Proving the Normality of Inner Automorphism Group in Group Theory

  • MHB
  • Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Group
In summary: Thinking)Yes, it is equivalent. And yes, it stands because $x$ is arbitrary. We are showing that for any $x \in G$, the expression $\psi\phi_g\psi^{-1}(x)$ is equal to the expression $\phi_{\psi(g)}(x)$. This means that the functions $\psi\phi_g\psi^{-1}$ and $\phi_{\psi(g)}$ are equal, which is what we want to show.
  • #1
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
5,049
7
Hey! :eek:

I want to show that $\text{Inn}(G)\trianglelefteq\text{Aut}(G)$ for each group $G$.

We have that the inner automorphisms of $G$ is the following set $\text{Inn}(G)=\{\phi_g\mid g\in G\}$ where $\phi_g$ is an automorphism of $G$ and it is defined as follows: $$\phi_g : G\rightarrow G \\ x\mapsto x^g=g^{-1}xg$$

To show that $\text{Inn}(G)$ is an normal subgroup of $\text{Aut}(G)$ we have to show that $$h\phi_gh^{-1}=\phi_g\in \text{Inn}(G), \forall h\in \text{ Aut}(G) \text{ and } \forall \phi_g\in \text{Inn}(G)$$

We have the following:
$$h\phi_gh^{-1}(x)=h(\phi_g (h^{-1}(x)))=h(g^{-1}h^{-1}(x)g)$$
Since $h$ is an homomorphism we have that $$h(g^{-1}h^{-1}(x)g)=h(g^{-1})h(h^{-1}(x))h(g)=h(g^{-1})xh(g)$$

Is everything correct so far? (Wondering)

How could we continue? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
mathmari said:
Hey! :eek:

I want to show that $\text{Inn}(G)\trianglelefteq\text{Aut}(G)$ for each group $G$.

We have that the inner automorphisms of $G$ is the following set $\text{Inn}(G)=\{\phi_g\mid g\in G\}$ where $\phi_g$ is an automorphism of $G$ and it is defined as follows: $$\phi_g : G\rightarrow G \\ x\mapsto x^g=g^{-1}xg$$

To show that $\text{Inn}(G)$ is an normal subgroup of $\text{Aut}(G)$ we have to show that $$h\phi_gh^{-1}=\phi_g\in \text{Inn}(G), \forall h\in \text{ Aut}(G) \text{ and } \forall \phi_g\in \text{Inn}(G)$$

No, that is incorrect. In general, to show a group $N$ is normal in a group $G$, we need to show that:

$gng^{-1} \in N$ for any $g \in G$, and $n \in N$.

This is *not* the same as saying $gng^{-1} = n$. Your are confusing *normalizing* with *centralizing*. We only require conjugates to again be in $N$, we do not require conjugation FIXES elements of $N$.

We have the following:
$$h\phi_gh^{-1}(x)=h(\phi_g (h^{-1}(x)))=h(g^{-1}h^{-1}(x)g)$$
Since $h$ is an homomorphism we have that $$h(g^{-1}h^{-1}(x)g)=h(g^{-1})h(h^{-1}(x))h(g)=h(g^{-1})xh(g)$$

Is everything correct so far? (Wondering)

How could we continue? (Wondering)

Personally, I wouldn't use $h$ to denote an automorphism since it might get confused with an ELEMENT of $G$.

So let $\psi \in \text{Aut}(G)$.

We want to show that $\psi\phi_g\psi^{-1}$ is an inner automorphism, in other words we need to produce some $a \in G$ such that:

$\psi\phi_g\psi^{-1} = \phi_a$.

Starting with some arbitrary $x \in G$ is a good idea, however:

$\psi\phi_g\psi^{-1}(x) = \psi(\phi_g(\psi^{-1}(x))) = \psi(g^{-1}(\psi^{-1}(x))g)$

$= \psi(g^{-1})\psi(\psi^{-1}(x))\psi(g)$

Here, we catch a break-the middle factor in our 3-fold product simplifies:

$\psi(\psi^{-1}(x)) = x$, so we have:

$= \psi(g^{-1})x\psi(g)$

Now, since $\psi$ is a homomorphism, $\psi(g^{-1}) = [\psi(g)]^{-1}$, and thus we have:

$= [\psi(g)]^{-1}x\psi(g)$, which suggests we choose $a = \psi(g)$, that is:

$\psi\phi_g\psi^{-1} = \phi_a$, and $\phi_a \in \text{Inn}(G)$.
 
  • #3
Deveno said:
In general, to show a group $N$ is normal in a group $G$, we need to show that:

$gng^{-1} \in N$ for any $g \in G$, and $n \in N$.

This is *not* the same as saying $gng^{-1} = n$. Your are confusing *normalizing* with *centralizing*. We only require conjugates to again be in $N$, we do not require conjugation FIXES elements of $N$.
Personally, I wouldn't use $h$ to denote an automorphism since it might get confused with an ELEMENT of $G$.

So let $\psi \in \text{Aut}(G)$.

We want to show that $\psi\phi_g\psi^{-1}$ is an inner automorphism, in other words we need to produce some $a \in G$ such that:

$\psi\phi_g\psi^{-1} = \phi_a$.

