4

Here is the context for this problem.

Let $A$ be a group, $A' \subset A$ a subgroup, and define $\sim^{l}$ and $\sim^r$, the left and right relations, respectively, on $A$ with respect to $A'$ by declaring $a \sim^{l} b$ if there exists $a' \in A'$ such that $b = a' a$ and $a \sim^{r} b$ if there exists $a'' \in A'$ such that $b = a a''$.

I proved that $A'$ is normal in $A$ if and only if $\sim^{l}$ and $\sim^{r}$ coincide. . If $A'$ is normal, then the left and right quotient sets are equal (though, as I understand, it is not the case that every element commutes; using more familar notation, if $H \leq G$ is a subgroup, then $gH = Hg$ for all $g \in G$, but it is not the case that given $h \in H$, $gh = hg$ for all $g \in G$.)

Finally, given a group $A$, let $\pi: A \to A/{\sim}$ be the canonical projection $a \mapsto \overline{a}$, where $\overline{a}$ is the coset containing $a$.

I am trying to prove the following theorem.

If $A'$ is a normal subgroup of $A$, the set $A/A'$ has a unique group structure for which the map $\pi: A \to A/A'$ is a group homomorphism.

The hint suggests that I use the same idea as in the proof of the following theorem:

Let $X$ be a set with an equivalence relation $\sim$. Let $\phi: X \to Y$ be a map of sets such that $x_1 \sim x_2$ implies $\phi(x_1) = \phi(x_2)$. Then there exists a uniquely defined map $\tilde{\phi}: X/{\sim} \to Y$ such that $\phi = \tilde{\phi} \circ \pi$.

I mention this result because the attempt that I have in mind does not proceed similarly to this proof. Here is what I had in mind.

(Attempt) Let $A' \subset A$ be normal, $\pi: A \to A/{\sim}$ the canonical quotient map. Suppose that we have defined a group structure on $A/{\sim}$ such that $\pi$ is a group homomorphism. Let $\bullet$ denote the group operation on $A$ and $\star$ denote the group operation on $A/{\sim}$. Then for any $a,b \in A$, we have $$ \pi(a \bullet b) = \pi(a) \star \pi(b), $$ so $$ \overline{a \bullet b} = \overline{a} \star \overline{b}. $$ So the group operation $\star$ must send the product of two cosets $\overline{a}$ and $\overline{b}$ to the coset of the product $a \bullet b$, where $a \bullet b$ is some element of $A$.

I assumed that there is in fact such a group structure, but I believe I also need to show that this actually gives rise to a group.

Closure. If $\overline{a}, \overline{b} \in A/{\sim}$, then $\overline{a} \star \overline{b} = \overline{a \bullet b} \in A/{\sim}$ since $a \bullet b \in A$.

Having shown that this is in fact a binary operation, I'm going to drop explicit mention of $\star$ and $\bullet$ going forward.

Associativity. Let $\overline{a}, \overline{b}, \overline{c} \in A/{\sim}$. Then we have: $$ (\overline{a} \overline{b})(\overline{c}) = \overline{ab} \overline{c} = \overline{(ab)c} = \overline{a(bc)} = \overline{a} \overline{bc} = \overline{a} (\overline{b} \overline{c}), $$ wherein we have used associativity in the group $A$.

Identity Let $e$ denote the identity in the group $A$. I claim that the coset $\overline{e}$ is the identity element we seek for $A/{\sim}$. Let $\overline{a} \in A/{\sim}$. Then $$ \overline{a} \overline{e} = \overline{ae} = \overline{a} $$ and $$ \overline{e} \overline{a} = \overline{ea} = \overline{a}, $$ so $\overline{e}$ is the desired identity element.

Inverses. Given $\overline{a} \in A/{\sim}$, $a \in A$, so $a^{-1} \in A$. Then $\overline{a^{-1}} \in A/{\sim}$. I claim that $\overline{a^{-1}} = (\overline{a})^{-1}$. We have: $$ \overline{a} \overline{a^{-1}} = \overline{aa^{-1}} = \overline{e} $$ and $$ \overline{a^{-1}} \overline{a} = \overline{a^{-1} a} = \overline{e}. $$ Therefore, $A/{\sim}$ with the proposed operation is a group.

How does this proof look?

Brad G.
  • 2,238
  • 1
    Once you are done working through these, you may want to take a look at this answer. – Arturo Magidin Dec 14 '21 at 18:41
  • 1
    I think it looks right, but I would put existence before uniqueness. – Arturo Magidin Dec 14 '21 at 18:42
  • @ArturoMagidin It's my understanding based on that link that I should prove that the binary operation of coset multiplication is actually well-defined, right? Otherwise, I can't even check whether it's a binary operation. – Brad G. Dec 14 '21 at 18:52
  • 1
    Whenever you're dealing with operations on equivalences classes, where you define the operation with respect to specific members of the classes (which is what you're doing here), you need to start by proving that your operation is well defined. In other words, you need to prove that if $a \sim a'$ and $b \sim b'$, then $\overline a \star \overline b =\overline {a'} \star \overline {b'}$. – Robert Shore Dec 14 '21 at 18:57
  • 1
    Well, yes; I assumed you already knew that, as it follows from the identity of the two relations: if $xA'=rA'$ and $yA' = sA'$, then $(xy)A' = x(yA') = x(sA') = x(A's) = (xA')s = (rA')s = (A'r)s = A'(rs) = (rs)A'$, since $zA'=A'z$ is the equivalence class of $z$ under the relations. – Arturo Magidin Dec 14 '21 at 18:58
  • 1
    Proper MathJax and LaTeX usage is $A/{\sim}$ rather than $A/\sim.$ Notice the conspicuous typographical difference. The former is coded as A/{\sim}. The software was designed to work that way for obvious reasons. – Michael Hardy Dec 14 '21 at 19:02
  • @ArturoMagidin The proof of well-definedness makes perfect sense to me with the notation you used, but I'm struggling to prove it with the "bar" notation in the lecture notes I'm using. Is there a way to do it, or do I need to rewrite a coset as, say, $aA'$ or $A' a$? – Brad G. Dec 15 '21 at 00:53
  • 1
    $\overline{x}=\overline{y}\iff xA'=yA'\iff x\sim^ry\iff x\sim^ly\iff x\sim y$. What you need to do is show that if $x\sim r$ and $y\sim s$, then $xy\sim rs$. This follows: there exists $a'\in A$ such that $a'r=x$, and there exists $b'\in A'$ such that $sb'=y$. So $xy =a'rsb'$, hence $xy\sim^l rsb'\sim^r rs$. – Arturo Magidin Dec 15 '21 at 01:33
  • @ArturoMagidin So you've defined a relation $\sim$ by $a \sim b$ if and only if $a \sim^{l} b$ and $a \sim^{r} b$? If so, this makes complete sense. Thanks for all your help. – Brad G. Dec 15 '21 at 03:01
  • 1
    @BradG.: It stands for either one, since you already proved they are equivalent. – Arturo Magidin Dec 15 '21 at 04:01

0 Answers0