Proving that something is an isomorphism between group generators. Announcing the arrival of...

Is there hard evidence that the grant peer review system performs significantly better than random?

AppleTVs create a chatty alternate WiFi network

Google .dev domain strangely redirects to https

Where is the Next Backup Size entry on iOS 12?

Does the Mueller report show a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump Campaign?

Should a wizard buy fine inks every time he want to copy spells into his spellbook?

Asymptotics question

What is the difference between a "ranged attack" and a "ranged weapon attack"?

How many time has Arya actually used Needle?

What is the chair depicted in Cesare Maccari's 1889 painting "Cicerone denuncia Catilina"?

What does 丫 mean? 丫是什么意思?

Why does electrolysis of aqueous concentrated sodium bromide produce bromine at the anode?

Was Kant an Intuitionist about mathematical objects?

Putting class ranking in CV, but against dept guidelines

How much damage would a cupful of neutron star matter do to the Earth?

White walkers, cemeteries and wights

Why complex landing gears are used instead of simple,reliability and light weight muscle wire or shape memory alloys?

what is the log of the PDF for a Normal Distribution?

What does Turing mean by this statement?

Special flights

What initially awakened the Balrog?

Is it dangerous to install hacking tools on my private linux machine?

After Sam didn't return home in the end, were he and Al still friends?

Test print coming out spongy



Proving that something is an isomorphism between group generators.



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)Isomorphism for group with 2 generatorsPresentation of a group isomorphic to $A_4$Group isomorphism between $D_3$ and $S_3$Normal Subgroup and Isomorphism of a Quotient groupCriterion for isomorphism of two groups given by generators and relationsShowing isomorphism between subgroup of symmetric group and dihedral group.Group presentation of $A_5$ with two generatorsIs there an isomorphism between A4 and D6?Isomorphism between groups(Dis)proving isomorphism between $U= { z in Bbb C mid |z| = 1 }$ and $Bbb R$












3












$begingroup$


So I'm having trouble understanding isomorphisms between generators. In this problem, I had to show that a non-abelian group of order $6$ is isomorphic to $S_3$. Now I already showed that there were two elements of order $2$ and $3$, call them $a$ and $b$, and also proved that $G=langle aranglelangle brangle$.



To show they are isomorphic, my initial thought was to construct a mapping defining the image of the generators $a$ and $b$ to generators of $S_3$ of the same order. For instance $$f(a)=(1,2)text{ and } f(b)=(1,2,3).$$ Now I want to show that is an isomorphism.



First, the fact that it is a homomorphism is because of the way I constructed the map, defining the images of the generators, and then extended the images of the rest of the elements such that they satisfy the property of a homomorphism; that is, $f$ maps products and powers of generators to the products and powers of their images $f(ab)=f(a)f(b)$, and $f(a^2)=f(a)^2$, and because $a$ and $b$ are generators, then all the products and powers of them are the elements of $G$. So, by construction, this is a homomorphism.




Is this reasoning right?




(I'm starting with group theory so I may be lacking some accuracy in the proofs).



Then to show its an isomorphism, note that $f(a^2=e)=e$ and $f(b^3=e)=e$, because the generators map to elements (actually generators) of the same order in $S_3$. So the kernel is ${e}$ and it is injective.



To show it is surjective, I thought that it was because the generators of $S_3$ are the images of the generators of $G$ (again of the same order), so every element of $S_3$ has a pre-image. (Is this enough?). Therefore, because it is a homomorphism both injective and surjecive, then it is an isomorphism.



I would greatly appreciate any help or some clarity for my reasoning, thanks :)










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "isomorphism between generators" is senseless
    $endgroup$
    – YCor
    Mar 26 at 7:46
















3












$begingroup$


So I'm having trouble understanding isomorphisms between generators. In this problem, I had to show that a non-abelian group of order $6$ is isomorphic to $S_3$. Now I already showed that there were two elements of order $2$ and $3$, call them $a$ and $b$, and also proved that $G=langle aranglelangle brangle$.



To show they are isomorphic, my initial thought was to construct a mapping defining the image of the generators $a$ and $b$ to generators of $S_3$ of the same order. For instance $$f(a)=(1,2)text{ and } f(b)=(1,2,3).$$ Now I want to show that is an isomorphism.



First, the fact that it is a homomorphism is because of the way I constructed the map, defining the images of the generators, and then extended the images of the rest of the elements such that they satisfy the property of a homomorphism; that is, $f$ maps products and powers of generators to the products and powers of their images $f(ab)=f(a)f(b)$, and $f(a^2)=f(a)^2$, and because $a$ and $b$ are generators, then all the products and powers of them are the elements of $G$. So, by construction, this is a homomorphism.




