11-1100-Pgadey-Lect5: Difference between revisions

From Drorbn
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:


For <math>n = 4 </math> we have <span style="color:red">Dror's Favourite Homomorphism </span>
For <math>n = 4 </math> we have <span style="color:red">Dror's Favourite Homomorphism </span>

<span style="color:green">[This proof is not a deep conceptual proof. It is the product of a lot of playing around with cycles, and generators. This is much like a solution to the Rubik's cube, it naturally arises from a lot of playing around -- but is not conceptually deep at all.]</span>


We proceed with some unmotivated computations,
We proceed with some unmotivated computations,
<pre> //[ This proof is not a deep conceptual proof. It is the product of a lot of playing around with cycles, and generators. This is much like a solution to the Rubik's cube, it naturally arises from a lot of playing around -- but is not conceptually deep at all.]// </pre>


Some computations:
Some computations:
</math> </math> (12)(23) = (123) \quad \quad (12)(34) = (123)(234) <math> </math>
</math>(12)(23) = (123) \quad \quad (12)(34) = (123)(234)</math>
These are the main ingredients of the proof
These are the main ingredients of the proof


; Lemma 1
; Lemma 1
: <math>A_n </math> is generated by three cycles in <math>S_n </math>. That is, <math>A_n = \langle \{ (ijk) \in S_n \} \rangle </math>.
: <math>A_n</math> is generated by three cycles in <math>S_n</math>. That is, <math>A_n = \langle \{ (ijk) \in S_n \} \rangle</math>.


We have that each element of <math>A_n </math> is the product of an even number of transpositions@@color:green ; (braid diagrams, computation with polynomials, etc)@@. But we can replace a pair of 2-cycles with one or two 3-cycles by the computation above. It follows that any element of the alternating group can be rewritten as a product of 3-cycles.
We have that each element of <math>A_n </math> is the product of an even number of transpositions <span style="color:green">(braid diagrams, computation with polynomials, etc)</span>. But we can replace a pair of 2-cycles with one or two 3-cycles by the computation above. It follows that any element of the alternating group can be rewritten as a product of 3-cycles.


; Lemma 2
; Lemma 2
: If <math>N \triangleleft A_n </math> contains a 3-cycle then <math>N=A_n </math>.
: If <math>N \triangleleft A_n</math> contains a 3-cycle then <math>N=A_n</math>.
Up to changing notation, we have that <math>(123) \in N </math>. We show that <math>(123)^\sigma \in N </math> for any <math>\sigma \in S_n </math>. By normality, we have this for <math>\sigma \in A_n </math>. If <math>\sigma \not\in A_n </math> we can write <math>\sigma = (12)\sigma' </math> for <math>\sigma \in A_n </math>. But then <math>(123)^{(12)} = (123)^2 </math> and thus
Up to changing notation, we have that <math>(123) \in N</math>. We show that <math>(123)^\sigma \in N</math> for any <math>\sigma \in S_n</math>. By normality, we have this for <math>\sigma \in A_n</math>. If <math>\sigma \not\in A_n</math> we can write <math>\sigma = (12)\sigma'</math> for <math>\sigma \in A_n</math>. But then <math>(123)^{(12)} = (123)^2</math> and thus
</math> </math>(123)^\sigma = \left( (123)^{(12)} \right)^{\sigma'} \in N <math> </math>
<math> (123)^\sigma = \left( (123)^{(12)} \right)^{\sigma'} \in N</math>
Since all 3-cycles are conjugate to <math>(123) </math> we have that all 3-cycles are in <math>N </math>. It follows by Lemma 1 that <math>N = A_n </math>.
Since all 3-cycles are conjugate to <math>(123)</math> we have that all 3-cycles are in <math>N</math>. It follows by Lemma 1 that <math>N = A_n</math>.


;//Case I//
;''Case I''
: <math>N </math> contains a cycle of length <math>\geq 4 </math>.
: <math>N</math> contains a cycle of length <math>\geq 4</math>.
</math> </math> \sigma= (123456)\sigma' \in N \Rightarrow \sigma^{-1} (123) \sigma (123)^{-1} = (136) \in N <math> </math>
<math> \sigma= (123456)\sigma' \in N \Rightarrow \sigma^{-1} (123) \sigma (123)^{-1} = (136) \in N </math>
The claim then follows by Lemma 2.
The claim then follows by Lemma 2.


