Is every quotient of a finite abelian group $G$ isomorphic to some subgroup of $G$?
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
I'm having difficulty with exercise 1.43 of Lang's Algebra. The question states
Let $H$ be a subgroup of a finite abelian group $G$. Show that $G$ has a subgroup that is isomorphic to $G/H$.
Thinking about this for a bit, the only reasonable approach I could think of was to construct some surjective homomorphism $phicolon Gto K$ for $Kleq G$, and $kerphi=H$, and then just use the isomorphism theorems to get the result.
After a while of trying, I've failed to come up with a good map, since $H$ seems so arbitrary. I'm curious, how can one construct the desired homomorphism? This is just the approach I thought of, if there's a better one, I wouldn't mind seeing that either/instead. Thank you.
abstract-algebra group-theory abelian-groups
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
I'm having difficulty with exercise 1.43 of Lang's Algebra. The question states
Let $H$ be a subgroup of a finite abelian group $G$. Show that $G$ has a subgroup that is isomorphic to $G/H$.
Thinking about this for a bit, the only reasonable approach I could think of was to construct some surjective homomorphism $phicolon Gto K$ for $Kleq G$, and $kerphi=H$, and then just use the isomorphism theorems to get the result.
After a while of trying, I've failed to come up with a good map, since $H$ seems so arbitrary. I'm curious, how can one construct the desired homomorphism? This is just the approach I thought of, if there's a better one, I wouldn't mind seeing that either/instead. Thank you.
abstract-algebra group-theory abelian-groups
3
If $G$ is abelian, then any subgroup is normal.
– Arturo Magidin
Sep 16 '11 at 2:49
@Arturo, ah yes of course, I'll remove it since it's redundant.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 2:50
2
I think you need to use the theorem on the structure of finite abelian groups.
– lhf
Sep 16 '11 at 2:54
6
Referring to a text written by (Serge, presumably) Lang as simply "Lang" leaves a lot of ambiguity. Do you mean Lang's Algebra? Please be more specific!
– Pete L. Clark
Sep 16 '11 at 2:55
3
My apologies, I'll be more specific in the future.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:52
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
up vote
20
down vote
favorite
I'm having difficulty with exercise 1.43 of Lang's Algebra. The question states
Let $H$ be a subgroup of a finite abelian group $G$. Show that $G$ has a subgroup that is isomorphic to $G/H$.
Thinking about this for a bit, the only reasonable approach I could think of was to construct some surjective homomorphism $phicolon Gto K$ for $Kleq G$, and $kerphi=H$, and then just use the isomorphism theorems to get the result.
After a while of trying, I've failed to come up with a good map, since $H$ seems so arbitrary. I'm curious, how can one construct the desired homomorphism? This is just the approach I thought of, if there's a better one, I wouldn't mind seeing that either/instead. Thank you.
abstract-algebra group-theory abelian-groups
I'm having difficulty with exercise 1.43 of Lang's Algebra. The question states
Let $H$ be a subgroup of a finite abelian group $G$. Show that $G$ has a subgroup that is isomorphic to $G/H$.
Thinking about this for a bit, the only reasonable approach I could think of was to construct some surjective homomorphism $phicolon Gto K$ for $Kleq G$, and $kerphi=H$, and then just use the isomorphism theorems to get the result.
After a while of trying, I've failed to come up with a good map, since $H$ seems so arbitrary. I'm curious, how can one construct the desired homomorphism? This is just the approach I thought of, if there's a better one, I wouldn't mind seeing that either/instead. Thank you.
abstract-algebra group-theory abelian-groups
abstract-algebra group-theory abelian-groups
edited Dec 24 '16 at 10:55
Martin Sleziak
44.5k7115268
44.5k7115268
asked Sep 16 '11 at 2:47
yunone
14.5k652130
14.5k652130
3
If $G$ is abelian, then any subgroup is normal.
– Arturo Magidin
Sep 16 '11 at 2:49
@Arturo, ah yes of course, I'll remove it since it's redundant.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 2:50
2
I think you need to use the theorem on the structure of finite abelian groups.
– lhf
Sep 16 '11 at 2:54
6
Referring to a text written by (Serge, presumably) Lang as simply "Lang" leaves a lot of ambiguity. Do you mean Lang's Algebra? Please be more specific!
– Pete L. Clark
Sep 16 '11 at 2:55
3
My apologies, I'll be more specific in the future.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:52
|
show 1 more comment
3
If $G$ is abelian, then any subgroup is normal.
