Inverting without actual inverse?
I'm reading Ash's "Basic Abstract Algebra" and been trying to understand the following:
For which I guess the problem lies when we try to take an element $hkin HK$, it's inverse is $k^{-1}h^{-1}$ but $k^{-1}h^{-1}in HK$ only if $k^{-1}h^{-1}=h^{-1} k^{-1}$.
My problem is the following, taking the definition of subgroup, we have:
- If $a,bin H$, then $ab^{-1}in H$.
Then, all the elements $kcdot1=k$ and $1cdot h=h$ are in $HK$, that is: We have all the elements of both $H,K$ in $HK$. By the definition, suppose we have $hkin HK$, then we must have $(hk)(k^{-1})$ and $(hkk^{-1})(h^{-1})$. Isn't this very similar to having the inverse of $hk$ in $HK$?
It's a bit odd because it seems we can actually invert $hk$ by performing the two operations I mentioned before but $(hk)^{-1}$ is not actually in $HK$.
abstract-algebra group-theory
asked 2 days ago
Billy Rubina
10.3k1458134
add a comment |
I'm reading Ash's "Basic Abstract Algebra" and been trying to understand the following:
For which I guess the problem lies when we try to take an element $hkin HK$, it's inverse is $k^{-1}h^{-1}$ but $k^{-1}h^{-1}in HK$ only if $k^{-1}h^{-1}=h^{-1} k^{-1}$.
My problem is the following, taking the definition of subgroup, we have:
- If $a,bin H$, then $ab^{-1}in H$.
Then, all the elements $kcdot1=k$ and $1cdot h=h$ are in $HK$, that is: We have all the elements of both $H,K$ in $HK$. By the definition, suppose we have $hkin HK$, then we must have $(hk)(k^{-1})$ and $(hkk^{-1})(h^{-1})$. Isn't this very similar to having the inverse of $hk$ in $HK$?
It's a bit odd because it seems we can actually invert $hk$ by performing the two operations I mentioned before but $(hk)^{-1}$ is not actually in $HK$.
abstract-algebra group-theory
asked 2 days ago
Billy Rubina
10.3k1458134
1
It is not clear to me what you are asking. I guess you want to prove that $HK le G$ implies $HK = KH$. The converse is fairly obvious.
– Paul Frost
2 days ago
1
I think your confusion stems from the way you're looking at this. Notice that $(hk)(k^{-1})$ must be in $HK$ trivially since it's $h$ same for $(hk)(k^{-1})(h^{-1})$ since that is just $1$. But just because $abin HK$ that says nothing about $a$ or $b$ being in $HK$ unless you know $HK$ is a group. Even if you know $ain HK$ and $abin HK$ you only get $b$ in $HK$ if $HK$ is a group.
– DRF
2 days ago
add a comment |
I'm reading Ash's "Basic Abstract Algebra" and been trying to understand the following:
For which I guess the problem lies when we try to take an element $hkin HK$, it's inverse is $k^{-1}h^{-1}$ but $k^{-1}h^{-1}in HK$ only if $k^{-1}h^{-1}=h^{-1} k^{-1}$.
My problem is the following, taking the definition of subgroup, we have:
- If $a,bin H$, then $ab^{-1}in H$.
Then, all the elements $kcdot1=k$ and $1cdot h=h$ are in $HK$, that is: We have all the elements of both $H,K$ in $HK$. By the definition, suppose we have $hkin HK$, then we must have $(hk)(k^{-1})$ and $(hkk^{-1})(h^{-1})$. Isn't this very similar to having the inverse of $hk$ in $HK$?
It's a bit odd because it seems we can actually invert $hk$ by performing the two operations I mentioned before but $(hk)^{-1}$ is not actually in $HK$.
abstract-algebra group-theory
asked 2 days ago
Billy Rubina
10.3k1458134
I'm reading Ash's "Basic Abstract Algebra" and been trying to understand the following:
For which I guess the problem lies when we try to take an element $hkin HK$, it's inverse is $k^{-1}h^{-1}$ but $k^{-1}h^{-1}in HK$ only if $k^{-1}h^{-1}=h^{-1} k^{-1}$.
