Let $left{ H_i | i in Iright}$ be a family of subgroups of G. State and prove a condition which makes $cup_{i...
$begingroup$
Let $G$ be a group and $left{ H_i | i in Iright}$ be a family of subgroups of G. State and prove a condition which makes $cup_{i in I} H_{i}$ a subgroup of $G$, that is that $cup _{i in I} H_{i} = left< cup_{i in I} H_{i} right>$.
To show that $cup _{i in I} H_{i} subseteq left< cup _{i in I} H_{i} right>$, it seems that I have to show that $cup _{i in I} H_{i}$ is a subgroup of G. Since $left< cup _{i in I} H_{i} right>$ is a collection of subgroups of G that contain $cup _{i in I} H_{i}$ as a subset, I would have the first inclusion proven and quite possibly get the second inclusion for free.
However, I am having a hard time on how to prove $cup _{i in I} H_{i}$ is a subgroup of $G$. The only way this could happen is the collection of subgroups ${ H_{i} | i in I}$ is a chain.
Is there another way to show that $cup _{i in I} H_{i}$ is a subgroup of $G$?
Am I thinking about this the right way?
abstract-algebra group-theory alternative-proof cyclic-groups
edited Feb 12 at 14:41
rschwieb
107k12102251
$endgroup$
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Let $G$ be a group and $left{ H_i | i in Iright}$ be a family of subgroups of G. State and prove a condition which makes $cup_{i in I} H_{i}$ a subgroup of $G$, that is that $cup _{i in I} H_{i} = left< cup_{i in I} H_{i} right>$.
To show that $cup _{i in I} H_{i} subseteq left< cup _{i in I} H_{i} right>$, it seems that I have to show that $cup _{i in I} H_{i}$ is a subgroup of G. Since $left< cup _{i in I} H_{i} right>$ is a collection of subgroups of G that contain $cup _{i in I} H_{i}$ as a subset, I would have the first inclusion proven and quite possibly get the second inclusion for free.
However, I am having a hard time on how to prove $cup _{i in I} H_{i}$ is a subgroup of $G$. The only way this could happen is the collection of subgroups ${ H_{i} | i in I}$ is a chain.
Is there another way to show that $cup _{i in I} H_{i}$ is a subgroup of $G$?
Am I thinking about this the right way?
abstract-algebra group-theory alternative-proof cyclic-groups
edited Feb 12 at 14:41
rschwieb
107k12102251
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes, you are right that chaining is the only way this can happen. Try first just thinking about two subgroups $H_1$ and $H_2$. The way you wrote your reasoning though is very convoluted and confusing. I'll just say that $cup _{i in I} H_{i} subseteq left< cup _{i in I} H_{i} right>$ is the trivial direction. You want to show that anything in the generated subgroup is already in the union, i.e. the reverse direction.
$endgroup$
– zoidberg
Dec 24 '18 at 5:21
$begingroup$
@norfair although chaining surely gives a positive result, we only need the $H_i$ to be 'directed' in some sense. For example, if for all $i,j$ we have $k$ with $H_i,H_j subset H_k$, this is enough to prove that the union is closed with respect to multiplication, and weaker than having a partial order with respect to inclusion.
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Dec 24 '18 at 5:30
$begingroup$
Yes, my mistake. It doesn't have to be a total ordering. I'm confused why you say it's weaker than partial order though. Isn't that exactly the characterization?
$endgroup$
– zoidberg
Dec 24 '18 at 5:35
$begingroup$
@norfair My bad. I meant to say that 'directedness' suffices but we get anti-symmetry for free as the order in defined by inclusion, which is a partial order on $mathcal{P}G$ and it is weaker than having a total order (i.e. a chain).
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Dec 24 '18 at 5:38
$begingroup$
@norfair note that however it is not enough for the groups to be partially ordered. Even if we take two groups $H_1, H_2$ , it may very well be that $H_1 cup H_2$ is not a subgroup.
