Talk:Quotient group
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Mathematics|importance = mid}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(365d)
| archive = Talk:Quotient group/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}
{{Archive box |search=yes |bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=12 |units=months |auto=yes }}
Rank of a quotient group
Example in which the set of products of two left cosets of a non-normal coset does not even equal a coset
I'm not sure about how useful it would be in the main article, but I found [https://math.stackexchange.com/a/14315 an example] using S3 that shows that the set of products of one of the two left cosets of one of the subgroups of order 2 (all of which are non-normal) with itself consists of four elements:
- Let H be the subgroup of S3 generated by (1 2), meaning H={(),(1 2)}; then the left coset (1 3)H={(1 3),(1 2 3)}, and the product set (1 3)H(1 3)H={(),(1 2),(2 3),(1 3 2)}, which is not a coset of H (or of any other subgroup, because 4 does not divide 6).
- The StackExchange answer goes on to show how, if the operation were instead defined as (aH)(bH)=(ab)H, then it would not be well defined: Clearly, (1 3)H=(1 2 3)H, but (1 3)H(1 3)H=H, while (1 2 3)H(1 2 3)H=(1 3 2)H≠H.
As a bit of original research, if N={(),(1 2 3),(1 3 2)} (which is normal because it has index 2), then the other coset is (1 2)N={(1 2),(1 3),(2 3)} and the products of elements of this coset with itself are
- (1 2)(1 2)=()
- (1 2)(1 3)=(1 3 2)
- (1 2)(2 3)=(1 2 3)
- (1 3)(1 2)=(1 2 3)
- (1 3)(1 3)=()
- (1 3)(2 3)=(1 3 2)
- (2 3)(1 2)=(1 2 3)
- (2 3)(1 3)=(1 3 2)
- (2 3)(2 3)=()
from which the product set (1 2)N(1 2)N=N, as expected; I suspect that the product set of two left cosets of a finite non-normal subgroup H, in which the right factor is not H itself, has cardinality equal to |H|2 divided by the order of the normal core of H (this relationship obviously holds for normal subgroups, and in that case even if the right factor is the subgroup itself).
Also, the proof in the article that G/H is a group iff H◁G looks a bit like original research, but a very similar proof is given in Dummit & Foote 3ed, p81. Julyo (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)