My problem is the following, taking the definition of subgroup, we have:
- If $a,bin H$, then $ab^{-1}in H$.
Then, all the elements $kcdot1=k$ and $1cdot h=h$ are in $HK$, that is: We have all the elements of both $H,K$ in $HK$. By the definition, suppose we have $hkin HK$, then we must have $(hk)(k^{-1})$ and $(hkk^{-1})(h^{-1})$. Isn't this very similar to having the inverse of $hk$ in $HK$?
It's a bit odd because it seems we can actually invert $hk$ by performing the two operations I mentioned before but $(hk)^{-1}$ is not actually in $HK$.
abstract-algebra group-theory
abstract-algebra group-theory
asked 2 days ago
Billy Rubina
10.3k1458134
asked 2 days ago
Billy Rubina
10.3k1458134
edited 2 days ago
asked 2 days ago
Billy Rubina
10.3k1458134
asked 2 days ago
Billy Rubina
10.3k1458134
asked 2 days ago
Billy Rubina
10.3k1458134
10.3k1458134
1
It is not clear to me what you are asking. I guess you want to prove that $HK le G$ implies $HK = KH$. The converse is fairly obvious.
– Paul Frost
2 days ago
1
I think your confusion stems from the way you're looking at this. Notice that $(hk)(k^{-1})$ must be in $HK$ trivially since it's $h$ same for $(hk)(k^{-1})(h^{-1})$ since that is just $1$. But just because $abin HK$ that says nothing about $a$ or $b$ being in $HK$ unless you know $HK$ is a group. Even if you know $ain HK$ and $abin HK$ you only get $b$ in $HK$ if $HK$ is a group.
– DRF
2 days ago
add a comment |
1
It is not clear to me what you are asking. I guess you want to prove that $HK le G$ implies $HK = KH$. The converse is fairly obvious.
– Paul Frost
2 days ago
1
I think your confusion stems from the way you're looking at this. Notice that $(hk)(k^{-1})$ must be in $HK$ trivially since it's $h$ same for $(hk)(k^{-1})(h^{-1})$ since that is just $1$. But just because $abin HK$ that says nothing about $a$ or $b$ being in $HK$ unless you know $HK$ is a group. Even if you know $ain HK$ and $abin HK$ you only get $b$ in $HK$ if $HK$ is a group.
– DRF
2 days ago
1
1
It is not clear to me what you are asking. I guess you want to prove that $HK le G$ implies $HK = KH$. The converse is fairly obvious.
– Paul Frost
2 days ago
It is not clear to me what you are asking. I guess you want to prove that $HK le G$ implies $HK = KH$. The converse is fairly obvious.
– Paul Frost
2 days ago
1
1
I think your confusion stems from the way you're looking at this. Notice that $(hk)(k^{-1})$ must be in $HK$ trivially since it's $h$ same for $(hk)(k^{-1})(h^{-1})$ since that is just $1$. But just because $abin HK$ that says nothing about $a$ or $b$ being in $HK$ unless you know $HK$ is a group. Even if you know $ain HK$ and $abin HK$ you only get $b$ in $HK$ if $HK$ is a group.
– DRF
2 days ago
I think your confusion stems from the way you're looking at this. Notice that $(hk)(k^{-1})$ must be in $HK$ trivially since it's $h$ same for $(hk)(k^{-1})(h^{-1})$ since that is just $1$. But just because $abin HK$ that says nothing about $a$ or $b$ being in $HK$ unless you know $HK$ is a group. Even if you know $ain HK$ and $abin HK$ you only get $b$ in $HK$ if $HK$ is a group.
– DRF
2 days ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$newcommand{Span}[1]{leftlangle #1 rightrangle}$Allow me first of all to question your statement
when we try to take an element $hkin HK$, its inverse is $k^{-1}h^{-1}$ but $k^{-1}h^{-1}in HK$ only if $k^{-1}h^{-1}=h^{-1} k^{-1}$.
