Is mapping generators to generators, and then extending, a well-defined homomorphism?Is the bijection shown by commutativity?About a well-defined homomorphismExample of non isomorphic groups with isomorphic group algebrasSubgroup of free products is torsion-freeSpecifying a homomorphism by given the images of the generators and extending “lineary”Definition of subgroup of abelian group $G$ generated by subset $A$Hatcher's definition of direct limit of a sequence of homomorphisms of abelian groupsLet $G,H$ be groups and $varphi:G times Hto G$ and $H'=ker(varphi)$. Show that $(Gtimes H)/H'cong G$Extending group homomorpisms by defining image of generators.
Can you set fire to beer barrels?
Why exactly is the answer 50 ohms?
What are the physical limits that determine a camera's flash sync speed?
How many integers are there that are not divisible by any prime larger than 20 and not divisible by the square of any prime?
What's the current zodiac?
Boot directly into another kernel from running Linux without bootloader
What is the design rationale for having armor and magic penetration mechanics?
What is the name for a fluid transition between two tones? When did it first appear?
They say I should work on bigger things
Pass a bash variable to python script
Can there be an atomic nucleus where there are more protons than neutrons?
How can a company compel a W2 employee to sign a non-compete agreement?
'Pound' meaning in this context
How can a "proper" function have a vertical slope?
Retrieve background color in ubuntu mate
Skewer removal without quick release
Incorrect mmap behavior when assembly files in included in the project
How is Smough's name pronounced?
Legality of creating a SE replica using SE's content
'provocative' vs 'sexy'
How does Firefox know my ISP login page?
I'm trying to graph a rational function
Is there a push, in the United States, to use gender-neutral language and gender pronouns (when they are given)?
Usefulness of Nash embedding theorem
Is mapping generators to generators, and then extending, a well-defined homomorphism?
Is the bijection shown by commutativity?About a well-defined homomorphismExample of non isomorphic groups with isomorphic group algebrasSubgroup of free products is torsion-freeSpecifying a homomorphism by given the images of the generators and extending “lineary”Definition of subgroup of abelian group $G$ generated by subset $A$Hatcher's definition of direct limit of a sequence of homomorphisms of abelian groupsLet $G,H$ be groups and $varphi:G times Hto G$ and $H'=ker(varphi)$. Show that $(Gtimes H)/H'cong G$Extending group homomorpisms by defining image of generators.
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
.everyonelovesstackoverflowposition:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;
$begingroup$
I was trying to define a homomorphism between some finite groups and I had the following idea.
Suppose that $G = langle a, brangle $, and $H = langle x, yrangle$. We define $varphi:G to H$ by $varphi(a)=x,$ $varphi(b)=y$, and for an arbitrary element of $G$, $g_1^epsilon_1g_2^epsilon_2 cdots g_n^epsilon_n$ (where each $g_i$ is either $a$ or $b$, and each $epsilon_i$ is either $1$ or $-1$), then $varphi(g_1^epsilon_1g_2^epsilon_2 cdots g_n^epsilon_n) = varphi(g_1)^epsilon_1 varphi(g_2)^epsilon_2 cdots varphi(g_n)^epsilon_n$.
If this is well-defined, then this is obviously a homomorphism. However, I do not know if this is well defined. I suspect not.
abstract-algebra group-theory group-homomorphism
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
I was trying to define a homomorphism between some finite groups and I had the following idea.
Suppose that $G = langle a, brangle $, and $H = langle x, yrangle$. We define $varphi:G to H$ by $varphi(a)=x,$ $varphi(b)=y$, and for an arbitrary element of $G$, $g_1^epsilon_1g_2^epsilon_2 cdots g_n^epsilon_n$ (where each $g_i$ is either $a$ or $b$, and each $epsilon_i$ is either $1$ or $-1$), then $varphi(g_1^epsilon_1g_2^epsilon_2 cdots g_n^epsilon_n) = varphi(g_1)^epsilon_1 varphi(g_2)^epsilon_2 cdots varphi(g_n)^epsilon_n$.
If this is well-defined, then this is obviously a homomorphism. However, I do not know if this is well defined. I suspect not.
abstract-algebra group-theory group-homomorphism
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Hint: Every group is in particular generated by all of it's elements.
$endgroup$
– Paul K
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@PaulK Ah so that would yield that any map from a group to itself is a homomorphism?