– Arturo Magidin
Sep 16 '11 at 2:49
@Arturo, ah yes of course, I'll remove it since it's redundant.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 2:50
2
I think you need to use the theorem on the structure of finite abelian groups.
– lhf
Sep 16 '11 at 2:54
6
Referring to a text written by (Serge, presumably) Lang as simply "Lang" leaves a lot of ambiguity. Do you mean Lang's Algebra? Please be more specific!
– Pete L. Clark
Sep 16 '11 at 2:55
3
My apologies, I'll be more specific in the future.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:52
3
3
If $G$ is abelian, then any subgroup is normal.
– Arturo Magidin
Sep 16 '11 at 2:49
If $G$ is abelian, then any subgroup is normal.
– Arturo Magidin
Sep 16 '11 at 2:49
@Arturo, ah yes of course, I'll remove it since it's redundant.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 2:50
@Arturo, ah yes of course, I'll remove it since it's redundant.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 2:50
2
2
I think you need to use the theorem on the structure of finite abelian groups.
– lhf
Sep 16 '11 at 2:54
I think you need to use the theorem on the structure of finite abelian groups.
– lhf
Sep 16 '11 at 2:54
6
6
Referring to a text written by (Serge, presumably) Lang as simply "Lang" leaves a lot of ambiguity. Do you mean Lang's Algebra? Please be more specific!
– Pete L. Clark
Sep 16 '11 at 2:55
Referring to a text written by (Serge, presumably) Lang as simply "Lang" leaves a lot of ambiguity. Do you mean Lang's Algebra? Please be more specific!
– Pete L. Clark
Sep 16 '11 at 2:55
3
3
My apologies, I'll be more specific in the future.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:52
My apologies, I'll be more specific in the future.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:52
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
15
down vote
accepted
Since a finite abelian group is the direct sum of its $p$-parts, it suffices to establish the result when $G$ is a finite abelian $p$-group.
If $G=C_{p^{a_1}} opluscdotsoplus C_{p^{a_k}}$, with $1leq a_1leqcdots leq a_k$, and let $Q$ be a quotient of $G$. Then $Q$ is a finite abelian $p$-group that is generated by $k$-elements (the images of the generators of $G$), and so when we express it as a direct sum of cyclic $p$-groups, it will have at most $k$ direct summands,
$$Q cong C_{p^{b_1}}opluscdotsoplus C_{p^{b_m}},$$
$1leq b_1leq cdotsleq b_m$, $mleq k$.
Now, $b_mleq a_k$, because every element of $G$ is of order dividing $p^{a_k}$, hence the same is true for $Q$. So $C_{p^{a_k}}$ has a subgroup of order $p^{b_m}$.
Likewise, $b_{m-1}leq a_{k-1}$ (count the number of elements of order greater than $p^{a_{k-1}}$ in $G$; an element of order greater than $p^{a_{k-1}}$ in $Q$ must be an image of one of these). So you can find a subgroup of $C_{p^{a_{k-1}}}$ of order $p^{b_{m-1}}$.
Continue this way until you get all the cyclic summands you need out of the cyclic summands of $G$ to construct a subgroup isomorphic to $Q$.
Thanks Arturo, this answer made the most immediate sense to me at my level.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:47
Pardon me Professor, can you give a more explicit explanation of why $b_{m-1}leq a_{k-1}$? I don't fully understand the suggested counted argument. Thanks.
– Vika
Dec 9 '11 at 11:59
@Vika: The image of $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ in $Q$ is $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$; since $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ is cyclic, that means that $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$ is cyclic; so at most one of the $b_i$ is greater than $a_{k-1}$, and that will be (if any) $b_{m}$.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 9 '11 at 16:16
Is $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ the set of all elements of $G$ multiplied by $p^{a_{k-1}}$? This sends the first $a_{k-1}$ summands to $0$, so $p^{a_{k-1}}Gcong p^{a_{k-1}}C_{p^{a_k}}$? How does this have image $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$ under the natural projection into $Q$?
