11-1100-Pgadey-Lect6: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Theory of Transitive <math>G</math>-sets== |
|||
; Theorem |
; Theorem |
||
: Every <math>G</math>-set is a disjoint union of "transitive <math>G</math>-sets" |
: Every <math>G</math>-set is a disjoint union of "transitive <math>G</math>-sets" |
||
;Theorem |
;Theorem |
||
: If < |
: If <math>X</math> is a transitive <math>G</math>-set and <math>x \in X</math> then <math>X \simeq G/Stab(x)</math> where the isomorphism an isomorphism of <math>G</math>-sets. |
||
; Transitive < |
; Transitive <math>G</math>-set |
||
: A < |
: A <math>G</math>-set <math>X</math> is transitive is <math>\forall_{x,y \in X} \exists_{g \in G}\ st.\ gx = y</math>. |
||
; Stabilizer of a point |
; Stabilizer of a point |
||
: We write < |
: We write <math>Stab(x) = \{g \in G : gx = x\}</math> for the stabilizer subgroup of <math>x</math>. |
||
''Proof'' We define an equivalence relation < |
''Proof'' We define an equivalence relation <math>x \sim y \iff \exists_{g \in G} gx = y</math>. This relation is reflexive since <math>x = ex</math> and thus <math>x \sim x</math>. This relation is symmetric since <math>y = gx</math> implies <math>g^{-1}y = x</math>. This relation is transitive, since if <math>x = gy</math> and <math>y = hz</math> then <math>x = ghz</math>. It follows that <math> X = \coprod_{i \in I} Gx_{i} </math> where <math>Gx_i</math> denote the orbit of a point <math>x_i</math>. |
||
We then claim that < |
We then claim that <math>Gx_i</math> is a transitive <math>G</math>-set. <span style="color:green"> [Dror: "[This fact] is too easy."] </span> |
||
We show that < |
We show that <math>Gx</math> is isomorphic to <math>G / Stab(x)</math> as a <math>G</math>-set. |
||
We produce two morphism < |
We produce two morphism <math>\Psi : Gx \rightarrow G/Stab(x)</math> and <math>\Phi : G/Stab(x) \rightarrow Gx</math>. |
||
To define < |
To define <math>\Psi</math> there is only one thing we can do. We have <math>y \in Gx \Rightarrow y = gx</math> and then we define <math>\Psi(y) = g Stab(x)</math>. We check that this map is well defined. If <math>y = gx = g'x</math> then <math>g^{-1}g'x = x</math> and hence <math>g^{-1}g \in Stab(x)</math>. It follows that <math>gStab(x) = g'Stab(x)</math>. Thus <math>\Psi</math> is well defined. |
||
To define < |
To define <math>\Phi</math> we take <math>gStab(x) \in G/Stab(x)</math> and define <math>\Phi(gStab(x)) = gx</math>. We show that this map is well defined. If <math>gStab(x) = g'Stab(x)</math> then <math>g^{-1}g' \in Stab(x)</math> and hence <math>g^{-1}g'x = x</math>. It follows that <math>gx = g'x</math> and hence <math>\Phi</math> is well defined. |
||
We need to check that < |
We need to check that <math>\Psi</math> and <math>\Phi</math> are mutually inverse and <math>G</math>-set morphisms. We quickly check that <math>\Phi</math> is a <math>G</math>-set morphism. If <math>y = gx</math> and <math>g_1 \in G</math> then <math>g_1\Psi(y) = g_1(gStab(x)) = (g_1g)Stab(x)</math>. Similarly, <math>\Psi(g_1y) = g'Stab(x) = (g_1g)Stab(x)</math>. The last inequality follows since we can take any <math>g'</math> such that <math>g'y = g_1y</math>. Why not take <math>g' = g_1g</math> -- since we know that works. |
||
; Theorem (Orbit-Stabilizer) |
; Theorem (Orbit-Stabilizer) |
||
: If < |
: If <math>|X| < \infty</math> and <math>X = \coprod_{i \in I} Gx_i</math> then <math>|X| = \sum_{i} \frac{|G|}{Stab(x_i)}</math>. |
||
This is just a rewriting of the theorem above. |
This is just a rewriting of the theorem above. |
||
; < |
