11-1100-Pgadey-Lect6

From Drorbn
Revision as of 15:15, 6 October 2011 by Pgadey (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Theory of Transitive -sets

Theorem
Every -set is a disjoint union of "transitive -sets"
Theorem

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 $x$.

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 quaternions -- They need a better description here.

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 $|G|$. [Dror: "Stare at the class equation."] Since we have either:

  • and .
  • and .

If then there exists such that . Thus divides . We have that [Why happens here?] 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 Failed to parse (SVG (MathML can be enabled via browser plugin): Invalid response ("Math extension cannot connect to Restbase.") from server "https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/":): {\displaystyle |P'| = p^{k-1}} . 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.