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Dec 24 '18 at 5:40
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Let $G$ be a group and $left{ H_i | i in Iright}$ be a family of subgroups of G. State and prove a condition which makes $cup_{i in I} H_{i}$ a subgroup of $G$, that is that $cup _{i in I} H_{i} = left< cup_{i in I} H_{i} right>$.
To show that $cup _{i in I} H_{i} subseteq left< cup _{i in I} H_{i} right>$, it seems that I have to show that $cup _{i in I} H_{i}$ is a subgroup of G. Since $left< cup _{i in I} H_{i} right>$ is a collection of subgroups of G that contain $cup _{i in I} H_{i}$ as a subset, I would have the first inclusion proven and quite possibly get the second inclusion for free.
However, I am having a hard time on how to prove $cup _{i in I} H_{i}$ is a subgroup of $G$. The only way this could happen is the collection of subgroups ${ H_{i} | i in I}$ is a chain.
Is there another way to show that $cup _{i in I} H_{i}$ is a subgroup of $G$?
Am I thinking about this the right way?
abstract-algebra group-theory alternative-proof cyclic-groups
edited Feb 12 at 14:41
rschwieb
107k12102251
$endgroup$
Let $G$ be a group and $left{ H_i | i in Iright}$ be a family of subgroups of G. State and prove a condition which makes $cup_{i in I} H_{i}$ a subgroup of $G$, that is that $cup _{i in I} H_{i} = left< cup_{i in I} H_{i} right>$.
To show that $cup _{i in I} H_{i} subseteq left< cup _{i in I} H_{i} right>$, it seems that I have to show that $cup _{i in I} H_{i}$ is a subgroup of G. Since $left< cup _{i in I} H_{i} right>$ is a collection of subgroups of G that contain $cup _{i in I} H_{i}$ as a subset, I would have the first inclusion proven and quite possibly get the second inclusion for free.
However, I am having a hard time on how to prove $cup _{i in I} H_{i}$ is a subgroup of $G$. The only way this could happen is the collection of subgroups ${ H_{i} | i in I}$ is a chain.
Is there another way to show that $cup _{i in I} H_{i}$ is a subgroup of $G$?
Am I thinking about this the right way?
abstract-algebra group-theory alternative-proof cyclic-groups
abstract-algebra group-theory alternative-proof cyclic-groups
edited Feb 12 at 14:41
rschwieb
107k12102251
edited Feb 12 at 14:41
rschwieb
107k12102251
edited Feb 12 at 14:41
rschwieb
107k12102251
edited Feb 12 at 14:41
rschwieb
107k12102251
edited Feb 12 at 14:41
rschwieb
107k12102251
107k12102251
asked Dec 24 '18 at 4:52
user586464
$begingroup$
Yes, you are right that chaining is the only way this can happen. Try first just thinking about two subgroups $H_1$ and $H_2$. The way you wrote your reasoning though is very convoluted and confusing. I'll just say that $cup _{i in I} H_{i} subseteq left< cup _{i in I} H_{i} right>$ is the trivial direction. You want to show that anything in the generated subgroup is already in the union, i.e. the reverse direction.
$endgroup$
– zoidberg
Dec 24 '18 at 5:21
$begingroup$
@norfair although chaining surely gives a positive result, we only need the $H_i$ to be 'directed' in some sense. For example, if for all $i,j$ we have $k$ with $H_i,H_j subset H_k$, this is enough to prove that the union is closed with respect to multiplication, and weaker than having a partial order with respect to inclusion.
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Dec 24 '18 at 5:30
$begingroup$
Yes, my mistake. It doesn't have to be a total ordering. I'm confused why you say it's weaker than partial order though. Isn't that exactly the characterization?
$endgroup$
– zoidberg
Dec 24 '18 at 5:35
$begingroup$
@norfair My bad. I meant to say that 'directedness' suffices but we get anti-symmetry for free as the order in defined by inclusion, which is a partial order on $mathcal{P}G$ and it is weaker than having a total order (i.e. a chain).