;//Case II//
;''Case II''
: If <math>N </math> contains an with two cycles of length 3.
: If <math>N </math> contains an with two cycles of length 3.
</math> </math> \sigma = (123)(456) \sigma' \in N \Rightarrow \sigma^{-1}(124)\sigma(124)^{-1} = (14263) \in N </math> </math>
<math> \sigma = (123)(456) \sigma' \in N \Rightarrow \sigma^{-1}(124)\sigma(124)^{-1} = (14263) \in N </math>
The claim then follows by //Case I//.
The claim then follows by ''Case I''.


;//Case III//
;''Case III''
: If <math>N </math> contains <math>\sigma = (123)(\textrm{a product of disjoint 2-cycles}) </math>
: If <math>N </math> contains <math>\sigma = (123)(\textrm{a product of disjoint 2-cycles}) </math>
We have that <math>\sigma^2 = (132) \in N </math>. The claim then follows by Lemma 1.
We have that <math>\sigma^2 = (132) \in N </math>. The claim then follows by Lemma 1.


;//Case IV//
;''Case IV''
: If every element of <math>N </math> is a product of disjoint 2-cycles.
: If every element of <math>N </math> is a product of disjoint 2-cycles.
We have that
We have that
</math> </math>\sigma = (12)(34)\sigma' \Rightarrow \sigma^{-1}(123)\sigma(123)^{-1} = (13)(24) = \tau \in N </math> </math>
<math> \sigma = (12)(34)\sigma' \Rightarrow \sigma^{-1}(123)\sigma(123)^{-1} = (13)(24) = \tau \in N </math>
But then <math>\tau^{-1}(125)\tau(125)^{-1} = (13452) \in N </math>.
But then <math>\tau^{-1}(125)\tau(125)^{-1} = (13452) \in N </math>.
The claim then follows by Case 1.
The claim then follows by Case 1.


@@color:green ; //[Note: This last case is the _only_ place where we really use this mystical fifth element. Without it, this last step wouldn't go through. ]// @@
<span style="color:green">[Note: This last case is the _only_ place where we really use this mystical fifth element. Without it, this last step wouldn't go through. </span>


!! Throwback: <math>S_4 </math> contains no normal <math>H </math> such that <math>H \simeq S_3 </math>.
!! Throwback: <math>S_4 </math> contains no normal <math>H </math> such that <math>H \simeq S_3 </math>.
Line 56: Line 57:
//[ Suppose that <math>(123) \in H </math>, then
//[ Suppose that <math>(123) \in H </math>, then


</math> </math> S = \{ e, (123), (132), (124), (142), (134), (143), (234), (243)\} \subset H <math> </math>
<math> S = \{ e, (123), (132), (124), (142), (134), (143), (234), (243)\} \subset H </math>
Which implies that <math>|S_3| = 6 < 9 \leq |H| </math>, but since <math>H \simeq S_3 </math> we have <math>|H| = |S_3| </math>, a contradiction.]//
Which implies that <math>|S_3| = 6 < 9 \leq |H| </math>, but since <math>H \simeq S_3 </math> we have <math>|H| = |S_3| </math>, a contradiction.]//


Line 78: Line 79:
: Show that <math>S_n </math> acting on <math>\{1, 2, \dots, n\} </math> and <math>S_n / S_{n-1} </math> are isomorphic <math>S_n </math>-sets.
: Show that <math>S_n </math> acting on <math>\{1, 2, \dots, n\} </math> and <math>S_n / S_{n-1} </math> are isomorphic <math>S_n </math>-sets.


@@color:green ; //[Dror violently resists rigorously defining a category. Gives a little speech about "things" and "arrows". Gives an example of taking a topological space <math>T </math> and then looking at the space of paths with identities given by staying still, and composition of paths given by concatenation.]//@@
<span style="color:green">[Dror violently resists rigorously defining a category. Gives a little speech about "things" and "arrows". Gives an example of taking a topological space <math>T </math> and then looking at the space of paths with identities given by staying still, and composition of paths given by concatenation.]</span>


; Claim
; Claim
: Left <math>G </math>-sets form a category.
: Left <math>G </math>-sets form a category.