– Vika
Dec 9 '11 at 17:27
@Vika: Given any abelian groups $A$ and $B$, and an onto homomorphism $Ato B$, and for every $nin mathbb{N}$, $nA$ maps onto $nB$: given $nbin nB$, let $ain A$ such that $amapsto b$. Then $nain nA$ maps to $nb$. Conversely, given any element $b$ in the image of $nA$, there exists $ain A$ such that $b$ is the image of $na$, hence $b$ is $n$ times the image of $a$.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 9 '11 at 17:43
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
11
down vote
I have some notes on (mostly finite) abelian groups for an undergraduate audience here.
The fact that if $G$ is abelian every subgroup is normal appears on page 1.
The result you are asking about is Theorem 19 on page 8 of my notes. Beware that although a complete proof is in the notes, it takes a little while to get there...the point is that this uses, in addition to the basic character theory of finite abelian groups, the fact that a finite abelian group is non-canonically isomorphic to its character group, which in turn uses the main structure theorem for finite abelian groups.
Added: It is possible to dispense with the character theory (although to my taste this is a nice, clean way to phrase it), but it does not seem possible to avoid the structure theorem, which is a famous, and famously nontrivial, result. Note that in particular Arturo's nice answer does not use character theory but does use the structure theorem...twice.
Indeed; I don't think you would be able to dispense with the structure theorem, given that the statement is so general. If you have no handle on what the quotient can look like, it seems that it would be rather hard to come up with a proof.
– Arturo Magidin
Sep 16 '11 at 3:16
Thanks Pete, I've actually been reading through a few of the algebra, number theory, and topology handouts you have on your website. The ones that are accessible to me are really quite clear and helpful.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:51
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
15
down vote
accepted
Since a finite abelian group is the direct sum of its $p$-parts, it suffices to establish the result when $G$ is a finite abelian $p$-group.
If $G=C_{p^{a_1}} opluscdotsoplus C_{p^{a_k}}$, with $1leq a_1leqcdots leq a_k$, and let $Q$ be a quotient of $G$. Then $Q$ is a finite abelian $p$-group that is generated by $k$-elements (the images of the generators of $G$), and so when we express it as a direct sum of cyclic $p$-groups, it will have at most $k$ direct summands,
$$Q cong C_{p^{b_1}}opluscdotsoplus C_{p^{b_m}},$$
$1leq b_1leq cdotsleq b_m$, $mleq k$.
Now, $b_mleq a_k$, because every element of $G$ is of order dividing $p^{a_k}$, hence the same is true for $Q$. So $C_{p^{a_k}}$ has a subgroup of order $p^{b_m}$.
Likewise, $b_{m-1}leq a_{k-1}$ (count the number of elements of order greater than $p^{a_{k-1}}$ in $G$; an element of order greater than $p^{a_{k-1}}$ in $Q$ must be an image of one of these). So you can find a subgroup of $C_{p^{a_{k-1}}}$ of order $p^{b_{m-1}}$.
Continue this way until you get all the cyclic summands you need out of the cyclic summands of $G$ to construct a subgroup isomorphic to $Q$.
Thanks Arturo, this answer made the most immediate sense to me at my level.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:47
Pardon me Professor, can you give a more explicit explanation of why $b_{m-1}leq a_{k-1}$? I don't fully understand the suggested counted argument. Thanks.
– Vika
Dec 9 '11 at 11:59
@Vika: The image of $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ in $Q$ is $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$; since $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ is cyclic, that means that $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$ is cyclic; so at most one of the $b_i$ is greater than $a_{k-1}$, and that will be (if any) $b_{m}$.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 9 '11 at 16:16
Is $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ the set of all elements of $G$ multiplied by $p^{a_{k-1}}$? This sends the first $a_{k-1}$ summands to $0$, so $p^{a_{k-1}}Gcong p^{a_{k-1}}C_{p^{a_k}}$? How does this have image $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$ under the natural projection into $Q$?
– Vika
Dec 9 '11 at 17:27
@Vika: Given any abelian groups $A$ and $B$, and an onto homomorphism $Ato B$, and for every $nin mathbb{N}$, $nA$ maps onto $nB$: given $nbin nB$, let $ain A$ such that $amapsto b$. Then $nain nA$ maps to $nb$. Conversely, given any element $b$ in the image of $nA$, there exists $ain A$ such that $b$ is the image of $na$, hence $b$ is $n$ times the image of $a$.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 9 '11 at 17:43
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
15
down vote
accepted
Since a finite abelian group is the direct sum of its $p$-parts, it suffices to establish the result when $G$ is a finite abelian $p$-group.