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Dec 24 '18 at 5:38
$begingroup$
@norfair note that however it is not enough for the groups to be partially ordered. Even if we take two groups $H_1, H_2$ , it may very well be that $H_1 cup H_2$ is not a subgroup.
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Dec 24 '18 at 5:40
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Yes, you are right that chaining is the only way this can happen. Try first just thinking about two subgroups $H_1$ and $H_2$. The way you wrote your reasoning though is very convoluted and confusing. I'll just say that $cup _{i in I} H_{i} subseteq left< cup _{i in I} H_{i} right>$ is the trivial direction. You want to show that anything in the generated subgroup is already in the union, i.e. the reverse direction.
$endgroup$
– zoidberg
Dec 24 '18 at 5:21
$begingroup$
@norfair although chaining surely gives a positive result, we only need the $H_i$ to be 'directed' in some sense. For example, if for all $i,j$ we have $k$ with $H_i,H_j subset H_k$, this is enough to prove that the union is closed with respect to multiplication, and weaker than having a partial order with respect to inclusion.
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Dec 24 '18 at 5:30
$begingroup$
Yes, my mistake. It doesn't have to be a total ordering. I'm confused why you say it's weaker than partial order though. Isn't that exactly the characterization?
$endgroup$
– zoidberg
Dec 24 '18 at 5:35
$begingroup$
@norfair My bad. I meant to say that 'directedness' suffices but we get anti-symmetry for free as the order in defined by inclusion, which is a partial order on $mathcal{P}G$ and it is weaker than having a total order (i.e. a chain).
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Dec 24 '18 at 5:38
$begingroup$
@norfair note that however it is not enough for the groups to be partially ordered. Even if we take two groups $H_1, H_2$ , it may very well be that $H_1 cup H_2$ is not a subgroup.
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Dec 24 '18 at 5:40
$begingroup$
Yes, you are right that chaining is the only way this can happen. Try first just thinking about two subgroups $H_1$ and $H_2$. The way you wrote your reasoning though is very convoluted and confusing. I'll just say that $cup _{i in I} H_{i} subseteq left< cup _{i in I} H_{i} right>$ is the trivial direction. You want to show that anything in the generated subgroup is already in the union, i.e. the reverse direction.
$endgroup$
– zoidberg
Dec 24 '18 at 5:21
$begingroup$
Yes, you are right that chaining is the only way this can happen. Try first just thinking about two subgroups $H_1$ and $H_2$. The way you wrote your reasoning though is very convoluted and confusing. I'll just say that $cup _{i in I} H_{i} subseteq left< cup _{i in I} H_{i} right>$ is the trivial direction. You want to show that anything in the generated subgroup is already in the union, i.e. the reverse direction.
$endgroup$
– zoidberg
Dec 24 '18 at 5:21
$begingroup$
@norfair although chaining surely gives a positive result, we only need the $H_i$ to be 'directed' in some sense. For example, if for all $i,j$ we have $k$ with $H_i,H_j subset H_k$, this is enough to prove that the union is closed with respect to multiplication, and weaker than having a partial order with respect to inclusion.
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Dec 24 '18 at 5:30
$begingroup$
@norfair although chaining surely gives a positive result, we only need the $H_i$ to be 'directed' in some sense. For example, if for all $i,j$ we have $k$ with $H_i,H_j subset H_k$, this is enough to prove that the union is closed with respect to multiplication, and weaker than having a partial order with respect to inclusion.
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Dec 24 '18 at 5:30
$begingroup$
Yes, my mistake. It doesn't have to be a total ordering. I'm confused why you say it's weaker than partial order though. Isn't that exactly the characterization?
$endgroup$
– zoidberg
Dec 24 '18 at 5:35
$begingroup$
Yes, my mistake. It doesn't have to be a total ordering. I'm confused why you say it's weaker than partial order though. Isn't that exactly the characterization?
