Proving two subgroups with same cardinality are identical if one is normal
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I need to prove the following statement:
Let $G$ be a finite group, $H, K subset G$ two subgroups, $gcd(Card(H), Card(G/H))=1, Card(H)=Card(K), H$ normal in G. Then $H=K.$
We know that Card($G$) = Card($H$) [G:H], so Card($G$) = Card($H$) Card($G/H$). According to one of the isomorphism theorems, $KH<G, (Kcap H) triangleleft H $, and $f: K rightarrow G/H$ is a group homomorphism with ker $ f= Kcap H$ and $K/(K cap H) cong KH/H.$
Somehow I can not connect the dots. Can somebody help me.
Many thanks.
abstract-algebra
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I need to prove the following statement:
Let $G$ be a finite group, $H, K subset G$ two subgroups, $gcd(Card(H), Card(G/H))=1, Card(H)=Card(K), H$ normal in G. Then $H=K.$
We know that Card($G$) = Card($H$) [G:H], so Card($G$) = Card($H$) Card($G/H$). According to one of the isomorphism theorems, $KH<G, (Kcap H) triangleleft H $, and $f: K rightarrow G/H$ is a group homomorphism with ker $ f= Kcap H$ and $K/(K cap H) cong KH/H.$
Somehow I can not connect the dots. Can somebody help me.
Many thanks.
abstract-algebra
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
I need to prove the following statement:
Let $G$ be a finite group, $H, K subset G$ two subgroups, $gcd(Card(H), Card(G/H))=1, Card(H)=Card(K), H$ normal in G. Then $H=K.$
We know that Card($G$) = Card($H$) [G:H], so Card($G$) = Card($H$) Card($G/H$). According to one of the isomorphism theorems, $KH<G, (Kcap H) triangleleft H $, and $f: K rightarrow G/H$ is a group homomorphism with ker $ f= Kcap H$ and $K/(K cap H) cong KH/H.$
Somehow I can not connect the dots. Can somebody help me.
Many thanks.
abstract-algebra
I need to prove the following statement:
Let $G$ be a finite group, $H, K subset G$ two subgroups, $gcd(Card(H), Card(G/H))=1, Card(H)=Card(K), H$ normal in G. Then $H=K.$
We know that Card($G$) = Card($H$) [G:H], so Card($G$) = Card($H$) Card($G/H$). According to one of the isomorphism theorems, $KH<G, (Kcap H) triangleleft H $, and $f: K rightarrow G/H$ is a group homomorphism with ker $ f= Kcap H$ and $K/(K cap H) cong KH/H.$
Somehow I can not connect the dots. Can somebody help me.
Many thanks.
abstract-algebra
abstract-algebra
asked yesterday
user249018
194117
194117
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Let $k in K$ and consider $kH in G/H$. Denote $n = |K| = |H|$ and $|k| = m$. Then since the order of $k$ divides the order of $K$, we have $m mid n$.
Notice that $(kH)^m = H$ in $G/H$, and so $|kH| = r$ must divide $m$ which divides $n$. Since $kH in G/H$, we also have that $r$ divides $|G/H|$. If $r >1$ then we have that $n$ and $|G/H|$ share a common factor greater than $1$, namely $r$. But this is a contradiction since we have assumed $gcd(n, |G/H|) = 1$.
So it must be that the order of $kH$ is $1$, which then implies that $k in H$. Since $k in K$ was arbitrary we have that $K leq H$. But this implies that $H = K$ since they have the same order.
Thanks. I dont understand the implication |$G/H|$ could devide |$K$|.
– user249018
yesterday
@user249018 Should be fixed now.
– matt stokes
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Matt stokes has already given a good answer, but I think it's a bit indirect, using the orders of elements of the image of $K$ in $G/H$. Instead we can directly consider the size of the image of $K$ in $G/H$ and do the following.