Is this reasoning right?




(I'm starting with group theory so I may be lacking some accuracy in the proofs).



Then to show its an isomorphism, note that $f(a^2=e)=e$ and $f(b^3=e)=e$, because the generators map to elements (actually generators) of the same order in $S_3$. So the kernel is ${e}$ and it is injective.



To show it is surjective, I thought that it was because the generators of $S_3$ are the images of the generators of $G$ (again of the same order), so every element of $S_3$ has a pre-image. (Is this enough?). Therefore, because it is a homomorphism both injective and surjecive, then it is an isomorphism.



I would greatly appreciate any help or some clarity for my reasoning, thanks :)










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "isomorphism between generators" is senseless
    $endgroup$
    – YCor
    Mar 26 at 7:46














3












3








3





$begingroup$


So I'm having trouble understanding isomorphisms between generators. In this problem, I had to show that a non-abelian group of order $6$ is isomorphic to $S_3$. Now I already showed that there were two elements of order $2$ and $3$, call them $a$ and $b$, and also proved that $G=langle aranglelangle brangle$.



To show they are isomorphic, my initial thought was to construct a mapping defining the image of the generators $a$ and $b$ to generators of $S_3$ of the same order. For instance $$f(a)=(1,2)text{ and } f(b)=(1,2,3).$$ Now I want to show that is an isomorphism.



First, the fact that it is a homomorphism is because of the way I constructed the map, defining the images of the generators, and then extended the images of the rest of the elements such that they satisfy the property of a homomorphism; that is, $f$ maps products and powers of generators to the products and powers of their images $f(ab)=f(a)f(b)$, and $f(a^2)=f(a)^2$, and because $a$ and $b$ are generators, then all the products and powers of them are the elements of $G$. So, by construction, this is a homomorphism.




Is this reasoning right?




(I'm starting with group theory so I may be lacking some accuracy in the proofs).



Then to show its an isomorphism, note that $f(a^2=e)=e$ and $f(b^3=e)=e$, because the generators map to elements (actually generators) of the same order in $S_3$. So the kernel is ${e}$ and it is injective.



To show it is surjective, I thought that it was because the generators of $S_3$ are the images of the generators of $G$ (again of the same order), so every element of $S_3$ has a pre-image. (Is this enough?). Therefore, because it is a homomorphism both injective and surjecive, then it is an isomorphism.



I would greatly appreciate any help or some clarity for my reasoning, thanks :)










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




So I'm having trouble understanding isomorphisms between generators. In this problem, I had to show that a non-abelian group of order $6$ is isomorphic to $S_3$. Now I already showed that there were two elements of order $2$ and $3$, call them $a$ and $b$, and also proved that $G=langle aranglelangle brangle$.



To show they are isomorphic, my initial thought was to construct a mapping defining the image of the generators $a$ and $b$ to generators of $S_3$ of the same order. For instance $$f(a)=(1,2)text{ and } f(b)=(1,2,3).$$ Now I want to show that is an isomorphism.



First, the fact that it is a homomorphism is because of the way I constructed the map, defining the images of the generators, and then extended the images of the rest of the elements such that they satisfy the property of a homomorphism; that is, $f$ maps products and powers of generators to the products and powers of their images $f(ab)=f(a)f(b)$, and $f(a^2)=f(a)^2$, and because $a$ and $b$ are generators, then all the products and powers of them are the elements of $G$. So, by construction, this is a homomorphism.




Is this reasoning right?




(I'm starting with group theory so I may be lacking some accuracy in the proofs).



Then to show its an isomorphism, note that $f(a^2=e)=e$ and $f(b^3=e)=e$, because the generators map to elements (actually generators) of the same order in $S_3$. So the kernel is ${e}$ and it is injective.



To show it is surjective, I thought that it was because the generators of $S_3$ are the images of the generators of $G$ (again of the same order), so every element of $S_3$ has a pre-image. (Is this enough?). Therefore, because it is a homomorphism both injective and surjecive, then it is an isomorphism.



I would greatly appreciate any help or some clarity for my reasoning, thanks :)







abstract-algebra group-theory proof-verification finite-groups group-isomorphism






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 26 at 2:12









Shaun

11k113687




11k113687










asked Mar 25 at 23:51









L. SandovalL. Sandoval

665




665








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "isomorphism between generators" is senseless
    $endgroup$
    – YCor
    Mar 26 at 7:46














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "isomorphism between generators" is senseless
    $endgroup$
    – YCor
    Mar 26 at 7:46








1




1




$begingroup$
"isomorphism between generators" is senseless
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 26 at 7:46




$begingroup$
"isomorphism between generators" is senseless
$endgroup$
– YCor
Mar 26 at 7:46










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

This proof as written is not entirely correct.