If $G=C_{p^{a_1}} opluscdotsoplus C_{p^{a_k}}$, with $1leq a_1leqcdots leq a_k$, and let $Q$ be a quotient of $G$. Then $Q$ is a finite abelian $p$-group that is generated by $k$-elements (the images of the generators of $G$), and so when we express it as a direct sum of cyclic $p$-groups, it will have at most $k$ direct summands,
$$Q cong C_{p^{b_1}}opluscdotsoplus C_{p^{b_m}},$$
$1leq b_1leq cdotsleq b_m$, $mleq k$.
Now, $b_mleq a_k$, because every element of $G$ is of order dividing $p^{a_k}$, hence the same is true for $Q$. So $C_{p^{a_k}}$ has a subgroup of order $p^{b_m}$.
Likewise, $b_{m-1}leq a_{k-1}$ (count the number of elements of order greater than $p^{a_{k-1}}$ in $G$; an element of order greater than $p^{a_{k-1}}$ in $Q$ must be an image of one of these). So you can find a subgroup of $C_{p^{a_{k-1}}}$ of order $p^{b_{m-1}}$.
Continue this way until you get all the cyclic summands you need out of the cyclic summands of $G$ to construct a subgroup isomorphic to $Q$.
Thanks Arturo, this answer made the most immediate sense to me at my level.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:47
Pardon me Professor, can you give a more explicit explanation of why $b_{m-1}leq a_{k-1}$? I don't fully understand the suggested counted argument. Thanks.
– Vika
Dec 9 '11 at 11:59
@Vika: The image of $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ in $Q$ is $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$; since $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ is cyclic, that means that $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$ is cyclic; so at most one of the $b_i$ is greater than $a_{k-1}$, and that will be (if any) $b_{m}$.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 9 '11 at 16:16
Is $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ the set of all elements of $G$ multiplied by $p^{a_{k-1}}$? This sends the first $a_{k-1}$ summands to $0$, so $p^{a_{k-1}}Gcong p^{a_{k-1}}C_{p^{a_k}}$? How does this have image $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$ under the natural projection into $Q$?
– Vika
Dec 9 '11 at 17:27
@Vika: Given any abelian groups $A$ and $B$, and an onto homomorphism $Ato B$, and for every $nin mathbb{N}$, $nA$ maps onto $nB$: given $nbin nB$, let $ain A$ such that $amapsto b$. Then $nain nA$ maps to $nb$. Conversely, given any element $b$ in the image of $nA$, there exists $ain A$ such that $b$ is the image of $na$, hence $b$ is $n$ times the image of $a$.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 9 '11 at 17:43
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
15
down vote
accepted
up vote
15
down vote
accepted
Since a finite abelian group is the direct sum of its $p$-parts, it suffices to establish the result when $G$ is a finite abelian $p$-group.
If $G=C_{p^{a_1}} opluscdotsoplus C_{p^{a_k}}$, with $1leq a_1leqcdots leq a_k$, and let $Q$ be a quotient of $G$. Then $Q$ is a finite abelian $p$-group that is generated by $k$-elements (the images of the generators of $G$), and so when we express it as a direct sum of cyclic $p$-groups, it will have at most $k$ direct summands,
$$Q cong C_{p^{b_1}}opluscdotsoplus C_{p^{b_m}},$$
$1leq b_1leq cdotsleq b_m$, $mleq k$.
Now, $b_mleq a_k$, because every element of $G$ is of order dividing $p^{a_k}$, hence the same is true for $Q$. So $C_{p^{a_k}}$ has a subgroup of order $p^{b_m}$.
Likewise, $b_{m-1}leq a_{k-1}$ (count the number of elements of order greater than $p^{a_{k-1}}$ in $G$; an element of order greater than $p^{a_{k-1}}$ in $Q$ must be an image of one of these). So you can find a subgroup of $C_{p^{a_{k-1}}}$ of order $p^{b_{m-1}}$.
Continue this way until you get all the cyclic summands you need out of the cyclic summands of $G$ to construct a subgroup isomorphic to $Q$.
Since a finite abelian group is the direct sum of its $p$-parts, it suffices to establish the result when $G$ is a finite abelian $p$-group.
