Results 1 to 9 of 9

Math Help - Commutator

  1. #1
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Florida
    Posts
    3,093
    Thanks
    5

    Commutator

    Show that if \phi:G\to H is a homomorphism into the abelian group H, then there exists a unique homomorphism \hat{\phi}:G/G'\to H such that \hat{\phi}(G'x)=\phi(x), \ \forall x\in G.

    I believe I need to show that phi is onto and there is a map \theta:G\to G/G' such that (\phi\theta)(g)=\hat{\phi}(G'x).

    Correct?

    And I need some help on this.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    MHF Contributor Drexel28's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Berkeley, California
    Posts
    4,563
    Thanks
    21

    Re: Commutator

    Quote Originally Posted by dwsmith View Post
    Show that if \phi:G\to H is a homomorphism into the abelian group H, then there exists a unique homomorphism \hat{\phi}:G/G'\to H such that \hat{\phi}(G'x)=\phi(x), \ \forall x\in G.

    I believe I need to show that phi is onto and there is a map \theta:G\to G/G' such that (\phi\theta)(g)=\hat{\phi}(G'x).

    Correct?

    And I need some help on this.
    You need to assume that \phi is surjective. Then, your \widehat{\phi} is surjective by mere definition! To factor \widehat{\phi} through G/[G,G] just do what's natural. What's the obvious map G\twoheadrightarrow G/[G,G].
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Mar 2011
    From
    Tejas
    Posts
    3,401
    Thanks
    762

    Re: Commutator

    why do we need to assume φ is onto?

    i would simply define: \widehat{\phi}(G'x) = \phi(x)

    the question is, is this mapping well-defined?

    note that if g \in G' then: g = \prod_k a_kb_ka_k^{-1}b_k^{-1}

    hence \phi(g) = \prod_k \phi(a_k)\phi(b_k)(\phi(a_k))^{-1}(\phi(b_k))^{-1} = e_H, since H is abelian.

    that is, G' ⊆ ker(φ).

    now suppose that G'x = G'y, so that xy^{-1} \in G'

    then \phi(xy^{-1}) = e_H so \phi(x)(\phi(y))^{-1} = e_H and therefore:

    \phi(x) = \phi(y), justifying our definition of \widehat{\phi}.

    nowhere did i use the surjectivity of φ.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    MHF Contributor
    Joined
    Mar 2010
    From
    Florida
    Posts
    3,093
    Thanks
    5

    Re: Commutator

    How do I show uniqueness. I tried assume another map pi but I wasn't doing ground breaking.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Mar 2011
    From
    Tejas
    Posts
    3,401
    Thanks
    762

    Re: Commutator

    suppose \psi is another such map, and let \pi be the canonical projection G \to G/G' given by \pi(g) = G'g.

    then \phi = \psi \circ \pi = \widehat{\phi} \circ \pi.

    since \pi is surjective, it has a right-inverse, that is a function \sigma such that \pi \circ \sigma = \text{id}_{G/G'}.

    therefore:

    \psi \circ \pi \circ \sigma = \widehat{\phi} \circ \pi \circ \sigma, so \psi = \widehat{\phi}

    ( \widehat{\phi} is unique because of the way we defined it, using the universal property of the canonical quotient map).
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    MHF Contributor Drexel28's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Berkeley, California
    Posts
    4,563
    Thanks
    21

    Re: Commutator

    Quote Originally Posted by Deveno View Post
    why do we need to assume φ is onto?

    i would simply define: \widehat{\phi}(G'x) = \phi(x)
    And this map would only be a surjection onto \phi(G) which manes that this mapping is surjective if and only if \phi is surjective. The universal property of the abelinization is stated for abelian images, for this reason.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Mar 2011
    From
    Tejas
    Posts
    3,401
    Thanks
    762

    Re: Commutator

    but φ doesn't have to be onto. look, say i have this example:

    \phi:S_3 \to \mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2 given \phi((1 2 3)) = (0,0), \phi((1 2)) = (1,0).

    that is a perfectly good homomorphism, and it is NOT surjective.

    now explicitly, G' = {e, (1 2 3), (1 3 2)}, as one can see by computing all 36 commutators. so in this case, we have G/G' = {G', (1 2)G'}.

    so the map \widehat{\phi} is given by:

    \widehat{\phi}(G') = (0,0), \widehat{\phi}((1 2)G') = (1,0) which is not surjective.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    MHF Contributor Drexel28's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    From
    Berkeley, California
    Posts
    4,563
    Thanks
    21

    Re: Commutator

    Quote Originally Posted by Deveno View Post
    but φ doesn't have to be onto. look, say i have this example:

    \phi:S_3 \to \mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2 given \phi((1 2 3)) = (0,0), \phi((1 2)) = (1,0).

    that is a perfectly good homomorphism, and it is NOT surjective.

    now explicitly, G' = {e, (1 2 3), (1 3 2)}, as one can see by computing all 36 commutators. so in this case, we have G/G' = {G', (1 2)G'}.

    so the map \widehat{\phi} is given by:

    \widehat{\phi}(G') = (0,0), \widehat{\phi}((1 2)G') = (1,0) which is not surjective.
    I think we're saying the same thing. Of course you can make this map for any morphism (because you just go G\to\phi(G)\hookrightarrow H), but the operative thing, the way all the surjections work is if you are just dealing with abelian images. Agreed?
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Mar 2011
    From
    Tejas
    Posts
    3,401
    Thanks
    762

    Re: Commutator

    the key fact is that the canonical projection is surjective. and that's all we care about, because we really only care about the homomorphic image of φ (whatever happens in the rest of H isn't of any interest to us, since it never gets "hit" with φ).

    my point being, in actual practice, it might be easier to define φ and H, rather than define a priori some subgroup of H that φ maps surjectively to (we might only discover what this subgroup is by investigating φ in some detail).

    in some problems in group theory, it is indeed key to require surjectivity (because you need to exhibit some pre-image). here, since "abelianness" is hereditary (for subgroups), we don't have to worry about it, we know the image of φ is abelian because it is a subgroup of an abelian group. so all we need to know is that φ factors through the abelianization (that is, that ker(φ) contains all of G').
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. commutator ring
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 17th 2011, 03:07 PM
  2. Lie derivative and commutator
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 23rd 2009, 02:08 AM
  3. Commutator, Abelian
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 3rd 2009, 12:18 AM
  4. commutator subgroup eep!
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 30th 2009, 09:02 PM
  5. commutator subgroups
    Posted in the Advanced Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 14th 2008, 11:40 AM

/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum