11-1100-Pgadey-Lect5
!! 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 @@color: red ; Dror's Favourite Homomorphism @@
We proceed with some unmotivated computations, @@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.]// @@
Some computations: </math> </math> (12)(23) = (123) \quad \quad (12)(34) = (123)(234) 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@@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.
- 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 </math> </math>(123)^\sigma = \left( (123)^{(12)} \right)^{\sigma'} \in N 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 .
</math> </math> \sigma= (123456)\sigma' \in N \Rightarrow \sigma^{-1} (123) \sigma (123)^{-1} = (136) \in N
The claim then follows by Lemma 2.
- //Case II//
- If 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>
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 </math> </math>\sigma = (12)(34)\sigma' \Rightarrow \sigma^{-1}(123)\sigma(123)^{-1} = (13)(24) = \tau \in N </math> </math> But then . 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. ]// @@
!! 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
</math> </math> S = \{ e, (123), (132), (124), (142), (134), (143), (234), (243)\} \subset H
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.
@@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 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.
@@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 . 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 .