## Review of Group Theory: Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups (Pt. I)

**Point of post: **In this post we discuss several different formulations of normal subgroups and discuss how one can define a group structure on the set of cosets of such a normal subgroup.

*Motivation*

One sees the idea of a “quotient structure” pop up frequently in mathematics. There are quotient spaces in both topology and linear algebra for example. One mods out by the set-theoretic kernel of semi-metric to turn it into a metric etc. Of course, for groups the same holds. It turns out though that like algebra there are some pretty serious theorems to do with quotient groups (the isomorphism theorems) which we shall see in subsequent posts. The problem is that unlike both linear algebra (where all the underlying group structure of the vector spaces was assumed abelian) and topology the way we “want to” define a quotient group doesn’t always work; there is a necessary and sufficient condition on a subgroup such that the quotient group structure “makes sense”. This condition is normality which, in a nutshell, says that the subgroup is invariant under conjugation (or that it’s invariant under all inner automorphisms).

* Inner Automorphisms*

Let be a group, and fix . We define the *inner automorphism induced by *, denoted , to be the map

It’s not difficult to see that is deserving of it’s name in that it really is an automorphism. Moreover, consider that for any fixed and variable we have that

so that the map

is a homomorphism. We call the *inner automorphism group of *and denote it .

*Normal Subgroups*

Let be a group and . We say that is *a normal subgroup of *, and denote this , if for every the following holds:

There are several equivalent definitions of normality. Namely:

**Theorem: ***Let be a group and . Then, the following are equivalent*

**Proof:**

: Let be arbitrary. We know that

so, let then for some and so . Thus, there exists some such that and so so that . The reverse inclusion is done identically.

: The forward implication is trivial. To do the reverse implication note that since is a right coset we have that for some . But, since it follows that . But, recall that the right cosets of a subgroup partition and since it follows that

: Let , then for some . In particular we have that . Thus, and thus there exists some such that and thus .

: Note that since for all we need only prove the reverse inclusion for all . It clearly suffices to do this for a fixed but arbitrary . To do this let . By assumption we have that and so there exists such that or equivalently and thus as desired.

: To prove the reverse implication we note that if is a homomorphism with then for every we have that

so that . The conclusion follows by appealing to our last implication.

We stall the proof of the converse to a later point in this post.

We next wish to know how normal subgroups interact with homomorphisms. In particular we note that:

**Theorem:*** Let and be groups and and . Then, if ; . If is surjective then .*

**Proof: **To prove the first part we let and note that

and thus for every . It follows from our earlier characterization of normality that .

Suppose now that is surjective. We note then that for any we have that for some . Thus,

from where normality follows.

**References:**

1. Lang, Serge. *Undergraduate Algebra*. 3rd. ed. Springer, 2010. Print.

2. Dummit, David Steven., and Richard M. Foote. *Abstract Algebra*. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 200

[…] Point of post: This post is a continuation of this one. […]

Pingback by Review of Group Theory: Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups (Pt. II) « Abstract Nonsense | January 1, 2011 |

[…] We merely recall that for any the inner automorphism is an automorphism and so in particular and . It follows from our assumption that […]

Pingback by Review of Group Theory: Interesting Consequence of the First Isomorphism Theorem « Abstract Nonsense | January 2, 2011 |

[…] Proof: Merely note that the canonical projection […]

Pingback by Review of Group Theory: The Third Isomorphism Theorem « Abstract Nonsense | January 2, 2011 |

[…] the theorem we merely note that if then (since is an epimorphism and we’ve already proven this). Conversely, suppose that . Then, since using the same techniques above we know that and thus […]

Pingback by Review of Group Theory: The Fourth Isomorphism Theorem (The Correspondence Theorem) « Abstract Nonsense | January 4, 2011 |

[…] is the inner automorphism induced by […]

Pingback by Review of Group Theory: Group Actions (Pt. I Definitions and a Sharpening of Cayley’s Theorem cont.) « Abstract Nonsense | January 4, 2011 |

[…] by the set is called the commutator subgroup of and is denoted . Our first claim is that is a normal subgroup of . Indeed it clearly suffices to check that for every . Recall the inner automorphism and the […]

Pingback by Review of Group Theory: The Commutator Subgroup and the Abelianization of a Group « Abstract Nonsense | February 27, 2011 |

[…] lies in the codomain) since if then . Evidently then is injective (being the restriction of the inner automorphism ) and thus it suffices to prove that is surjective. To see this suppose that is an element of the […]

Pingback by Representation Theory: The Square Root Function and its Relation to Irreducible Characters « Abstract Nonsense | March 24, 2011 |

[…] said, there is an interesting phenomenon concerning subrings. Namely, while it turned out that normal subgroups were nicer than general subgroups they weren’t the only thing that was important. For ring […]

Pingback by Subrings « Abstract Nonsense | June 15, 2011 |

[…] out by any old subset, or even any old subring, of a ring. It turns out, much the same as the case for groups that what defines these special subrings is that they are the kernels of ring homomorphisms. But, […]

Pingback by Definition and Basics of Ideals « Abstract Nonsense | June 21, 2011 |

[…] to play the role for rings that normal subgroups played for groups it seems natural to look at the facts that held there. Things such as the preimage of an ideal is an ideal, etc. We also explore some of the ramifcations […]

Pingback by Ideals and Homomorphisms « Abstract Nonsense | June 24, 2011 |

[…] generalization of the idea of a quotient space for vector spaces. Namely, we shall just take the quotient group and multiply scalars representative-wise. As in all algebraic theories we shall occupy a central […]

Pingback by Quotient Modules « Abstract Nonsense | November 7, 2011 |