; <math>p</math>-Group |
||
: A < |
: A <math>p</math>-group is a group <math>G</math> with <math>|G| = p^k</math> for some <math>k</math>. |
||
< |
<math>G = (Z/2Z)^3, (Z/2Z) \times (Z/4Z), Z/8Z, D_8, Q = \{\pm 1, \pm i, \pm j, \pm k : i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = -1, ij = k\}</math> |
||
The last group <<Q>> is the famous ''unit quaternions'' -- They need a better description here. |
|||
The last group <math>Q</math> is the famous ''unit quaternion'' group (See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternion_group], also [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quaternions]). |
|||
; Theorem |
; Theorem |
||
: Any < |
: Any <math>p</math>-group has a non-trivial centre. |
||
Let < |
Let <math>G</math> act on itself by conjugation. Decompose <math>G = \coprod Gx_i</math>. Then, |
||
< |
<math> |G| = \sum_{|Gx_i| = 1} 1 + \sum_{|Gx_i| > 1} \frac{|G|}{|Stab(x)|} </math> |
||
Observe that < |
Observe that <math>|Gx_i|| = 1</math> iff <math>x_i \in Z(G)</math>. It follows that |
||
< |
<math> |G| = |Z(G)| + \sum_{|Gx_i| > 1} \frac{|G|}{|Stab(x)|} </math> |
||
The formula above is called ''"the class formula"''. We have that < |
The formula above is called ''"the class formula"''. We have that <math>|G| / |Stab(x)| = p^k</math> for some <math> 1 < k</math> since <math>Stab(x)</math> is a subgroup. It follows that <math>|G| \equiv 0\mod\ p</math> and <math>\sum_{|Gx_i| > 1} \frac{|G|}{|Stab(x_i)|} \equiv 0\mod\ p</math>. It follows that <math>|Z(G)| \equiv 0\mod\ p</math>. Since <math>e \in Z(G)</math> we have <math>1 \leq |Z(G)|</math> and thus <math>p \leq |Z(G)|</math>. |
||
==Sylow== |
|||
SYLOW |
|||
A prove a brief technical lemma, for fun, since we could deduce it from more high powered machinery which we don't have yet. |
A prove a brief technical lemma, for fun, since we could deduce it from more high powered machinery which we don't have yet. |
||
; Cauchy's Lemma |
; Cauchy's Lemma |
||
: If < |
: If <math>A</math> is an abelian group and <math>p</math> divides <math>|A|</math>, then there is an element of order <math>p</math> in <math>A</math>. |
||
''Proof''. Pick < |
''Proof''. Pick <math>x \in A</math>. If <math>p</math> divides the order of <math>x</math> then we have <math>x^{np} = e</math> for some <math>n</math>. It follows that <math>(x^n)^p = e</math>. We then have that the order of <math>x^n</math> is <math>p</math>. If <math>p</math> does not divide the order of <math>p</math>, then consider <math>A / <x> </math>. Since <math>A</math> is abelian, <math> <x> </math> is a normal subgroup. We have that <math>p</math> divides <math>|A/<x>|</math>, and <math>|A / <x>| < |A|</math>. We then induct. Let <math> y<x> </math> have order <math>p</math>, that is <math> (y<x>)^p = <x> </math>. We then have that <math> y^p = x^k </math> for some <math> k </math>. We write <math> |<y>| = np + r </math> where <math> 0 \leq p < r </math>. We then have <math> e = y^{|<y>|} = y^{np + r} = x^{nkp}y^r \Rightarrow y^r \in <x> </math>. It follows that <math>(y<x>)^r = <x> </math> contradicting the assumption that the order of <math> y<x> </math> is <math> p </math>. |
||
; Sylow set |
; Sylow set |
||
: If < |
: If <math>|G| = p^k m</math> for <math>m \not\equiv 0\mod\ p</math> then <math>Syl_p(G) = \{P \leq G : |P| = p^k</math>. |
||
; Sylow I |
; Sylow I |
||
: < |
: <math>Syl_p(G) \neq \emptyset</math> |
||
We proceed by induction on the |