In order to argue that this map is a homomorphism, you need to show that the generators of each of the groups satisfy the same relations. If you call the order $2$ generator of $S_3$ $x$ and the order $3$ generator of $S_3$ $y$, then $S_3$ can be described as the group generated by the elements $x$ and $y$ subject to the relations $x^2 = e$, $y^3 = e$, and $yx = xy^{-1}$.



If your $a$ and $b$ did not satisfy these same relations, i.e. if $ba neq ab^{-11}$, then your map $f$ cannot be extended to a homomorphism (a fact that you should check).



Once you show that your $a$ and $b$ satisfy these same relations, then you can say without fear that you can extend the map on generators to a homomorphism.



A small note about proving bijectivity: it's an easy fact (proved by just counting elements) from set theory that if you have an injection (or a surjection) between finite sets of the same size, then this injection (or surjection) must in fact be a bijection. So once you've proved that f is either an injection or a surjection, it follows that it must be a bijection as well. In your case it's relatively easy to see both injectivity and surjectivity, but in more complicated cases it can be useful to know that for finite groups of the same size it suffices to show only one of the 2.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    To see why the proof is incomplete, let $C_n$ be the cyclic group of order $n$, so $C_2times C_3$ is an abelian group generated by $a,b$, $a^2=e=b^3$. By mapping $f(a)=(1,2)$ and $f(b)=(1,2,3)$, your reasoning would give an isomorphism of $C_2times C_3$ with a non-abelian group. Do go ahead and extend $f$ as you suggest and see where the "proof" breaks down.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$














      Your Answer








      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
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3162485%2fproving-that-something-is-an-isomorphism-between-group-generators%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      1












      $begingroup$

      This proof as written is not entirely correct.



      In order to argue that this map is a homomorphism, you need to show that the generators of each of the groups satisfy the same relations. If you call the order $2$ generator of $S_3$ $x$ and the order $3$ generator of $S_3$ $y$, then $S_3$ can be described as the group generated by the elements $x$ and $y$ subject to the relations $x^2 = e$, $y^3 = e$, and $yx = xy^{-1}$.



      If your $a$ and $b$ did not satisfy these same relations, i.e. if $ba neq ab^{-11}$, then your map $f$ cannot be extended to a homomorphism (a fact that you should check).



      Once you show that your $a$ and $b$ satisfy these same relations, then you can say without fear that you can extend the map on generators to a homomorphism.



      A small note about proving bijectivity: it's an easy fact (proved by just counting elements) from set theory that if you have an injection (or a surjection) between finite sets of the same size, then this injection (or surjection) must in fact be a bijection. So once you've proved that f is either an injection or a surjection, it follows that it must be a bijection as well. In your case it's relatively easy to see both injectivity and surjectivity, but in more complicated cases it can be useful to know that for finite groups of the same size it suffices to show only one of the 2.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        1












        $begingroup$

        This proof as written is not entirely correct.



        In order to argue that this map is a homomorphism, you need to show that the generators of each of the groups satisfy the same relations. If you call the order $2$ generator of $S_3$ $x$ and the order $3$ generator of $S_3$ $y$, then $S_3$ can be described as the group generated by the elements $x$ and $y$ subject to the relations $x^2 = e$, $y^3 = e$, and $yx = xy^{-1}$.



        If your $a$ and $b$ did not satisfy these same relations, i.e. if $ba neq ab^{-11}$, then your map $f$ cannot be extended to a homomorphism (a fact that you should check).



        Once you show that your $a$ and $b$ satisfy these same relations, then you can say without fear that you can extend the map on generators to a homomorphism.



        A small note about proving bijectivity: it's an easy fact (proved by just counting elements) from set theory that if you have an injection (or a surjection) between finite sets of the same size, then this injection (or surjection) must in fact be a bijection. So once you've proved that f is either an injection or a surjection, it follows that it must be a bijection as well. In your case it's relatively easy to see both injectivity and surjectivity, but in more complicated cases it can be useful to know that for finite groups of the same size it suffices to show only one of the 2.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          This proof as written is not entirely correct.



          In order to argue that this map is a homomorphism, you need to show that the generators of each of the groups satisfy the same relations. If you call the order $2$ generator of $S_3$ $x$ and the order $3$ generator of $S_3$ $y$, then $S_3$ can be described as the group generated by the elements $x$ and $y$ subject to the relations $x^2 = e$, $y^3 = e$, and $yx = xy^{-1}$.