$endgroup$
– Blue
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is well-defined if and only if $a$ and $b$ satisfy all the relations in $G$ that $x$ and $y$ satisfy in $H$ (in particular, you can focus on a minimal defining set of relations for $x,y$).
$endgroup$
– runway44
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@runway44, it's the other way around, $x,y$ need to satisfy in $H$ what $a,b$ satisfy in $G$. Look at the case when $H$ is trivial. Then $x = y = e_H$, and obviously $a$ and $b$ don't need to satisfy it.
$endgroup$
– Ennar
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Ennar Oops, right.
$endgroup$
– runway44
8 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
I was trying to define a homomorphism between some finite groups and I had the following idea.
Suppose that $G = langle a, brangle $, and $H = langle x, yrangle$. We define $varphi:G to H$ by $varphi(a)=x,$ $varphi(b)=y$, and for an arbitrary element of $G$, $g_1^epsilon_1g_2^epsilon_2 cdots g_n^epsilon_n$ (where each $g_i$ is either $a$ or $b$, and each $epsilon_i$ is either $1$ or $-1$), then $varphi(g_1^epsilon_1g_2^epsilon_2 cdots g_n^epsilon_n) = varphi(g_1)^epsilon_1 varphi(g_2)^epsilon_2 cdots varphi(g_n)^epsilon_n$.
If this is well-defined, then this is obviously a homomorphism. However, I do not know if this is well defined. I suspect not.
abstract-algebra group-theory group-homomorphism
$endgroup$
I was trying to define a homomorphism between some finite groups and I had the following idea.
Suppose that $G = langle a, brangle $, and $H = langle x, yrangle$. We define $varphi:G to H$ by $varphi(a)=x,$ $varphi(b)=y$, and for an arbitrary element of $G$, $g_1^epsilon_1g_2^epsilon_2 cdots g_n^epsilon_n$ (where each $g_i$ is either $a$ or $b$, and each $epsilon_i$ is either $1$ or $-1$), then $varphi(g_1^epsilon_1g_2^epsilon_2 cdots g_n^epsilon_n) = varphi(g_1)^epsilon_1 varphi(g_2)^epsilon_2 cdots varphi(g_n)^epsilon_n$.
If this is well-defined, then this is obviously a homomorphism. However, I do not know if this is well defined. I suspect not.
abstract-algebra group-theory group-homomorphism
abstract-algebra group-theory group-homomorphism
edited 11 hours ago
Shaun
13.6k12 gold badges39 silver badges127 bronze badges
13.6k12 gold badges39 silver badges127 bronze badges
asked 11 hours ago
BlueBlue
1574 bronze badges
1574 bronze badges
1
$begingroup$
Hint: Every group is in particular generated by all of it's elements.
$endgroup$
– Paul K
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@PaulK Ah so that would yield that any map from a group to itself is a homomorphism?
$endgroup$
– Blue
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is well-defined if and only if $a$ and $b$ satisfy all the relations in $G$ that $x$ and $y$ satisfy in $H$ (in particular, you can focus on a minimal defining set of relations for $x,y$).
$endgroup$
– runway44
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@runway44, it's the other way around, $x,y$ need to satisfy in $H$ what $a,b$ satisfy in $G$. Look at the case when $H$ is trivial. Then $x = y = e_H$, and obviously $a$ and $b$ don't need to satisfy it.
$endgroup$
– Ennar
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Ennar Oops, right.
$endgroup$
– runway44
8 hours ago
add a comment
|
1
$begingroup$
Hint: Every group is in particular generated by all of it's elements.
$endgroup$
– Paul K
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@PaulK Ah so that would yield that any map from a group to itself is a homomorphism?
$endgroup$
– Blue
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is well-defined if and only if $a$ and $b$ satisfy all the relations in $G$ that $x$ and $y$ satisfy in $H$ (in particular, you can focus on a minimal defining set of relations for $x,y$).
$endgroup$
– runway44
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@runway44, it's the other way around, $x,y$ need to satisfy in $H$ what $a,b$ satisfy in $G$. Look at the case when $H$ is trivial. Then $x = y = e_H$, and obviously $a$ and $b$ don't need to satisfy it.
$endgroup$
– Ennar
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Ennar Oops, right.
$endgroup$
– runway44
8 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Hint: Every group is in particular generated by all of it's elements.
$endgroup$
– Paul K
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Hint: Every group is in particular generated by all of it's elements.
$endgroup$
– Paul K
11 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@PaulK Ah so that would yield that any map from a group to itself is a homomorphism?