We proceed by induction on the order of <math>p</math>. Assume the claim holds for all groups of order less than <math>|G|</math>. <span style="color:green">[Dror: "Stare at the class equation."]</span> Since <math>|G| \equiv 0\mod\ p</math> we have either: |
||
* < |
* <math>|G| \equiv 0\mod\ p</math> and <math>\sum |G|/|Stab(x_i)| \equiv 0\mod\ p</math>. |
||
* < |
* <math>|G| \not\equiv 0\mod\ p</math> and <math>\sum |G|/|Stab(x_i)| \not\equiv 0\mod\ p</math>. |
||
If < |
If <math>|Z(G)| \not\equiv 0\ \mod p</math> then there exists <math>x_i</math> such that <math>|G|/|Stab(x_i)| \not\equiv 0\mod\ p</math>. Thus <math>p^k</math> divides <math>|Stab(x_i)|</math>. We have that <math>|Stab(x_i)| < |G|</math> We then have that <math>p^k \leq Stab(x_i) < |G|</math> and by induction there is <math>|P| = p^k</math> such that <math>P \leq Stab(x_i)</math>. It follows <math>P \leq Stab(x_i) \leq G</math>. We've obtained the Sylow <math>p</math>-subgroup. |
||
WIf < |
WIf <math>|Z(G)| \equiv 0\ \mod p</math> then by Cauchy's Lemma, there is <math>x \in Z(G)</math> with <math>|<x>| = p</math>. Consider the group <math> G / <x> </math>. By the induction hypothesis there is <math> P' \leq G/<x> </math> where <math>|P'| = p^{k-1}</math>. Then, there is the canonical projection <math> \pi : G \rightarrow G/<x> </math>. By the fourth isomorphism theory <math> P = \pi^{-1}(P') \leq G </math> and <math> |\pi^{-1}(P')| = p(p^{k-1}) = p^k </math>. |
||
; Sylow 2 |
; Sylow 2 |
||
: Every Sylow < |
: Every Sylow <math>p</math>-subgroup of <math>G</math> is conjugate. Moreover, every <math>p</math>-subgroup is contained in a Sylow <math>p</math>-subgroup. |
||
; Sylow 3 |
; Sylow 3 |
||
: Let < |
: Let <math>n_p(G) = |Syl_p(G)|</math>. We have <math>n_p \equiv 0\mod\ |G|</math> and <math>n_p \equiv 1\mod\ p</math>. |
||
; A Nearly Tautological Lemma |
; A Nearly Tautological Lemma |
||
: If < |
: If <math>P \in Syl_p(G)</math> and <math>H \leq N(P)</math> is a <math>p</math>-group, then <math>H \leq P</math>. |
||
: If < |
: If <math>x \in G</math> has <math>|<x>| = p^k</math> and <math>x \in N(P)</math> then <math>x \in P</math>. |
||
<span style="color:green">[Dror: "This lemma is nearly tautological but it is only nearly tautological once you understand that it is nearly tautological." Parker: "A tautology?"] |
<span style="color:green">[Dror: "This lemma is nearly tautological but it is only nearly tautological once you understand that it is nearly tautological." Parker: "A tautology?"]</span> |
||
We show the first statement. We have that < |
We show the first statement. We have that <math>|P / P \cap H| = p^k</math> since <math>P</math> is a <math>p</math>-group. We then know that <math>PH / H \simeq P / P \cap H</math> by the second isomorphism theorem. It foolows that <math>|PH| = p^{k'}</math>. But since <math>P</math> is maximal, we have <math>P = PH</math> and thus <math>H \subseteq P</math>. The first statement implies the second by taking <math>H = <x> </math>. |
||
==Groups of Order 15== |
|||
If < |
If <math>|G| = 15</math> then <math>n_3 \equiv 0\mod\ 15</math> and <math>n_3 \equiv 1\mod\ 3</math>. These imply <math>n_3 = 1</math>. Moreover, <math>n_5 \equiv 0\mod\ 15</math> and <math>n_5 \equiv 1\mod\ 5</math>. These imply <math>n_5 = 1</math>. Thus we have <math>P_3</math> a normal <math>3</math>-subgroup. Moreover, we have <math>P_5</math> a normal <math>5</math>-subgroup. This tells us a lot about the group. |
Latest revision as of 15:22, 6 October 2011
Theory of Transitive -sets
- Theorem
- Every -set is a disjoint union of "transitive -sets"
- Theorem
- If is a transitive -set and then where the isomorphism an isomorphism of -sets.