          If your $a$ and $b$ did not satisfy these same relations, i.e. if $ba neq ab^{-11}$, then your map $f$ cannot be extended to a homomorphism (a fact that you should check).



          Once you show that your $a$ and $b$ satisfy these same relations, then you can say without fear that you can extend the map on generators to a homomorphism.



          A small note about proving bijectivity: it's an easy fact (proved by just counting elements) from set theory that if you have an injection (or a surjection) between finite sets of the same size, then this injection (or surjection) must in fact be a bijection. So once you've proved that f is either an injection or a surjection, it follows that it must be a bijection as well. In your case it's relatively easy to see both injectivity and surjectivity, but in more complicated cases it can be useful to know that for finite groups of the same size it suffices to show only one of the 2.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          This proof as written is not entirely correct.



          In order to argue that this map is a homomorphism, you need to show that the generators of each of the groups satisfy the same relations. If you call the order $2$ generator of $S_3$ $x$ and the order $3$ generator of $S_3$ $y$, then $S_3$ can be described as the group generated by the elements $x$ and $y$ subject to the relations $x^2 = e$, $y^3 = e$, and $yx = xy^{-1}$.



          If your $a$ and $b$ did not satisfy these same relations, i.e. if $ba neq ab^{-11}$, then your map $f$ cannot be extended to a homomorphism (a fact that you should check).



          Once you show that your $a$ and $b$ satisfy these same relations, then you can say without fear that you can extend the map on generators to a homomorphism.



          A small note about proving bijectivity: it's an easy fact (proved by just counting elements) from set theory that if you have an injection (or a surjection) between finite sets of the same size, then this injection (or surjection) must in fact be a bijection. So once you've proved that f is either an injection or a surjection, it follows that it must be a bijection as well. In your case it's relatively easy to see both injectivity and surjectivity, but in more complicated cases it can be useful to know that for finite groups of the same size it suffices to show only one of the 2.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Mar 26 at 0:48









          Caleb MillerCaleb Miller

          111




          111























              0












              $begingroup$

              To see why the proof is incomplete, let $C_n$ be the cyclic group of order $n$, so $C_2times C_3$ is an abelian group generated by $a,b$, $a^2=e=b^3$. By mapping $f(a)=(1,2)$ and $f(b)=(1,2,3)$, your reasoning would give an isomorphism of $C_2times C_3$ with a non-abelian group. Do go ahead and extend $f$ as you suggest and see where the "proof" breaks down.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                To see why the proof is incomplete, let $C_n$ be the cyclic group of order $n$, so $C_2times C_3$ is an abelian group generated by $a,b$, $a^2=e=b^3$. By mapping $f(a)=(1,2)$ and $f(b)=(1,2,3)$, your reasoning would give an isomorphism of $C_2times C_3$ with a non-abelian group. Do go ahead and extend $f$ as you suggest and see where the "proof" breaks down.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  To see why the proof is incomplete, let $C_n$ be the cyclic group of order $n$, so $C_2times C_3$ is an abelian group generated by $a,b$, $a^2=e=b^3$. By mapping $f(a)=(1,2)$ and $f(b)=(1,2,3)$, your reasoning would give an isomorphism of $C_2times C_3$ with a non-abelian group. Do go ahead and extend $f$ as you suggest and see where the "proof" breaks down.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  To see why the proof is incomplete, let $C_n$ be the cyclic group of order $n$, so $C_2times C_3$ is an abelian group generated by $a,b$, $a^2=e=b^3$. By mapping $f(a)=(1,2)$ and $f(b)=(1,2,3)$, your reasoning would give an isomorphism of $C_2times C_3$ with a non-abelian group. Do go ahead and extend $f$ as you suggest and see where the "proof" breaks down.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Mar 26 at 8:06









                  ChrystomathChrystomath

                  2,043513




                  2,043513






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3162485%2fproving-that-something-is-an-isomorphism-between-group-generators%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      六本木駅

                      Integral that is continuous and looks like it converges to a geometric seriesTesting if a geometric series converges by taking limit to infinitySummation of arithmetic-geometric series of higher orderGeometric series with polynomial exponentHow to Recognize a Geometric SeriesShowing an integral equality with series over the integersDiscontinuity of a series of continuous functionsReasons why a Series ConvergesSum of infinite geometric series with two terms in summationUsing geometric series for computing IntegralsLimit of geometric series sum when $r = 1$

                      Joseph Lister