$endgroup$
– Blue
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@PaulK Ah so that would yield that any map from a group to itself is a homomorphism?
$endgroup$
– Blue
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is well-defined if and only if $a$ and $b$ satisfy all the relations in $G$ that $x$ and $y$ satisfy in $H$ (in particular, you can focus on a minimal defining set of relations for $x,y$).
$endgroup$
– runway44
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is well-defined if and only if $a$ and $b$ satisfy all the relations in $G$ that $x$ and $y$ satisfy in $H$ (in particular, you can focus on a minimal defining set of relations for $x,y$).
$endgroup$
– runway44
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@runway44, it's the other way around, $x,y$ need to satisfy in $H$ what $a,b$ satisfy in $G$. Look at the case when $H$ is trivial. Then $x = y = e_H$, and obviously $a$ and $b$ don't need to satisfy it.
$endgroup$
– Ennar
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@runway44, it's the other way around, $x,y$ need to satisfy in $H$ what $a,b$ satisfy in $G$. Look at the case when $H$ is trivial. Then $x = y = e_H$, and obviously $a$ and $b$ don't need to satisfy it.
$endgroup$
– Ennar
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Ennar Oops, right.
$endgroup$
– runway44
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Ennar Oops, right.
$endgroup$
– runway44
8 hours ago
add a comment
|
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Any arbitrary map of generators to generators need not extend to a homomorphism, even if there is only one generator. For example, there is no nontrivial homomorphism between two cyclic groups of different prime orders.
The problem is that any combination of generators that results in the identity in the original group must also evaluate to the identity when you map to the target generators. Otherwise the map would not be a homomorphism.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Or perhaps the issue is rather that the map would not be well defined. An element of the original group can be expressed in different ways using the generators (unless the group is free), and for the definition to make sense all these different expressions for the domain element must lead to the same target element.
$endgroup$
– Joonas Ilmavirta
2 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Look at it this way. If what you propose was well-defined in general, then your $varphi$ would always have inverse $psicolon Hto G$ just by setting $psi(x)=a$, $psi(y) = b$. But not all groups generated by two elements are isomorphic. For example look at $mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimes mathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$, $F_2$ (free group generated by two elements), and any dihedral group $D_n$.
In general, for the group $G$ to be generated by two elements, it means that there is an epimorphism $varepsiloncolon F_2to G$ and by the first isomorphism theorem $Gcong F_2/kervarepsilon$. So, to define $varphicolon Gto H$, you need to have a homomorhpism $psicolon F_2 to H$ such that $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$, by the fundamental homomorphism theorem.
To explain what it means precisely, let $F_2 = langle x,yrangle$ and $G = langle a,brangle$. In this case, $varepsilon$ is just $xmapsto a$ and $ymapsto b$. To specify $psi$, it is enough to pick any two elements $h_1,h_2in H$ and let $psi(x) = h_1$, $psi(y) = h_2$. This always does define homomorphism - this is by definition of a free group, and this is essentially what you wanted to do, but for group $G$. Now, condition $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$ is equivalent to saying that for all $a^alpha_1b^beta_1ldots a^alpha_nb^beta_n = e_G$, it must be that $h_1^alpha_1h_2^beta_1ldots h_1^alpha_nh_2^beta_n = e_H.$ If that's true, you can set $varphi(a) = h_1$, $varphi(b) = h_2$, and it will be well-defined.
For more concrete example, let's take $G = mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$ and $H = mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$. Let $a = (1,0)$ and $b = (0,1)$. Note that $2a = 2b = (0,0)$ (I've switched to additive notation, as is customary). However, for any hypothetical $varphicolon Gto H$, $2varphi(a) = varphi(2a) = varphi(0,0) = (0,0)$. Since the only $hin H$ such that $2h = (0,0)$ is $h = (0,0)$, we need to have $varphi(a) = (0,0)$ and similarly $varphi(b) = (0,0)$. So, the only homomorphism is trivial.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
I think it is not, in general, well-defined. If it is indeed a well-defined map, then it is a surjection from $G$ onto $H$. Also, we can similarly define a surjection of $H$ onto $G$. But then we would have that any two groups generated by $2$ elements have the same cardinality, which is probably not true.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
Your Answer
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/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 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%2f3383268%2fis-mapping-generators-to-generators-and-then-extending-a-well-defined-homomorp%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Any arbitrary map of generators to generators need not extend to a homomorphism, even if there is only one generator. For example, there is no nontrivial homomorphism between two cyclic groups of different prime orders.