@@color:green ; //[Dror: I'm being a little bit biased. I prefer the left over the right. Parker: Propaganda? ]//@@


The objects of the category are actions <math>G \times X \rightarrow X </math>. The morphisms, if we have <math>X </math> and <math>Y </math> are <math>G </math>-sets, a morphism of <math>G </math>-sets is a function <math>\gamma : X \rightarrow Y </math> such that <math>\gamma(gx) = g(\gamma(x)) </math>.
The objects of the category are actions <math>G \times X \rightarrow X </math>. The morphisms, if we have <math>X </math> and <math>Y </math> are <math>G </math>-sets, a morphism of <math>G </math>-sets is a function <math>\gamma : X \rightarrow Y </math> such that <math>\gamma(gx) = g(\gamma(x)) </math>.

Revision as of 20:59, 4 October 2011

!! Simplicity of .

Claim
is simple for .

For we have that which is simple. For we have that , and once again . For we have that which is of prime order, and hence has no proper subgroups (by Lagrange). It follows that it has no normal proper subgroups.

For we have Dror's Favourite Homomorphism

[This proof is not a deep conceptual proof. It is the product of a lot of playing around with cycles, and generators. This is much like a solution to the Rubik's cube, it naturally arises from a lot of playing around -- but is not conceptually deep at all.]

We proceed with some unmotivated computations,

Some computations: </math>(12)(23) = (123) \quad \quad (12)(34) = (123)(234)</math> These are the main ingredients of the proof

Lemma 1
is generated by three cycles in . That is, .

We have that each element of is the product of an even number of transpositions (braid diagrams, computation with polynomials, etc). But we can replace a pair of 2-cycles with one or two 3-cycles by the computation above. It follows that any element of the alternating group can be rewritten as a product of 3-cycles.

Lemma 2
If contains a 3-cycle then .

Up to changing notation, we have that . We show that for any . By normality, we have this for . If we can write for . But then and thus Since all 3-cycles are conjugate to we have that all 3-cycles are in . It follows by Lemma 1 that .

Case I
contains a cycle of length .

The claim then follows by Lemma 2.

Case II
If contains an with two cycles of length 3.

The claim then follows by Case I.

Case III
If contains

We have that . The claim then follows by Lemma 1.

Case IV
If every element of is a product of disjoint 2-cycles.

We have that But then . The claim then follows by Case 1.

[Note: This last case is the _only_ place where we really use this mystical fifth element. Without it, this last step wouldn't go through.

!! Throwback: contains no normal such that .

</math>S_3 </math> has an element of order three, therefore  does. We then conjugate to get all the three cycles. Then  is too big.

//[ Suppose that , then


Which implies that , but since we have , a contradiction.]//

!!Group Actions.

A group acting on a set

A left (resp. right) group action of on is a binary map denotes by satisfying:

  • (resp. )
  • (resp )
  • [The above implies and .]

!! Examples of group actions

  • acting on itself by conjugation (a right action).
  • Let be the set of bijections from to , with group structure given by composition. We then have an -action of given

@@color:green ; //[Where does the shirt come into the business?! ]// @@

  • If is a group where is the underlying set of and is the group multiplication. We have an action: this gives a map .
  • is the group of orientation preserving symmetries of the -dimensional sphere. We have that as the subgroup of rotations that fix the north and south pole. There is a map given by looking at the image of the north pole.
  • If which may not be normal, then we have an action of on given by .
  • We have and .
Exercise
Show that acting on and are isomorphic -sets.

[Dror violently resists rigorously defining a category. Gives a little speech about "things" and "arrows". Gives an example of taking a topological space and then looking at the space of paths with identities given by staying still, and composition of paths given by concatenation.]

Claim
Left -sets form a category.

The objects of the category are actions . The morphisms, if we have and are -sets, a morphism of -sets is a function such that .

Isomorphism of -sets
An isomorphism of -sets is a morphism which is bijective.
Silly fact
If and are -sets then so is , the disjoint union of the two.

the next statement combines the silly observation above, with the construction of an action of on .

Claim
Any -set is a disjoint unions of the ``transitive -sets. And If is a transitive -set, then for some .