Proof of Correspondence theorem

  • Constructive Proofs
  • Thread starter Gaussian97
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Proof Theorem
In summary, the conversation discusses theorem 3.15 in Adkins' book "Algebra. An approach via Module Theory" which states that the 1-1 correspondence between subgroups has the property that if one subgroup is a subset of the other, then the quotient groups also have the same relationship. The first part of the theorem is proven in the book, but the second part is left for the reader to prove. The conversation then presents a proof for the second part, using a 1-1 correspondence between two sets. The expert summarizes the conversation by stating that the proof is based on a natural correspondence and shows that it is well-defined, ultimately proving that the two groups have the same number of elements. They also commend the
  • #1
Gaussian97
Homework Helper
683
412
Summary:: I'm reading Adkins' book "Algebra. An approach via Module Theory" and I'm trying to prove theorem 3.15

In theorem 3.15 of Adkins' book says:
Let ##N \triangleleft G##. The 1-1 correspondence ##H \mapsto H/N## has the property
$$H_1 \subseteq H_2 \Longleftrightarrow H_1/N \subseteq H_2/N$$
and in this case
$$[H_2: H_1] = [H_2/N: H_1/N].$$

The first part is proven by the book, but it left to prove ##[H_2: H_1] = [H_2/N: H_1/N]## to the reader. The book says that one should try to find a 1-1 correspondence between the sets ##S_1 = \{aH_1 : a\in H_2\}## and ##S_2 = \{\bar{a}H_1/N : \bar{a}\in H_2/N\}##

I think I have the proof, but I'm not sure if it's correct/rigorous, so I would appreciate if anyone can look at it. My proof goes like this:
I think that the most natural correspondence is to define
$$\begin{array}? f: &H_2/H_1 &\rightarrow &(H_2/N)/(H_1/N) \\ & h_2H_1 & \mapsto & (h_2N)(H_1/N)\end{array}$$

First I need to prove that is a well-behaved function, i.e. that fulfils
$$h_2H_1 = h'_2H_1 \Longrightarrow (h_2N)(H_1/N) = (h'_2N)(H_1/N).$$
$$h_2H_1 = h'_2H_1 \text{ means that } \exists h_1, h'_1 \in H_1 : h_2h_1 = h'_2h'_1.$$ Therefore ##h_2h_1N = h'_2h'_1N##, and because ##N\triangleleft G## I know (from Proposition 3.6 of the book) that the cosets of ##N##, with the multiplication ##(aN)(bN)=(ab)N## form a group, and therefore
$$h_2h_1N = h'_2h'_1N \Longrightarrow (h_2N)(h_1N) = (h'_2N)(h'_1N) \Longrightarrow (h_2N)(H_1/N) = (h'_2N)(H_1/N).$$ So the function ##f## is well-defined.

Also, because any element of ##(H_2/N)/(H_1/N)## can be written as ##(h_2N)(H_1/N)##, ##f## is surjective.

The only thing left to prove is injection, i.e.
$$(h_2N)(H_1/N) = (h'_2N)(H_1/N) \Longrightarrow h_2H_1 = h'_2H_1.$$
##(h_2N)(H_1/N) = (h'_2N)(H_1/N)## means that
$$\exists h_1, h'_1 \in H_1 : (h_2N)(h_1N) = (h'_2N)(h'_1N) \Longrightarrow (h_2h_1)N = (h'_2h'_1)N$$
Because ##G/N## is a group, with neutral element ##N## and inverse ##(a^{-1})N## we can multiply by ##(h_2h_1)^{-1}N## to get
$$N = ((h_2h_1)^{-1}h'_2h'_1)N \Longrightarrow ((h_2h_1)^{-1}h'_2h'_1)\in N \Longrightarrow h_2h_1n= h'_2h'_1, \qquad n\in N$$
Finally, because ##N \subseteq H_1## implies ##h_1 n \in H_1## and that proves ##h_2 H_1 = h'_2 H_1##.

With that, ##f## is a 1-1 correspondence and therefore the two groups must have the same number of elements, proving ##[H_2: H_1] = [H_2/N: H_1/N]##.

If you can tell me if this prof is correct, or point me where it fails or where I need to be more rigorous I would appreciate.
Thank you
 
  • Like
Likes member 587159
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I quickly read through your proof and the idea looks ok to me but some things are written somewhat awkwardly, but I guess that is part of the learning process. For example, when proving in the injectivity part that ##h_2H_1= h_2' H_1## it would be easier to show both the inclusions ##\subseteq, \supseteq## directly from the assumption and not take such a detour. But this might be matter of taste.

What is important here is that you wrote down a natural candidate for the correspondence and showed that it is well-defined. This is key, the rest are details that need checking but are less important. Throughout your work, I was also convinced that you understood the concept of quotient groups. Well done!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes Gaussian97

FAQ: Proof of Correspondence theorem

What is the Proof of Correspondence theorem?

The Proof of Correspondence theorem is a mathematical concept that states that if two sets have the same number of elements, there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the two sets.

What is the significance of the Proof of Correspondence theorem?

The Proof of Correspondence theorem is significant because it allows us to compare the sizes of different sets and determine if they have the same number of elements. It is also a fundamental concept in many areas of mathematics, such as set theory and combinatorics.

How is the Proof of Correspondence theorem proven?

The Proof of Correspondence theorem is typically proven using a proof by contradiction. This involves assuming that there is no one-to-one correspondence between the two sets and then showing that this leads to a contradiction. This proves that there must be a one-to-one correspondence between the two sets.

Can the Proof of Correspondence theorem be applied to infinite sets?

Yes, the Proof of Correspondence theorem can be applied to infinite sets as long as they have the same cardinality (number of elements). This means that there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the two infinite sets.

How is the Proof of Correspondence theorem related to the concept of bijection?

The Proof of Correspondence theorem is closely related to the concept of bijection, which is a function that is both injective (every element in the domain maps to a unique element in the codomain) and surjective (every element in the codomain is mapped to by at least one element in the domain). The Proof of Correspondence theorem essentially proves the existence of a bijection between two sets with the same cardinality.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
5
Replies
156
Views
17K
Replies
23
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
5K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
38
Views
7K
6
Replies
175
Views
22K
3
Replies
86
Views
11K
Back
Top