The problem is that any combination of generators that results in the identity in the original group must also evaluate to the identity when you map to the target generators. Otherwise the map would not be a homomorphism.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Or perhaps the issue is rather that the map would not be well defined. An element of the original group can be expressed in different ways using the generators (unless the group is free), and for the definition to make sense all these different expressions for the domain element must lead to the same target element.
$endgroup$
– Joonas Ilmavirta
2 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Any arbitrary map of generators to generators need not extend to a homomorphism, even if there is only one generator. For example, there is no nontrivial homomorphism between two cyclic groups of different prime orders.
The problem is that any combination of generators that results in the identity in the original group must also evaluate to the identity when you map to the target generators. Otherwise the map would not be a homomorphism.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Or perhaps the issue is rather that the map would not be well defined. An element of the original group can be expressed in different ways using the generators (unless the group is free), and for the definition to make sense all these different expressions for the domain element must lead to the same target element.
$endgroup$
– Joonas Ilmavirta
2 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Any arbitrary map of generators to generators need not extend to a homomorphism, even if there is only one generator. For example, there is no nontrivial homomorphism between two cyclic groups of different prime orders.
The problem is that any combination of generators that results in the identity in the original group must also evaluate to the identity when you map to the target generators. Otherwise the map would not be a homomorphism.
$endgroup$
Any arbitrary map of generators to generators need not extend to a homomorphism, even if there is only one generator. For example, there is no nontrivial homomorphism between two cyclic groups of different prime orders.
The problem is that any combination of generators that results in the identity in the original group must also evaluate to the identity when you map to the target generators. Otherwise the map would not be a homomorphism.
edited 8 hours ago
answered 10 hours ago
Matt SamuelMatt Samuel
42.7k6 gold badges42 silver badges74 bronze badges
42.7k6 gold badges42 silver badges74 bronze badges
$begingroup$
Or perhaps the issue is rather that the map would not be well defined. An element of the original group can be expressed in different ways using the generators (unless the group is free), and for the definition to make sense all these different expressions for the domain element must lead to the same target element.
$endgroup$
– Joonas Ilmavirta
2 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Or perhaps the issue is rather that the map would not be well defined. An element of the original group can be expressed in different ways using the generators (unless the group is free), and for the definition to make sense all these different expressions for the domain element must lead to the same target element.
$endgroup$
– Joonas Ilmavirta
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Or perhaps the issue is rather that the map would not be well defined. An element of the original group can be expressed in different ways using the generators (unless the group is free), and for the definition to make sense all these different expressions for the domain element must lead to the same target element.
$endgroup$
– Joonas Ilmavirta
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Or perhaps the issue is rather that the map would not be well defined. An element of the original group can be expressed in different ways using the generators (unless the group is free), and for the definition to make sense all these different expressions for the domain element must lead to the same target element.
$endgroup$
– Joonas Ilmavirta
2 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Look at it this way. If what you propose was well-defined in general, then your $varphi$ would always have inverse $psicolon Hto G$ just by setting $psi(x)=a$, $psi(y) = b$. But not all groups generated by two elements are isomorphic. For example look at $mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimes mathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$, $F_2$ (free group generated by two elements), and any dihedral group $D_n$.
In general, for the group $G$ to be generated by two elements, it means that there is an epimorphism $varepsiloncolon F_2to G$ and by the first isomorphism theorem $Gcong F_2/kervarepsilon$. So, to define $varphicolon Gto H$, you need to have a homomorhpism $psicolon F_2 to H$ such that $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$, by the fundamental homomorphism theorem.
To explain what it means precisely, let $F_2 = langle x,yrangle$ and $G = langle a,brangle$. In this case, $varepsilon$ is just $xmapsto a$ and $ymapsto b$. To specify $psi$, it is enough to pick any two elements $h_1,h_2in H$ and let $psi(x) = h_1$, $psi(y) = h_2$. This always does define homomorphism - this is by definition of a free group, and this is essentially what you wanted to do, but for group $G$. Now, condition $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$ is equivalent to saying that for all $a^alpha_1b^beta_1ldots a^alpha_nb^beta_n = e_G$, it must be that $h_1^alpha_1h_2^beta_1ldots h_1^alpha_nh_2^beta_n = e_H.$ If that's true, you can set $varphi(a) = h_1$, $varphi(b) = h_2$, and it will be well-defined.