This is not true. Take for instance $G = S_{3}$, $H = Span{(1 2)}$, $K = Span{(1 2 3)}$, $h = (1 2)$, $k = (1 2 3)$. Then $h^{-1} k^{-1} = (2 3) ne (1 3) = k^{-1} h^{-1} in H K = S_{3}$.
As to your second statement
suppose we have $hkin HK$, then we must have $(hk)(k^{-1})$ and $(hkk^{-1})(h^{-1})$. Isn't this very similar to having the inverse of $hk$ in $HK$?
I fail to see the point. Sure, $h k$ has an inverse $k^{-1} h^{-1}$ in $G$, and that's what you are checking. But to show that $H K$ is a subgroup you will have to show that (under suitable conditions) this inverse lies precisely in $H K$.
answered 2 days ago
Andreas Caranti
56k34295
add a comment |
Assume $HK = KH$. To show that $HK$ is a subgroup, consider $g_1= h_1k_1, g_2 = h_2k_2$ in $HK$. We have $(k_1k_2^{-1})h_2^{-1} in KH = HK$, hence $(k_1k_2^{-1})h_2^{-1} = hk$ with $h in H, k in K$. Then $g_1g_2^{-1} = h_1k_1k_2^{-1}h_2^{-1} = h_1hk in HK$.
If you consider $hk in HK$, then you see even easier $(hk)^{-1} = k^{-1}h^{-1} in KH = HK$.
Conversely, assume that $HK$ is a subgroup of $G$.
(a) $KH subset HK$.
Let $g in KH$. Write $g = kh$ with $h in H, k in K$. Then $g^{-1} = h^{-1}k^{-1} in HK$, hence $g in HK$.
(b) $HK subset KH$.
Let $g in HK$. Then also $g^{-1} in HK$, hence $g^{-1} = hk$ with $h in H, k in K$. This shows $g = k^{-1}h^{-1} in KH$.
answered 2 days ago
Paul Frost
9,2762631
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
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
});
}
});
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%2f3059251%2finverting-without-actual-inverse%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
$newcommand{Span}[1]{leftlangle #1 rightrangle}$Allow me first of all to question your statement
when we try to take an element $hkin HK$, its inverse is $k^{-1}h^{-1}$ but $k^{-1}h^{-1}in HK$ only if $k^{-1}h^{-1}=h^{-1} k^{-1}$.
This is not true. Take for instance $G = S_{3}$, $H = Span{(1 2)}$, $K = Span{(1 2 3)}$, $h = (1 2)$, $k = (1 2 3)$. Then $h^{-1} k^{-1} = (2 3) ne (1 3) = k^{-1} h^{-1} in H K = S_{3}$.
As to your second statement
suppose we have $hkin HK$, then we must have $(hk)(k^{-1})$ and $(hkk^{-1})(h^{-1})$. Isn't this very similar to having the inverse of $hk$ in $HK$?
I fail to see the point. Sure, $h k$ has an inverse $k^{-1} h^{-1}$ in $G$, and that's what you are checking. But to show that $H K$ is a subgroup you will have to show that (under suitable conditions) this inverse lies precisely in $H K$.
answered 2 days ago
Andreas Caranti
56k34295
add a comment |
$newcommand{Span}[1]{leftlangle #1 rightrangle}$Allow me first of all to question your statement
when we try to take an element $hkin HK$, its inverse is $k^{-1}h^{-1}$ but $k^{-1}h^{-1}in HK$ only if $k^{-1}h^{-1}=h^{-1} k^{-1}$.
This is not true. Take for instance $G = S_{3}$, $H = Span{(1 2)}$, $K = Span{(1 2 3)}$, $h = (1 2)$, $k = (1 2 3)$. Then $h^{-1} k^{-1} = (2 3) ne (1 3) = k^{-1} h^{-1} in H K = S_{3}$.
As to your second statement
suppose we have $hkin HK$, then we must have $(hk)(k^{-1})$ and $(hkk^{-1})(h^{-1})$. Isn't this very similar to having the inverse of $hk$ in $HK$?