If $G=C_{p^{a_1}} opluscdotsoplus C_{p^{a_k}}$, with $1leq a_1leqcdots leq a_k$, and let $Q$ be a quotient of $G$. Then $Q$ is a finite abelian $p$-group that is generated by $k$-elements (the images of the generators of $G$), and so when we express it as a direct sum of cyclic $p$-groups, it will have at most $k$ direct summands,
$$Q cong C_{p^{b_1}}opluscdotsoplus C_{p^{b_m}},$$
$1leq b_1leq cdotsleq b_m$, $mleq k$.
Now, $b_mleq a_k$, because every element of $G$ is of order dividing $p^{a_k}$, hence the same is true for $Q$. So $C_{p^{a_k}}$ has a subgroup of order $p^{b_m}$.
Likewise, $b_{m-1}leq a_{k-1}$ (count the number of elements of order greater than $p^{a_{k-1}}$ in $G$; an element of order greater than $p^{a_{k-1}}$ in $Q$ must be an image of one of these). So you can find a subgroup of $C_{p^{a_{k-1}}}$ of order $p^{b_{m-1}}$.
Continue this way until you get all the cyclic summands you need out of the cyclic summands of $G$ to construct a subgroup isomorphic to $Q$.
edited Sep 16 '11 at 3:06
answered Sep 16 '11 at 2:57
Arturo Magidin
259k32581902
259k32581902
Thanks Arturo, this answer made the most immediate sense to me at my level.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:47
Pardon me Professor, can you give a more explicit explanation of why $b_{m-1}leq a_{k-1}$? I don't fully understand the suggested counted argument. Thanks.
– Vika
Dec 9 '11 at 11:59
@Vika: The image of $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ in $Q$ is $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$; since $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ is cyclic, that means that $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$ is cyclic; so at most one of the $b_i$ is greater than $a_{k-1}$, and that will be (if any) $b_{m}$.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 9 '11 at 16:16
Is $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ the set of all elements of $G$ multiplied by $p^{a_{k-1}}$? This sends the first $a_{k-1}$ summands to $0$, so $p^{a_{k-1}}Gcong p^{a_{k-1}}C_{p^{a_k}}$? How does this have image $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$ under the natural projection into $Q$?
– Vika
Dec 9 '11 at 17:27
@Vika: Given any abelian groups $A$ and $B$, and an onto homomorphism $Ato B$, and for every $nin mathbb{N}$, $nA$ maps onto $nB$: given $nbin nB$, let $ain A$ such that $amapsto b$. Then $nain nA$ maps to $nb$. Conversely, given any element $b$ in the image of $nA$, there exists $ain A$ such that $b$ is the image of $na$, hence $b$ is $n$ times the image of $a$.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 9 '11 at 17:43
|
show 3 more comments
Thanks Arturo, this answer made the most immediate sense to me at my level.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:47
Pardon me Professor, can you give a more explicit explanation of why $b_{m-1}leq a_{k-1}$? I don't fully understand the suggested counted argument. Thanks.
– Vika
Dec 9 '11 at 11:59
@Vika: The image of $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ in $Q$ is $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$; since $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ is cyclic, that means that $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$ is cyclic; so at most one of the $b_i$ is greater than $a_{k-1}$, and that will be (if any) $b_{m}$.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 9 '11 at 16:16
Is $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ the set of all elements of $G$ multiplied by $p^{a_{k-1}}$? This sends the first $a_{k-1}$ summands to $0$, so $p^{a_{k-1}}Gcong p^{a_{k-1}}C_{p^{a_k}}$? How does this have image $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$ under the natural projection into $Q$?
– Vika
Dec 9 '11 at 17:27
@Vika: Given any abelian groups $A$ and $B$, and an onto homomorphism $Ato B$, and for every $nin mathbb{N}$, $nA$ maps onto $nB$: given $nbin nB$, let $ain A$ such that $amapsto b$. Then $nain nA$ maps to $nb$. Conversely, given any element $b$ in the image of $nA$, there exists $ain A$ such that $b$ is the image of $na$, hence $b$ is $n$ times the image of $a$.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 9 '11 at 17:43
Thanks Arturo, this answer made the most immediate sense to me at my level.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:47
Thanks Arturo, this answer made the most immediate sense to me at my level.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:47
Pardon me Professor, can you give a more explicit explanation of why $b_{m-1}leq a_{k-1}$? I don't fully understand the suggested counted argument. Thanks.
– Vika
Dec 9 '11 at 11:59
Pardon me Professor, can you give a more explicit explanation of why $b_{m-1}leq a_{k-1}$? I don't fully understand the suggested counted argument. Thanks.
