:05
asked Nov 21 at 5:40
user89
6711647
6711647
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I don't believe the isomorphism theorems are necessary in order to prove the theorem. Your proof is the one I would use. Just because the exercise happens to appear in a section dealing with isomorphism theorems does not mean that isomorphism theorems are necessary for the proof. Now, if the exercise had specifically mentioned to use the isomorphism theorems in the proof, that would be different, but again I don't see how the isomorphism theorems would be helpful here.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I think there is something which is not totally clear in this proof. As for the first part, everything is ok.
In the second part, you say that since $f(x) in S^*$ then there must be $f(y) in S^*$ such that $f(x)*f(y)=1_B$. Actually I would only deduce that there is $v in S^*$ such that $f(x)*v=1_B$. And maybe I can guess your doubts about surjectivity came from here.
A way to make it more understandable (at least to me!) is the following. Let $x in f^{-1}(S^*)$, so that as you said $f(x) in S^*$. Take $y=x^{-1}$. You have to prove that $y in f^{-1}(S^*)$, i.e. $f(y) in S^*$. But $f(x)*f(y)=f(x cdot y)=f(1_A)=1_B$ so that $f(y)$ is the inverse of $f(x)$ in $B$. Since $S^*$ is a subgroup, it is close for taking inverses and we are done.
Sorry if I wrote so much, I tried to be as clear as I could :)
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I don't believe the isomorphism theorems are necessary in order to prove the theorem. Your proof is the one I would use. Just because the exercise happens to appear in a section dealing with isomorphism theorems does not mean that isomorphism theorems are necessary for the proof. Now, if the exercise had specifically mentioned to use the isomorphism theorems in the proof, that would be different, but again I don't see how the isomorphism theorems would be helpful here.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I don't believe the isomorphism theorems are necessary in order to prove the theorem. Your proof is the one I would use. Just because the exercise happens to appear in a section dealing with isomorphism theorems does not mean that isomorphism theorems are necessary for the proof. Now, if the exercise had specifically mentioned to use the isomorphism theorems in the proof, that would be different, but again I don't see how the isomorphism theorems would be helpful here.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I don't believe the isomorphism theorems are necessary in order to prove the theorem. Your proof is the one I would use. Just because the exercise happens to appear in a section dealing with isomorphism theorems does not mean that isomorphism theorems are necessary for the proof. Now, if the exercise had specifically mentioned to use the isomorphism theorems in the proof, that would be different, but again I don't see how the isomorphism theorems would be helpful here.
I don't believe the isomorphism theorems are necessary in order to prove the theorem. Your proof is the one I would use. Just because the exercise happens to appear in a section dealing with isomorphism theorems does not mean that isomorphism theorems are necessary for the proof. Now, if the exercise had specifically mentioned to use the isomorphism theorems in the proof, that would be different, but again I don't see how the isomorphism theorems would be helpful here.
answered Nov 21 at 6:03
Monstrous Moonshiner
2,25511337
2,25511337
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I think there is something which is not totally clear in this proof. As for the first part, everything is ok.
In the second part, you say that since $f(x) in S^*$ then there must be $f(y) in S^*$ such that $f(x)*f(y)=1_B$. Actually I would only deduce that there is $v in S^*$ such that $f(x)*v=1_B$. And maybe I can guess your doubts about surjectivity came from here.
A way to make it more understandable (at least to me!) is the following. Let $x in f^{-1}(S^*)$, so that as you said $f(x) in S^*$. Take $y=x^{-1}$. You have to prove that $y in f^{-1}(S^*)$, i.e. $f(y) in S^*$. But $f(x)*f(y)=f(x cdot y)=f(1_A)=1_B$ so that $f(y)$ is the inverse of $f(x)$ in $B$. Since $S^*$ is a subgroup, it is close for taking inverses and we are done.
Sorry if I wrote so much, I tried to be as clear as I could :)
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
I think there is something which is not totally clear in this proof. As for the first part, everything is ok.
In the second part, you say that since $f(x) in S^*$ then there must be $f(y) in S^*$ such that $f(x)*f(y)=1_B$. Actually I would only deduce that there is $v in S^*$ such that $f(x)*v=1_B$. And maybe I can guess your doubts about surjectivity came from here.
A way to make it more understandable (at least to me!) is the following. Let $x in f^{-1}(S^*)$, so that as you said $f(x) in S^*$. Take $y=x^{-1}$. You have to prove that $y in f^{-1}(S^*)$, i.e. $f(y) in S^*$. But $f(x)*f(y)=f(x cdot y)=f(1_A)=1_B$ so that $f(y)$ is the inverse of $f(x)$ in $B$. Since $S^*$ is a subgroup, it is close for taking inverses and we are done.
Sorry if I wrote so much, I tried to be as clear as I could :)
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
I think there is something which is not totally clear in this proof. As for the first part, everything is ok.
In the second part, you say that since $f(x) in S^*$ then there must be $f(y) in S^*$ such that $f(x)*f(y)=1_B$. Actually I would only deduce that there is $v in S^*$ such that $f(x)*v=1_B$. And maybe I can guess your doubts about surjectivity came from here.
A way to make it more understandable (at least to me!) is the following. Let $x in f^{-1}(S^*)$, so that as you said $f(x) in S^*$. Take $y=x^{-1}$. You have to prove that $y in f^{-1}(S^*)$, i.e. $f(y) in S^*$. But $f(x)*f(y)=f(x cdot y)=f(1_A)=1_B$ so that $f(y)$ is the inverse of $f(x)$ in $B$. Since $S^*$ is a subgroup, it is close for taking inverses and we are done.
Sorry if I wrote so much, I tried to be as clear as I could :)
I think there is something which is not totally clear in this proof. As for the first part, everything is ok.
In the second part, you say that since $f(x) in S^*$ then there must be $f(y) in S^*$ such that $f(x)*f(y)=1_B$. Actually I would only deduce that there is $v in S^*$ such that $f(x)*v=1_B$. And maybe I can guess your doubts about surjectivity came from here.
A way to make it more understandable (at least to me!) is the following. Let $x in f^{-1}(S^*)$, so that as you said $f(x) in S^*$. Take $y=x^{-1}$. You have to prove that $y in f^{-1}(S^*)$, i.e. $f(y) in S^*$. But $f(x)*f(y)=f(x cdot y)=f(1_A)=1_B$ so that $f(y)$ is the inverse of $f(x)$ in $B$. Since $S^*$ is a subgroup, it is close for taking inverses and we are done.
Sorry if I wrote so much, I tried to be as clear as I could :)
answered Nov 22 at 1:58
Pietro Gheri
1462
1462
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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%2f3007311%2fis-there-a-nice-way-to-use-the-group-isomorphism-theorems-in-this-proof%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