Basic Group Theory: Proof <A,B>n<C>=<AuBnC>

Click For Summary
In group theory, the discussion centers on the equation <A,B> ∩ C = <A ∪ B ∩ C> and whether it holds true for sets A, B, and C within a group G. The proof suggests that if an element g belongs to both <A,B> and C, it can be generated by elements from A or B and also from C, thus implying g is in <(A ∪ B) ∩ C>. However, a counterexample using the additive groups generated by {3} and {4} demonstrates that both groups contain the element 12, yet their intersection of generating sets is empty. This indicates that the initial assertion may not be universally valid, particularly when considering the nature of the groups involved. The conversation highlights the complexities and nuances in group theory proofs.
tgt
Messages
519
Reaction score
2
In a group G, is it true that <A,B>n<C>=<AuBnC> where A,B and C are sets in G?

Where <D> denotes the smallest subgroup in G containing the set D.

Proof
If g is in <A,B> and g is in <C> then g is capable of being generated by elements in A or B and also elements in C. So g is generated by elements in (AuB)nC. So g is in <(AuB)nC>.

if g is in <(AuB)nC> then g is in <AuB> and g is in <C> so g is in <AuB>n<C>
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
tgt said:
If g is in <A,B> and g is in <C> then g is capable of being generated by elements in A or B and also elements in C. So g is generated by elements in (AuB)nC. So g is in <(AuB)nC>.
I don't think that is true. For example, consider the additive groups generated by {3} and by {4} (i.e. 3Z and 4Z).
They both contain 12, yet the intersection of the generating sets is empty.
 
CompuChip said:
I don't think that is true. For example, consider the additive groups generated by {3} and by {4} (i.e. 3Z and 4Z).
They both contain 12, yet the intersection of the generating sets is empty.

nice one.
 
We can say that if A and B are subgroups of G then <A,B>=AuB, right?
 
Did you check with my example?
( \langle 3, 4 \rangle, + ) \neq (3\mathbb{Z} + 4\mathbb{Z}, +)
(in fact, the LHS is a group while the RHS is not).
 
CompuChip said:
Did you check with my example?
( \langle 3, 4 \rangle, + ) \neq (3\mathbb{Z} + 4\mathbb{Z}, +)
(in fact, the LHS is a group while the RHS is not).

I see.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
520
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
521
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
846
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
871
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K