- Transitive -set
- A -set is transitive is .
- Stabilizer of a point
- We write for the stabilizer subgroup of .
Proof We define an equivalence relation . This relation is reflexive since and thus . This relation is symmetric since implies . This relation is transitive, since if and then . It follows that where denote the orbit of a point .
We then claim that is a transitive -set. [Dror: "[This fact] is too easy."]
We show that is isomorphic to as a -set.
We produce two morphism and .
To define there is only one thing we can do. We have and then we define . We check that this map is well defined. If then and hence . It follows that . Thus is well defined.
To define we take and define . We show that this map is well defined. If then and hence . It follows that and hence is well defined.
We need to check that and are mutually inverse and -set morphisms. We quickly check that is a -set morphism. If and then . Similarly, . The last inequality follows since we can take any such that . Why not take -- since we know that works.
- Theorem (Orbit-Stabilizer)
- If and then .
This is just a rewriting of the theorem above.
- -Group
- A -group is a group with for some .
The last group is the famous unit quaternion group (See [1], also [2]).
- Theorem
- Any -group has a non-trivial centre.
Let act on itself by conjugation. Decompose . Then, Observe that iff . It follows that The formula above is called "the class formula". We have that for some since is a subgroup. It follows that and . It follows that . Since we have and thus .
Sylow
A prove a brief technical lemma, for fun, since we could deduce it from more high powered machinery which we don't have yet.
- Cauchy's Lemma
- If is an abelian group and divides , then there is an element of order in .
Proof. Pick . If divides the order of then we have for some . It follows that . We then have that the order of is . If does not divide the order of , then consider . Since is abelian, is a normal subgroup. We have that divides , and . We then induct. Let have order , that is . We then have that for some . We write where . We then have . It follows that contradicting the assumption that the order of is .
- Sylow set
- If for then .
- Sylow I
We proceed by induction on the order of . Assume the claim holds for all groups of order less than . [Dror: "Stare at the class equation."] Since we have either:
- and .
- and .
If then there exists such that . Thus divides . We have that We then have that and by induction there is such that . It follows . We've obtained the Sylow -subgroup.
WIf then by Cauchy's Lemma, there is with . Consider the group . By the induction hypothesis there is where . Then, there is the canonical projection . By the fourth isomorphism theory and .
- Sylow 2
- Every Sylow -subgroup of is conjugate. Moreover, every -subgroup is contained in a Sylow -subgroup.
- Sylow 3
- Let . We have and .
- A Nearly Tautological Lemma
- If and is a -group, then .
- If has and then .
[Dror: "This lemma is nearly tautological but it is only nearly tautological once you understand that it is nearly tautological." Parker: "A tautology?"]
We show the first statement. We have that since is a -group. We then know that by the second isomorphism theorem. It foolows that . But since is maximal, we have and thus . The first statement implies the second by taking .
Groups of Order 15
If then and . These imply . Moreover, and . These imply . Thus we have a normal -subgroup. Moreover, we have a normal -subgroup. This tells us a lot about the group.