$endgroup$
– zoidberg
Dec 24 '18 at 5:35
$begingroup$
@norfair My bad. I meant to say that 'directedness' suffices but we get anti-symmetry for free as the order in defined by inclusion, which is a partial order on $mathcal{P}G$ and it is weaker than having a total order (i.e. a chain).
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Dec 24 '18 at 5:38
$begingroup$
@norfair My bad. I meant to say that 'directedness' suffices but we get anti-symmetry for free as the order in defined by inclusion, which is a partial order on $mathcal{P}G$ and it is weaker than having a total order (i.e. a chain).
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Dec 24 '18 at 5:38
$begingroup$
@norfair note that however it is not enough for the groups to be partially ordered. Even if we take two groups $H_1, H_2$ , it may very well be that $H_1 cup H_2$ is not a subgroup.
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Dec 24 '18 at 5:40
$begingroup$
@norfair note that however it is not enough for the groups to be partially ordered. Even if we take two groups $H_1, H_2$ , it may very well be that $H_1 cup H_2$ is not a subgroup.
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Dec 24 '18 at 5:40
|
show 6 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
As stated, it seems like the condition is of your choosing. You are on the right track when thinking about a collection of 'chained' groups. I would advise you to try and prove this for a countable collection $G_1 subset G_2 dots$. This could lead you to stronger results which only use the essentials of the previous proof.
A sketch of a possible generalization is below,
Suppose that $(H_i)_{i in I}$ is such that for each $g in H_i, g' in H_j$ there exists $k in I$ with $g,g' in H_k$. Then, the set $H = bigcup_{i in I} H_i$ is a subgroup of $G$: clearly we have that $1 in G$; and if $g in H_i subset H$, then $g^{-1} in H_i subset H$. So far we have used no assumptions. Now, take $g,g' in H$. Hence there exist $i,j in I$ with $g in H_i$ and $g in H_j$. By hypothesis we have $k in I$ with $g,g' in H_k$ and so $gg' in H_k subset H square$.
answered Dec 24 '18 at 5:20
Guido A.Guido A.
7,8701730
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3050948%2flet-left-h-i-i-in-i-right-be-a-family-of-subgroups-of-g-state-and-pro%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
As stated, it seems like the condition is of your choosing. You are on the right track when thinking about a collection of 'chained' groups. I would advise you to try and prove this for a countable collection $G_1 subset G_2 dots$. This could lead you to stronger results which only use the essentials of the previous proof.
A sketch of a possible generalization is below,
Suppose that $(H_i)_{i in I}$ is such that for each $g in H_i, g' in H_j$ there exists $k in I$ with $g,g' in H_k$. Then, the set $H = bigcup_{i in I} H_i$ is a subgroup of $G$: clearly we have that $1 in G$; and if $g in H_i subset H$, then $g^{-1} in H_i subset H$. So far we have used no assumptions. Now, take $g,g' in H$. Hence there exist $i,j in I$ with $g in H_i$ and $g in H_j$. By hypothesis we have $k in I$ with $g,g' in H_k$ and so $gg' in H_k subset H square$.
answered Dec 24 '18 at 5:20
Guido A.Guido A.
7,8701730
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As stated, it seems like the condition is of your choosing. You are on the right track when thinking about a collection of 'chained' groups. I would advise you to try and prove this for a countable collection $G_1 subset G_2 dots$. This could lead you to stronger results which only use the essentials of the previous proof.
A sketch of a possible generalization is below,
Suppose that $(H_i)_{i in I}$ is such that for each $g in H_i, g' in H_j$ there exists $k in I$ with $g,g' in H_k$. Then, the set $H = bigcup_{i in I} H_i$ is a subgroup of $G$: clearly we have that $1 in G$; and if $g in H_i subset H$, then $g^{-1} in H_i subset H$. So far we have used no assumptions. Now, take $g,g' in H$. Hence there exist $i,j in I$ with $g in H_i$ and $g in H_j$. By hypothesis we have $k in I$ with $g,g' in H_k$ and so $gg' in H_k subset H square$.
answered Dec 24 '18 at 5:20
Guido A.Guido A.