I fail to see the point. Sure, $h k$ has an inverse $k^{-1} h^{-1}$ in $G$, and that's what you are checking. But to show that $H K$ is a subgroup you will have to show that (under suitable conditions) this inverse lies precisely in $H K$.
answered 2 days ago
Andreas Caranti
56k34295
add a comment |
$newcommand{Span}[1]{leftlangle #1 rightrangle}$Allow me first of all to question your statement
when we try to take an element $hkin HK$, its inverse is $k^{-1}h^{-1}$ but $k^{-1}h^{-1}in HK$ only if $k^{-1}h^{-1}=h^{-1} k^{-1}$.
This is not true. Take for instance $G = S_{3}$, $H = Span{(1 2)}$, $K = Span{(1 2 3)}$, $h = (1 2)$, $k = (1 2 3)$. Then $h^{-1} k^{-1} = (2 3) ne (1 3) = k^{-1} h^{-1} in H K = S_{3}$.
As to your second statement
suppose we have $hkin HK$, then we must have $(hk)(k^{-1})$ and $(hkk^{-1})(h^{-1})$. Isn't this very similar to having the inverse of $hk$ in $HK$?
I fail to see the point. Sure, $h k$ has an inverse $k^{-1} h^{-1}$ in $G$, and that's what you are checking. But to show that $H K$ is a subgroup you will have to show that (under suitable conditions) this inverse lies precisely in $H K$.
answered 2 days ago
Andreas Caranti
56k34295
$newcommand{Span}[1]{leftlangle #1 rightrangle}$Allow me first of all to question your statement
when we try to take an element $hkin HK$, its inverse is $k^{-1}h^{-1}$ but $k^{-1}h^{-1}in HK$ only if $k^{-1}h^{-1}=h^{-1} k^{-1}$.
This is not true. Take for instance $G = S_{3}$, $H = Span{(1 2)}$, $K = Span{(1 2 3)}$, $h = (1 2)$, $k = (1 2 3)$. Then $h^{-1} k^{-1} = (2 3) ne (1 3) = k^{-1} h^{-1} in H K = S_{3}$.
As to your second statement
suppose we have $hkin HK$, then we must have $(hk)(k^{-1})$ and $(hkk^{-1})(h^{-1})$. Isn't this very similar to having the inverse of $hk$ in $HK$?
I fail to see the point. Sure, $h k$ has an inverse $k^{-1} h^{-1}$ in $G$, and that's what you are checking. But to show that $H K$ is a subgroup you will have to show that (under suitable conditions) this inverse lies precisely in $H K$.
answered 2 days ago
Andreas Caranti
56k34295
answered 2 days ago
Andreas Caranti
56k34295
answered 2 days ago
Andreas Caranti
56k34295
answered 2 days ago
Andreas Caranti
56k34295
56k34295
add a comment |
add a comment |
Assume $HK = KH$. To show that $HK$ is a subgroup, consider $g_1= h_1k_1, g_2 = h_2k_2$ in $HK$. We have $(k_1k_2^{-1})h_2^{-1} in KH = HK$, hence $(k_1k_2^{-1})h_2^{-1} = hk$ with $h in H, k in K$. Then $g_1g_2^{-1} = h_1k_1k_2^{-1}h_2^{-1} = h_1hk in HK$.
If you consider $hk in HK$, then you see even easier $(hk)^{-1} = k^{-1}h^{-1} in KH = HK$.
Conversely, assume that $HK$ is a subgroup of $G$.
(a) $KH subset HK$.
Let $g in KH$. Write $g = kh$ with $h in H, k in K$. Then $g^{-1} = h^{-1}k^{-1} in HK$, hence $g in HK$.
(b) $HK subset KH$.
Let $g in HK$. Then also $g^{-1} in HK$, hence $g^{-1} = hk$ with $h in H, k in K$. This shows $g = k^{-1}h^{-1} in KH$.
answered 2 days ago
Paul Frost
9,2762631
add a comment |
Assume $HK = KH$. To show that $HK$ is a subgroup, consider $g_1= h_1k_1, g_2 = h_2k_2$ in $HK$. We have $(k_1k_2^{-1})h_2^{-1} in KH = HK$, hence $(k_1k_2^{-1})h_2^{-1} = hk$ with $h in H, k in K$. Then $g_1g_2^{-1} = h_1k_1k_2^{-1}h_2^{-1} = h_1hk in HK$.