– Vika
Dec 9 '11 at 11:59
@Vika: The image of $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ in $Q$ is $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$; since $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ is cyclic, that means that $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$ is cyclic; so at most one of the $b_i$ is greater than $a_{k-1}$, and that will be (if any) $b_{m}$.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 9 '11 at 16:16
@Vika: The image of $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ in $Q$ is $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$; since $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ is cyclic, that means that $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$ is cyclic; so at most one of the $b_i$ is greater than $a_{k-1}$, and that will be (if any) $b_{m}$.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 9 '11 at 16:16
Is $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ the set of all elements of $G$ multiplied by $p^{a_{k-1}}$? This sends the first $a_{k-1}$ summands to $0$, so $p^{a_{k-1}}Gcong p^{a_{k-1}}C_{p^{a_k}}$? How does this have image $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$ under the natural projection into $Q$?
– Vika
Dec 9 '11 at 17:27
Is $p^{a_{k-1}}G$ the set of all elements of $G$ multiplied by $p^{a_{k-1}}$? This sends the first $a_{k-1}$ summands to $0$, so $p^{a_{k-1}}Gcong p^{a_{k-1}}C_{p^{a_k}}$? How does this have image $p^{a_{k-1}}Q$ under the natural projection into $Q$?
– Vika
Dec 9 '11 at 17:27
@Vika: Given any abelian groups $A$ and $B$, and an onto homomorphism $Ato B$, and for every $nin mathbb{N}$, $nA$ maps onto $nB$: given $nbin nB$, let $ain A$ such that $amapsto b$. Then $nain nA$ maps to $nb$. Conversely, given any element $b$ in the image of $nA$, there exists $ain A$ such that $b$ is the image of $na$, hence $b$ is $n$ times the image of $a$.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 9 '11 at 17:43
@Vika: Given any abelian groups $A$ and $B$, and an onto homomorphism $Ato B$, and for every $nin mathbb{N}$, $nA$ maps onto $nB$: given $nbin nB$, let $ain A$ such that $amapsto b$. Then $nain nA$ maps to $nb$. Conversely, given any element $b$ in the image of $nA$, there exists $ain A$ such that $b$ is the image of $na$, hence $b$ is $n$ times the image of $a$.
– Arturo Magidin
Dec 9 '11 at 17:43
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
11
down vote
I have some notes on (mostly finite) abelian groups for an undergraduate audience here.
The fact that if $G$ is abelian every subgroup is normal appears on page 1.
The result you are asking about is Theorem 19 on page 8 of my notes. Beware that although a complete proof is in the notes, it takes a little while to get there...the point is that this uses, in addition to the basic character theory of finite abelian groups, the fact that a finite abelian group is non-canonically isomorphic to its character group, which in turn uses the main structure theorem for finite abelian groups.
Added: It is possible to dispense with the character theory (although to my taste this is a nice, clean way to phrase it), but it does not seem possible to avoid the structure theorem, which is a famous, and famously nontrivial, result. Note that in particular Arturo's nice answer does not use character theory but does use the structure theorem...twice.
Indeed; I don't think you would be able to dispense with the structure theorem, given that the statement is so general. If you have no handle on what the quotient can look like, it seems that it would be rather hard to come up with a proof.
– Arturo Magidin
Sep 16 '11 at 3:16
Thanks Pete, I've actually been reading through a few of the algebra, number theory, and topology handouts you have on your website. The ones that are accessible to me are really quite clear and helpful.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:51
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
I have some notes on (mostly finite) abelian groups for an undergraduate audience here.
The fact that if $G$ is abelian every subgroup is normal appears on page 1.
The result you are asking about is Theorem 19 on page 8 of my notes. Beware that although a complete proof is in the notes, it takes a little while to get there...the point is that this uses, in addition to the basic character theory of finite abelian groups, the fact that a finite abelian group is non-canonically isomorphic to its character group, which in turn uses the main structure theorem for finite abelian groups.
Added: It is possible to dispense with the character theory (although to my taste this is a nice, clean way to phrase it), but it does not seem possible to avoid the structure theorem, which is a famous, and famously nontrivial, result. Note that in particular Arturo's nice answer does not use character theory but does use the structure theorem...twice.
Indeed; I don't think you would be able to dispense with the structure theorem, given that the statement is so general. If you have no handle on what the quotient can look like, it seems that it would be rather hard to come up with a proof.