7,8701730
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As stated, it seems like the condition is of your choosing. You are on the right track when thinking about a collection of 'chained' groups. I would advise you to try and prove this for a countable collection $G_1 subset G_2 dots$. This could lead you to stronger results which only use the essentials of the previous proof.
A sketch of a possible generalization is below,
Suppose that $(H_i)_{i in I}$ is such that for each $g in H_i, g' in H_j$ there exists $k in I$ with $g,g' in H_k$. Then, the set $H = bigcup_{i in I} H_i$ is a subgroup of $G$: clearly we have that $1 in G$; and if $g in H_i subset H$, then $g^{-1} in H_i subset H$. So far we have used no assumptions. Now, take $g,g' in H$. Hence there exist $i,j in I$ with $g in H_i$ and $g in H_j$. By hypothesis we have $k in I$ with $g,g' in H_k$ and so $gg' in H_k subset H square$.
answered Dec 24 '18 at 5:20
Guido A.Guido A.
7,8701730
$endgroup$
As stated, it seems like the condition is of your choosing. You are on the right track when thinking about a collection of 'chained' groups. I would advise you to try and prove this for a countable collection $G_1 subset G_2 dots$. This could lead you to stronger results which only use the essentials of the previous proof.
A sketch of a possible generalization is below,
Suppose that $(H_i)_{i in I}$ is such that for each $g in H_i, g' in H_j$ there exists $k in I$ with $g,g' in H_k$. Then, the set $H = bigcup_{i in I} H_i$ is a subgroup of $G$: clearly we have that $1 in G$; and if $g in H_i subset H$, then $g^{-1} in H_i subset H$. So far we have used no assumptions. Now, take $g,g' in H$. Hence there exist $i,j in I$ with $g in H_i$ and $g in H_j$. By hypothesis we have $k in I$ with $g,g' in H_k$ and so $gg' in H_k subset H square$.
answered Dec 24 '18 at 5:20
Guido A.Guido A.
7,8701730
answered Dec 24 '18 at 5:20
Guido A.Guido A.
7,8701730
answered Dec 24 '18 at 5:20
Guido A.Guido A.
7,8701730
answered Dec 24 '18 at 5:20
Guido A.Guido A.
7,8701730
7,8701730
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3050948%2flet-left-h-i-i-in-i-right-be-a-family-of-subgroups-of-g-state-and-pro%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Yes, you are right that chaining is the only way this can happen. Try first just thinking about two subgroups $H_1$ and $H_2$. The way you wrote your reasoning though is very convoluted and confusing. I'll just say that $cup _{i in I} H_{i} subseteq left< cup _{i in I} H_{i} right>$ is the trivial direction. You want to show that anything in the generated subgroup is already in the union, i.e. the reverse direction.
$endgroup$
– zoidberg
Dec 24 '18 at 5:21
$begingroup$
@norfair although chaining surely gives a positive result, we only need the $H_i$ to be 'directed' in some sense. For example, if for all $i,j$ we have $k$ with $H_i,H_j subset H_k$, this is enough to prove that the union is closed with respect to multiplication, and weaker than having a partial order with respect to inclusion.
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Dec 24 '18 at 5:30
$begingroup$
Yes, my mistake. It doesn't have to be a total ordering. I'm confused why you say it's weaker than partial order though. Isn't that exactly the characterization?
$endgroup$
– zoidberg
Dec 24 '18 at 5:35
$begingroup$
@norfair My bad. I meant to say that 'directedness' suffices but we get anti-symmetry for free as the order in defined by inclusion, which is a partial order on $mathcal{P}G$ and it is weaker than having a total order (i.e. a chain).
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Dec 24 '18 at 5:38
$begingroup$
@norfair note that however it is not enough for the groups to be partially ordered. Even if we take two groups $H_1, H_2$ , it may very well be that $H_1 cup H_2$ is not a subgroup.
$endgroup$
– Guido A.
Dec 24 '18 at 5:40