If you consider $hk in HK$, then you see even easier $(hk)^{-1} = k^{-1}h^{-1} in KH = HK$.
Conversely, assume that $HK$ is a subgroup of $G$.
(a) $KH subset HK$.
Let $g in KH$. Write $g = kh$ with $h in H, k in K$. Then $g^{-1} = h^{-1}k^{-1} in HK$, hence $g in HK$.
(b) $HK subset KH$.
Let $g in HK$. Then also $g^{-1} in HK$, hence $g^{-1} = hk$ with $h in H, k in K$. This shows $g = k^{-1}h^{-1} in KH$.
answered 2 days ago
Paul Frost
9,2762631
add a comment |
Assume $HK = KH$. To show that $HK$ is a subgroup, consider $g_1= h_1k_1, g_2 = h_2k_2$ in $HK$. We have $(k_1k_2^{-1})h_2^{-1} in KH = HK$, hence $(k_1k_2^{-1})h_2^{-1} = hk$ with $h in H, k in K$. Then $g_1g_2^{-1} = h_1k_1k_2^{-1}h_2^{-1} = h_1hk in HK$.
If you consider $hk in HK$, then you see even easier $(hk)^{-1} = k^{-1}h^{-1} in KH = HK$.
Conversely, assume that $HK$ is a subgroup of $G$.
(a) $KH subset HK$.
Let $g in KH$. Write $g = kh$ with $h in H, k in K$. Then $g^{-1} = h^{-1}k^{-1} in HK$, hence $g in HK$.
(b) $HK subset KH$.
Let $g in HK$. Then also $g^{-1} in HK$, hence $g^{-1} = hk$ with $h in H, k in K$. This shows $g = k^{-1}h^{-1} in KH$.
answered 2 days ago
Paul Frost
9,2762631
Assume $HK = KH$. To show that $HK$ is a subgroup, consider $g_1= h_1k_1, g_2 = h_2k_2$ in $HK$. We have $(k_1k_2^{-1})h_2^{-1} in KH = HK$, hence $(k_1k_2^{-1})h_2^{-1} = hk$ with $h in H, k in K$. Then $g_1g_2^{-1} = h_1k_1k_2^{-1}h_2^{-1} = h_1hk in HK$.
If you consider $hk in HK$, then you see even easier $(hk)^{-1} = k^{-1}h^{-1} in KH = HK$.
Conversely, assume that $HK$ is a subgroup of $G$.
(a) $KH subset HK$.
Let $g in KH$. Write $g = kh$ with $h in H, k in K$. Then $g^{-1} = h^{-1}k^{-1} in HK$, hence $g in HK$.
(b) $HK subset KH$.
Let $g in HK$. Then also $g^{-1} in HK$, hence $g^{-1} = hk$ with $h in H, k in K$. This shows $g = k^{-1}h^{-1} in KH$.
answered 2 days ago
Paul Frost
9,2762631
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
Paul Frost
9,2762631
answered 2 days ago
Paul Frost
9,2762631
answered 2 days ago
Paul Frost
9,2762631
9,2762631
add a comment |
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%2f3059251%2finverting-without-actual-inverse%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
1
It is not clear to me what you are asking. I guess you want to prove that $HK le G$ implies $HK = KH$. The converse is fairly obvious.
– Paul Frost
2 days ago
1
I think your confusion stems from the way you're looking at this. Notice that $(hk)(k^{-1})$ must be in $HK$ trivially since it's $h$ same for $(hk)(k^{-1})(h^{-1})$ since that is just $1$. But just because $abin HK$ that says nothing about $a$ or $b$ being in $HK$ unless you know $HK$ is a group. Even if you know $ain HK$ and $abin HK$ you only get $b$ in $HK$ if $HK$ is a group.
– DRF
2 days ago