– Arturo Magidin
Sep 16 '11 at 3:16
Thanks Pete, I've actually been reading through a few of the algebra, number theory, and topology handouts you have on your website. The ones that are accessible to me are really quite clear and helpful.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:51
add a comment |
up vote
11
down vote
up vote
11
down vote
I have some notes on (mostly finite) abelian groups for an undergraduate audience here.
The fact that if $G$ is abelian every subgroup is normal appears on page 1.
The result you are asking about is Theorem 19 on page 8 of my notes. Beware that although a complete proof is in the notes, it takes a little while to get there...the point is that this uses, in addition to the basic character theory of finite abelian groups, the fact that a finite abelian group is non-canonically isomorphic to its character group, which in turn uses the main structure theorem for finite abelian groups.
Added: It is possible to dispense with the character theory (although to my taste this is a nice, clean way to phrase it), but it does not seem possible to avoid the structure theorem, which is a famous, and famously nontrivial, result. Note that in particular Arturo's nice answer does not use character theory but does use the structure theorem...twice.
I have some notes on (mostly finite) abelian groups for an undergraduate audience here.
The fact that if $G$ is abelian every subgroup is normal appears on page 1.
The result you are asking about is Theorem 19 on page 8 of my notes. Beware that although a complete proof is in the notes, it takes a little while to get there...the point is that this uses, in addition to the basic character theory of finite abelian groups, the fact that a finite abelian group is non-canonically isomorphic to its character group, which in turn uses the main structure theorem for finite abelian groups.
Added: It is possible to dispense with the character theory (although to my taste this is a nice, clean way to phrase it), but it does not seem possible to avoid the structure theorem, which is a famous, and famously nontrivial, result. Note that in particular Arturo's nice answer does not use character theory but does use the structure theorem...twice.
edited Dec 24 '16 at 10:54
Martin Sleziak
44.5k7115268
44.5k7115268
answered Sep 16 '11 at 2:57
Pete L. Clark
79.8k9161310
79.8k9161310
Indeed; I don't think you would be able to dispense with the structure theorem, given that the statement is so general. If you have no handle on what the quotient can look like, it seems that it would be rather hard to come up with a proof.
– Arturo Magidin
Sep 16 '11 at 3:16
Thanks Pete, I've actually been reading through a few of the algebra, number theory, and topology handouts you have on your website. The ones that are accessible to me are really quite clear and helpful.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:51
add a comment |
Indeed; I don't think you would be able to dispense with the structure theorem, given that the statement is so general. If you have no handle on what the quotient can look like, it seems that it would be rather hard to come up with a proof.
– Arturo Magidin
Sep 16 '11 at 3:16
Thanks Pete, I've actually been reading through a few of the algebra, number theory, and topology handouts you have on your website. The ones that are accessible to me are really quite clear and helpful.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:51
Indeed; I don't think you would be able to dispense with the structure theorem, given that the statement is so general. If you have no handle on what the quotient can look like, it seems that it would be rather hard to come up with a proof.
– Arturo Magidin
Sep 16 '11 at 3:16
Indeed; I don't think you would be able to dispense with the structure theorem, given that the statement is so general. If you have no handle on what the quotient can look like, it seems that it would be rather hard to come up with a proof.
– Arturo Magidin
Sep 16 '11 at 3:16
Thanks Pete, I've actually been reading through a few of the algebra, number theory, and topology handouts you have on your website. The ones that are accessible to me are really quite clear and helpful.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:51
Thanks Pete, I've actually been reading through a few of the algebra, number theory, and topology handouts you have on your website. The ones that are accessible to me are really quite clear and helpful.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:51
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
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%2f64982%2fis-every-quotient-of-a-finite-abelian-group-g-isomorphic-to-some-subgroup-of%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
3
If $G$ is abelian, then any subgroup is normal.
– Arturo Magidin
Sep 16 '11 at 2:49
@Arturo, ah yes of course, I'll remove it since it's redundant.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 2:50
2
I think you need to use the theorem on the structure of finite abelian groups.
– lhf
Sep 16 '11 at 2:54
6
Referring to a text written by (Serge, presumably) Lang as simply "Lang" leaves a lot of ambiguity. Do you mean Lang's Algebra? Please be more specific!
– Pete L. Clark
Sep 16 '11 at 2:55
3
My apologies, I'll be more specific in the future.
– yunone
Sep 16 '11 at 5:52