11-1100-Pgadey-Lect6: Difference between revisions

From Drorbn
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:


;Theorem
;Theorem
Theorem
: 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.
: 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.


Line 11: Line 10:


; Stabilizer of a point
; Stabilizer of a point
: We write <math>Stab(x) = \{g \in G : gx = x\}</math> for the stabilizer subgroup of $x$.
: 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 <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>.
''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>.
Line 37: Line 36:
<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>
<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 <math>Q</math> 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 <math>p</math>-group has a non-trivial centre.
: Any <math>p</math>-group has a non-trivial centre.
Line 64: Line 62:
: <math>Syl_p(G) \neq \emptyset</math>
: <math>Syl_p(G) \neq \emptyset</math>


We proceed by induction on the order of <<p>>. Assume the claim holds for all groups of order less than $|G|$. <span style="color:green">[Dror: "Stare at the class equation."]</span> Since <math>|G| \equiv 0\mod\ p</math> we have either:
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| \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>.
* <math>|G| \not\equiv 0\mod\ p</math> and <math>\sum |G|/|Stab(x_i)| \not\equiv 0\mod\ p</math>.


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> <span style="color:green">[Why happens here?]</span> 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.
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 <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>.
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>.
Line 82: Line 80:
: 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>.
: 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 <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>.
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>.

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.