Ah ok... I see... (Thinking)
Deveno said:
since $\psi$ is a homomorphism, $\psi(g^{-1}) = [\psi(g)]^{-1}$

Why does this stand? (Wondering)
 
  • #4
It suffices to show that:

$\psi(g^{-1})\psi(g) = e_G$.

But $\psi$ is a homomorphism, so:

$\psi(g^{-1})\psi(g) = \psi(g^{-1}g) = \psi(e_G)$.

Now, we just have to show that $\psi(e_G) = e_G$.

$\psi$ is bijective, so given any $x \in G$, we have $x = \psi(y)$ for some $y \in G$.

Hence $x\psi(e_G) = \psi(y)\psi(e_G) = \psi(ye_G) = \psi(y) = x$, and:

$\psi(e_G)x =\psi(e_G)\psi(y) = \psi(e_Gy) = \psi(y) = x$.

Since $e_G$ is the UNIQUE element of $G$ such that:

$xe_G = e_Gx = x$, for all $x \in G$, we conclude $\psi(e_G) = e_G$, QED.
 
  • #5
Deveno said:
It suffices to show that:

$\psi(g^{-1})\psi(g) = e_G$.

But $\psi$ is a homomorphism, so:

$\psi(g^{-1})\psi(g) = \psi(g^{-1}g) = \psi(e_G)$.

Now, we just have to show that $\psi(e_G) = e_G$.

$\psi$ is bijective, so given any $x \in G$, we have $x = \psi(y)$ for some $y \in G$.

Hence $x\psi(e_G) = \psi(y)\psi(e_G) = \psi(ye_G) = \psi(y) = x$, and:

$\psi(e_G)x =\psi(e_G)\psi(y) = \psi(e_Gy) = \psi(y) = x$.

Since $e_G$ is the UNIQUE element of $G$ such that:

$xe_G = e_Gx = x$, for all $x \in G$, we conclude $\psi(e_G) = e_G$, QED.

I understand! (Nerd)
Deveno said:
Starting with some arbitrary $x \in G$ is a good idea, however:

$\psi\phi_g\psi^{-1}(x) = \psi(\phi_g(\psi^{-1}(x))) = \psi(g^{-1}(\psi^{-1}(x))g)$

$= \psi(g^{-1})\psi(\psi^{-1}(x))\psi(g)$

Here, we catch a break-the middle factor in our 3-fold product simplifies:

$\psi(\psi^{-1}(x)) = x$, so we have:

$= \psi(g^{-1})x\psi(g)$

Now, since $\psi$ is a homomorphism, $\psi(g^{-1}) = [\psi(g)]^{-1}$, and thus we have:

$= [\psi(g)]^{-1}x\psi(g)$, which suggests we choose $a = \psi(g)$, that is:

$\psi\phi_g\psi^{-1} = \phi_a$, and $\phi_a \in \text{Inn}(G)$.

We have shown that
$$\psi\phi_g\psi^{-1}(x)=[\psi(g)]^{-1}x\psi(g)=\phi_{\psi (g)}$$

Is this equivalent to $$\psi\phi_g\psi^{-1} = \phi_{\psi (g)}$$ ? (Wondering)

Does it stand because $x$ is arbitrary? (Wondering)
 
  • #6
mathmari said:
I understand! (Nerd)


We have shown that
$$\psi\phi_g\psi^{-1}(x)=[\psi(g)]^{-1}x\psi(g)=\phi_{\psi (g)}$$

Is this equivalent to $$\psi\phi_g\psi^{-1} = \phi_{\psi (g)}$$ ? (Wondering)

Does it stand because $x$ is arbitrary? (Wondering)

Yes, and yes.
 
  • #7
Deveno said:
Yes, and yes.

Nice... Thank you very much! (Smile)
 

FAQ: Proving the Normality of Inner Automorphism Group in Group Theory

What is an inner automorphism group?

An inner automorphism group is a mathematical concept that describes the set of all automorphisms (or symmetry-preserving transformations) of an object that can be generated by a fixed element within that object.

How is an inner automorphism group different from an outer automorphism group?

An inner automorphism group is generated by an element within the object itself, while an outer automorphism group is generated by an element outside of the object. In other words, an inner automorphism group represents symmetries that are inherent to the object, while an outer automorphism group represents symmetries that are imposed on the object by an external element.

What is the significance of the inner automorphism group in mathematics?

The inner automorphism group is important in mathematics because it allows us to explore and understand the symmetries of different mathematical objects, such as groups, rings, and fields. It also helps us to classify and compare different objects based on their symmetries.

How is the inner automorphism group related to the concept of conjugation?

The inner automorphism group is closely related to the concept of conjugation in mathematics. Conjugation is the process of transforming an element within a mathematical object by multiplying it on the left and right by another element. This process generates the inner automorphism group of the object.

Can the inner automorphism group of an object be trivial?

Yes, the inner automorphism group of an object can be trivial, meaning it only contains the identity element. This can occur when the object has no non-trivial symmetries, or when the object is isomorphic to a commutative group, where all elements commute with each other and there are no non-trivial symmetries.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Back
Top