For more concrete example, let's take $G = mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$ and $H = mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$. Let $a = (1,0)$ and $b = (0,1)$. Note that $2a = 2b = (0,0)$ (I've switched to additive notation, as is customary). However, for any hypothetical $varphicolon Gto H$, $2varphi(a) = varphi(2a) = varphi(0,0) = (0,0)$. Since the only $hin H$ such that $2h = (0,0)$ is $h = (0,0)$, we need to have $varphi(a) = (0,0)$ and similarly $varphi(b) = (0,0)$. So, the only homomorphism is trivial.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Look at it this way. If what you propose was well-defined in general, then your $varphi$ would always have inverse $psicolon Hto G$ just by setting $psi(x)=a$, $psi(y) = b$. But not all groups generated by two elements are isomorphic. For example look at $mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimes mathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$, $F_2$ (free group generated by two elements), and any dihedral group $D_n$.
In general, for the group $G$ to be generated by two elements, it means that there is an epimorphism $varepsiloncolon F_2to G$ and by the first isomorphism theorem $Gcong F_2/kervarepsilon$. So, to define $varphicolon Gto H$, you need to have a homomorhpism $psicolon F_2 to H$ such that $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$, by the fundamental homomorphism theorem.
To explain what it means precisely, let $F_2 = langle x,yrangle$ and $G = langle a,brangle$. In this case, $varepsilon$ is just $xmapsto a$ and $ymapsto b$. To specify $psi$, it is enough to pick any two elements $h_1,h_2in H$ and let $psi(x) = h_1$, $psi(y) = h_2$. This always does define homomorphism - this is by definition of a free group, and this is essentially what you wanted to do, but for group $G$. Now, condition $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$ is equivalent to saying that for all $a^alpha_1b^beta_1ldots a^alpha_nb^beta_n = e_G$, it must be that $h_1^alpha_1h_2^beta_1ldots h_1^alpha_nh_2^beta_n = e_H.$ If that's true, you can set $varphi(a) = h_1$, $varphi(b) = h_2$, and it will be well-defined.
For more concrete example, let's take $G = mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$ and $H = mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$. Let $a = (1,0)$ and $b = (0,1)$. Note that $2a = 2b = (0,0)$ (I've switched to additive notation, as is customary). However, for any hypothetical $varphicolon Gto H$, $2varphi(a) = varphi(2a) = varphi(0,0) = (0,0)$. Since the only $hin H$ such that $2h = (0,0)$ is $h = (0,0)$, we need to have $varphi(a) = (0,0)$ and similarly $varphi(b) = (0,0)$. So, the only homomorphism is trivial.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Look at it this way. If what you propose was well-defined in general, then your $varphi$ would always have inverse $psicolon Hto G$ just by setting $psi(x)=a$, $psi(y) = b$. But not all groups generated by two elements are isomorphic. For example look at $mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimes mathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$, $F_2$ (free group generated by two elements), and any dihedral group $D_n$.
In general, for the group $G$ to be generated by two elements, it means that there is an epimorphism $varepsiloncolon F_2to G$ and by the first isomorphism theorem $Gcong F_2/kervarepsilon$. So, to define $varphicolon Gto H$, you need to have a homomorhpism $psicolon F_2 to H$ such that $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$, by the fundamental homomorphism theorem.
To explain what it means precisely, let $F_2 = langle x,yrangle$ and $G = langle a,brangle$. In this case, $varepsilon$ is just $xmapsto a$ and $ymapsto b$. To specify $psi$, it is enough to pick any two elements $h_1,h_2in H$ and let $psi(x) = h_1$, $psi(y) = h_2$. This always does define homomorphism - this is by definition of a free group, and this is essentially what you wanted to do, but for group $G$. Now, condition $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$ is equivalent to saying that for all $a^alpha_1b^beta_1ldots a^alpha_nb^beta_n = e_G$, it must be that $h_1^alpha_1h_2^beta_1ldots h_1^alpha_nh_2^beta_n = e_H.$ If that's true, you can set $varphi(a) = h_1$, $varphi(b) = h_2$, and it will be well-defined.
For more concrete example, let's take $G = mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$ and $H = mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$. Let $a = (1,0)$ and $b = (0,1)$. Note that $2a = 2b = (0,0)$ (I've switched to additive notation, as is customary). However, for any hypothetical $varphicolon Gto H$, $2varphi(a) = varphi(2a) = varphi(0,0) = (0,0)$. Since the only $hin H$ such that $2h = (0,0)$ is $h = (0,0)$, we need to have $varphi(a) = (0,0)$ and similarly $varphi(b) = (0,0)$. So, the only homomorphism is trivial.