Let $phi : Gto G/H$ be the quotient map. Consider $phi(K)$. By the first isomorphism theorem, we have $phi(K)cong K/Kcap H$, so $|phi(K)|=|K/Kcap H|$, and $|phi(K)|$ divides $|K|=|H|$, however $phi(K)$ is also a subgroup of $G/H$, so $|phi(K)|$ divides $|G/H|$. Hence $|phi(K)|$ divides $operatorname{gcd}(|H|,|G/H|)=1$. Thus $|phi(K)|=1$, so $Ksubseteq H$, and since $|K|=|H|$, this implies $K=H$.
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
Let $k in K$ and consider $kH in G/H$. Denote $n = |K| = |H|$ and $|k| = m$. Then since the order of $k$ divides the order of $K$, we have $m mid n$.
Notice that $(kH)^m = H$ in $G/H$, and so $|kH| = r$ must divide $m$ which divides $n$. Since $kH in G/H$, we also have that $r$ divides $|G/H|$. If $r >1$ then we have that $n$ and $|G/H|$ share a common factor greater than $1$, namely $r$. But this is a contradiction since we have assumed $gcd(n, |G/H|) = 1$.
So it must be that the order of $kH$ is $1$, which then implies that $k in H$. Since $k in K$ was arbitrary we have that $K leq H$. But this implies that $H = K$ since they have the same order.
Thanks. I dont understand the implication |$G/H|$ could devide |$K$|.
– user249018
yesterday
@user249018 Should be fixed now.
– matt stokes
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Let $k in K$ and consider $kH in G/H$. Denote $n = |K| = |H|$ and $|k| = m$. Then since the order of $k$ divides the order of $K$, we have $m mid n$.
Notice that $(kH)^m = H$ in $G/H$, and so $|kH| = r$ must divide $m$ which divides $n$. Since $kH in G/H$, we also have that $r$ divides $|G/H|$. If $r >1$ then we have that $n$ and $|G/H|$ share a common factor greater than $1$, namely $r$. But this is a contradiction since we have assumed $gcd(n, |G/H|) = 1$.
So it must be that the order of $kH$ is $1$, which then implies that $k in H$. Since $k in K$ was arbitrary we have that $K leq H$. But this implies that $H = K$ since they have the same order.
Thanks. I dont understand the implication |$G/H|$ could devide |$K$|.
– user249018
yesterday
@user249018 Should be fixed now.
– matt stokes
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Let $k in K$ and consider $kH in G/H$. Denote $n = |K| = |H|$ and $|k| = m$. Then since the order of $k$ divides the order of $K$, we have $m mid n$.
Notice that $(kH)^m = H$ in $G/H$, and so $|kH| = r$ must divide $m$ which divides $n$. Since $kH in G/H$, we also have that $r$ divides $|G/H|$. If $r >1$ then we have that $n$ and $|G/H|$ share a common factor greater than $1$, namely $r$. But this is a contradiction since we have assumed $gcd(n, |G/H|) = 1$.
So it must be that the order of $kH$ is $1$, which then implies that $k in H$. Since $k in K$ was arbitrary we have that $K leq H$. But this implies that $H = K$ since they have the same order.
Let $k in K$ and consider $kH in G/H$. Denote $n = |K| = |H|$ and $|k| = m$. Then since the order of $k$ divides the order of $K$, we have $m mid n$.
Notice that $(kH)^m = H$ in $G/H$, and so $|kH| = r$ must divide $m$ which divides $n$. Since $kH in G/H$, we also have that $r$ divides $|G/H|$. If $r >1$ then we have that $n$ and $|G/H|$ share a common factor greater than $1$, namely $r$. But this is a contradiction since we have assumed $gcd(n, |G/H|) = 1$.
So it must be that the order of $kH$ is $1$, which then implies that $k in H$. Since $k in K$ was arbitrary we have that $K leq H$. But this implies that $H = K$ since they have the same order.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
matt stokes
524210
524210
Thanks. I dont understand the implication |$G/H|$ could devide |$K$|.
– user249018
yesterday
@user249018 Should be fixed now.
– matt stokes
yesterday
add a comment |
Thanks. I dont understand the implication |$G/H|$ could devide |$K$|.
– user249018
yesterday
@user249018 Should be fixed now.
– matt stokes
yesterday
Thanks. I dont understand the implication |$G/H|$ could devide |$K$|.
– user249018
yesterday
Thanks. I dont understand the implication |$G/H|$ could devide |$K$|.
– user249018
yesterday
@user249018 Should be fixed now.
– matt stokes
yesterday
@user249018 Should be fixed now.
– matt stokes
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Matt stokes has already given a good answer, but I think it's a bit indirect, using the orders of elements of the image of $K$ in $G/H$. Instead we can directly consider the size of the image of $K$ in $G/H$ and do the following.
Let $phi : Gto G/H$ be the quotient map. Consider $phi(K)$. By the first isomorphism theorem, we have $phi(K)cong K/Kcap H$, so $|phi(K)|=|K/Kcap H|$, and $|phi(K)|$ divides $|K|=|H|$, however $phi(K)$ is also a subgroup of $G/H$, so $|phi(K)|$ divides $|G/H|$. Hence $|phi(K)|$ divides $operatorname{gcd}(|H|,|G/H|)=1$. Thus $|phi(K)|=1$, so $Ksubseteq H$, and since $|K|=|H|$, this implies $K=H$.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
Matt stokes has already given a good answer, but I think it's a bit indirect, using the orders of elements of the image of $K$ in $G/H$. Instead we can directly consider the size of the image of $K$ in $G/H$ and do the following.
Let $phi : Gto G/H$ be the quotient map. Consider $phi(K)$. By the first isomorphism theorem, we have $phi(K)cong K/Kcap H$, so $|phi(K)|=|K/Kcap H|$, and $|phi(K)|$ divides $|K|=|H|$, however $phi(K)$ is also a subgroup of $G/H$, so $|phi(K)|$ divides $|G/H|$. Hence $|phi(K)|$ divides $operatorname{gcd}(|H|,|G/H|)=1$. Thus $|phi(K)|=1$, so $Ksubseteq H$, and since $|K|=|H|$, this implies $K=H$.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
Matt stokes has already given a good answer, but I think it's a bit indirect, using the orders of elements of the image of $K$ in $G/H$. Instead we can directly consider the size of the image of $K$ in $G/H$ and do the following.
Let $phi : Gto G/H$ be the quotient map. Consider $phi(K)$. By the first isomorphism theorem, we have $phi(K)cong K/Kcap H$, so $|phi(K)|=|K/Kcap H|$, and $|phi(K)|$ divides $|K|=|H|$, however $phi(K)$ is also a subgroup of $G/H$, so $|phi(K)|$ divides $|G/H|$. Hence $|phi(K)|$ divides $operatorname{gcd}(|H|,|G/H|)=1$. Thus $|phi(K)|=1$, so $Ksubseteq H$, and since $|K|=|H|$, this implies $K=H$.
Matt stokes has already given a good answer, but I think it's a bit indirect, using the orders of elements of the image of $K$ in $G/H$. Instead we can directly consider the size of the image of $K$ in $G/H$ and do the following.
Let $phi : Gto G/H$ be the quotient map. Consider $phi(K)$. By the first isomorphism theorem, we have $phi(K)cong K/Kcap H$, so $|phi(K)|=|K/Kcap H|$, and $|phi(K)|$ divides $|K|=|H|$, however $phi(K)$ is also a subgroup of $G/H$, so $|phi(K)|$ divides $|G/H|$. Hence $|phi(K)|$ divides $operatorname{gcd}(|H|,|G/H|)=1$. Thus $|phi(K)|=1$, so $Ksubseteq H$, and since $|K|=|H|$, this implies $K=H$.
answered yesterday
jgon
9,69211538
9,69211538
add a comment |
add a comment |
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%2f3005072%2fproving-two-subgroups-with-same-cardinality-are-identical-if-one-is-normal%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