$endgroup$
Look at it this way. If what you propose was well-defined in general, then your $varphi$ would always have inverse $psicolon Hto G$ just by setting $psi(x)=a$, $psi(y) = b$. But not all groups generated by two elements are isomorphic. For example look at $mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimes mathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$, $F_2$ (free group generated by two elements), and any dihedral group $D_n$.
In general, for the group $G$ to be generated by two elements, it means that there is an epimorphism $varepsiloncolon F_2to G$ and by the first isomorphism theorem $Gcong F_2/kervarepsilon$. So, to define $varphicolon Gto H$, you need to have a homomorhpism $psicolon F_2 to H$ such that $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$, by the fundamental homomorphism theorem.
To explain what it means precisely, let $F_2 = langle x,yrangle$ and $G = langle a,brangle$. In this case, $varepsilon$ is just $xmapsto a$ and $ymapsto b$. To specify $psi$, it is enough to pick any two elements $h_1,h_2in H$ and let $psi(x) = h_1$, $psi(y) = h_2$. This always does define homomorphism - this is by definition of a free group, and this is essentially what you wanted to do, but for group $G$. Now, condition $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$ is equivalent to saying that for all $a^alpha_1b^beta_1ldots a^alpha_nb^beta_n = e_G$, it must be that $h_1^alpha_1h_2^beta_1ldots h_1^alpha_nh_2^beta_n = e_H.$ If that's true, you can set $varphi(a) = h_1$, $varphi(b) = h_2$, and it will be well-defined.
For more concrete example, let's take $G = mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$ and $H = mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$. Let $a = (1,0)$ and $b = (0,1)$. Note that $2a = 2b = (0,0)$ (I've switched to additive notation, as is customary). However, for any hypothetical $varphicolon Gto H$, $2varphi(a) = varphi(2a) = varphi(0,0) = (0,0)$. Since the only $hin H$ such that $2h = (0,0)$ is $h = (0,0)$, we need to have $varphi(a) = (0,0)$ and similarly $varphi(b) = (0,0)$. So, the only homomorphism is trivial.
answered 9 hours ago
EnnarEnnar
15.5k3 gold badges24 silver badges45 bronze badges
15.5k3 gold badges24 silver badges45 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
I think it is not, in general, well-defined. If it is indeed a well-defined map, then it is a surjection from $G$ onto $H$. Also, we can similarly define a surjection of $H$ onto $G$. But then we would have that any two groups generated by $2$ elements have the same cardinality, which is probably not true.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
I think it is not, in general, well-defined. If it is indeed a well-defined map, then it is a surjection from $G$ onto $H$. Also, we can similarly define a surjection of $H$ onto $G$. But then we would have that any two groups generated by $2$ elements have the same cardinality, which is probably not true.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
I think it is not, in general, well-defined. If it is indeed a well-defined map, then it is a surjection from $G$ onto $H$. Also, we can similarly define a surjection of $H$ onto $G$. But then we would have that any two groups generated by $2$ elements have the same cardinality, which is probably not true.
$endgroup$
I think it is not, in general, well-defined. If it is indeed a well-defined map, then it is a surjection from $G$ onto $H$. Also, we can similarly define a surjection of $H$ onto $G$. But then we would have that any two groups generated by $2$ elements have the same cardinality, which is probably not true.
answered 11 hours ago
OviOvi
13.5k10 gold badges48 silver badges127 bronze badges
13.5k10 gold badges48 silver badges127 bronze badges
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.
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%2f3383268%2fis-mapping-generators-to-generators-and-then-extending-a-well-defined-homomorp%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
$begingroup$
Hint: Every group is in particular generated by all of it's elements.
$endgroup$
– Paul K
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@PaulK Ah so that would yield that any map from a group to itself is a homomorphism?
$endgroup$
– Blue
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is well-defined if and only if $a$ and $b$ satisfy all the relations in $G$ that $x$ and $y$ satisfy in $H$ (in particular, you can focus on a minimal defining set of relations for $x,y$).
$endgroup$
– runway44
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@runway44, it's the other way around, $x,y$ need to satisfy in $H$ what $a,b$ satisfy in $G$. Look at the case when $H$ is trivial. Then $x = y = e_H$, and obviously $a$ and $b$ don't need to satisfy it.
$endgroup$
– Ennar
9 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Ennar Oops, right.
$endgroup$
– runway44
8 hours ago