Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Directions
You must code everything following this page in LATEX . LATEX as many pages
as you can, but understand that you need to code at least 90% of the content
(with minimal errors) on the following pages to pass. This examination is due
on December 8, 2006 at 10pm.
1
0.1 Preliminaries
Recall that a homomorphism δ : G → G0 creates a natural factor group,
G/Ker(δ). This is handy because there’s a theorem that says that each fac-
tor group G/H leads to a canonical homomorphism having H as its kernel:
Theorem 0.1. Let H be a normal subgroup of G. Then δ : G → G/H given by
δ(x) = xH is a homomorphism with kernel H.
Proof. For a, b ∈ G, we have
2
Proof. Define δ : G/H → G/K by gH 7→ gK. At once we can say that it is well
defined, since H ≤ K, and as a result is onto. The kernel is {gH|gK = K} =
{gH|g ∈ K} = K/H. Then, use the First Isomorphism Theorem to obtain the
desired isomorphism.
1. H ≤ K ⇔ H ≤ K
2. H ≤ K ⇒ [K : H] = [K : H]
3. < H, K > =< H, K > and
4. H ∩ K = H ∩ K
The fourth isomorphism theorem is also called the Lattice Group Isomorphism
Theorem, since the lattice for G/N appears in the lattice for G as a section
above N. I found it easier to check by looking at normal subgroups of the 8th
Dihedral group (D8 ).
0.3 Preliminaries
2
It’s not so hard to understand finitely generated abelian groups (hereby ab-
breviated FGAG’s); there is a handy theorem we use to understand them:
Theorem 0.1. (Fundamental Theorem of Finitely Generated Abelian
Groups) Every finitely generated abelian group is isomorphic to some direct
product of cyclic groups of the form
3
0.4 The Importance of Lagrange’s Theorem
Recall that Lagrange’s theorem for finite groups state that the order of subgroup
of some group G must divide |G|. We also know that abelian groups contain
subgroups of every factor of |G|, meaning that the converse of Lagrange’s the-
orem holds as well, or that if a the order of a subset of G divides |G|, then
the subset is also a subgroup of G. For nonabelian groups, this is not true in
all cases, meaning that sometimes, a nonabelian group H might not have any
subgroup of some order d dividing |H|. This is where the Sylow theorems come
in. Given that if d is a power of a prime, and a divisor of G, then G will have
a subgroup of order d. The theorems also expand on the number of subgroups,
and any relations they may hold together.
Well so what? Normalisation isn’t even mentioned in any of the theorems! This
will be used in proof shortly later, so for now, just keep it in mind. Recall that
a p-group is a group such that every element has an order of a power of some
prime p, and that a p-subgroup is a subgroup such that the subgroup itself sat-
isfy the properties of a p-group. To that end, we will now lay the groundwork for
the three Sylow theorems, starting with the definition of a Sylow p-subgroup:
Theorem 0.2. Let G be a group with order pn and let A be a finite G-set.
Then, |A| ≡ |AG | (mod p).
Proof. Using properties of G-sets, we know that |Gxi | divides |G|. Also, p
r
X
divides |Gxi | for a + 1 ≤ i ≤ r, where |A| = |AG | + |Axi |. So, |A| − |AG |
i=a+1
is divisible by p, so |A| ≡ |AG | (mod p).
4
Theorem 0.3. (Cauchy’s Theorem) If |G| is divisible by some prime n, then
G must contain a subgroup with order n.
Proof. Let S be the set of n-tuples (n is prime) {(a1 , a2 , . . . , an ) ∈ Gn |Πgi = e
for all i}, and let Zn act on S by the mapping:
5
nonzero. Let xG1 ∈ CG2 . So, xyG1 = xG1 for all y ∈ G2 , so x−1 yxG1 = G1 for
all y ∈ G2 . Since the orders of G1 and G2 are the same, G1 = x−1 G2 x, so G1
and G2 are conjugate subgroups.
Theorem 0.6. (Third Sylow) Given a finite group G and a prime p such that
p divides |G|, the number of Sylow p-subgroups contained in G is congruent to
1 (mod p), and is a divisor of |G|.
Proof. Let A be one Sylow p-subgroup of G. Let H be the set of all Sylow p-
subgroups and let A act on H through conjugation. So, we have xBx−1 , given
B ∈ HA . We can say then that |HA | ≡ |H| (mod p), by Theorem 0.2. Using
the definition of conjugation, xBx−1 = B for all x ∈ H. Thus, P ≤ N [B], and
B ≤ N [B]. Since A and B are conjugate in N [T ], they are both normal. We
have just proven that A = B, which implies that HA = {A}. Since we stated
earlier that |HA | ≡ |H| (mod p), we see that the number of Sylow p-subgroups
is congruent to 1 modulo p.
To prove that this number divides |G|, conjugate H with G. Since all Sylow
p-subgroups are conjugate by definition, there exists one and only one orbit in
H. So, |H| = (G : GP ) for P ∈ H. Since (G : GP ) divides |G|, so does the
number of Sylow p-subgroups.
1 1 1
+ = .
x y z
x = k · a · (a + b)
y = k · b · (a + b)
z = k · a · b,
6
Proof: Suppose not; then there exists an integer k > 1 such that k | r ± s and
k | rs. We have
k | r ± s ⇒ k | r2 ± rs ⇒ k | r2 .
Similarly, k | s2 .
Let p > 1 be any prime factor of k, so that p | r2 and p | s2 . Now simply
note that for any positive integer m, p - m ⇒ p - m2 . Hence, we must have p | r
and p | s, which contradicts our assumption that r and s are relatively prime.
So r ± s and rs must be relatively prime. //
Let x and y be integers such that x+y | xy. We clearly cannot have x+y = 0.
If |x + y| = 1, then we have the solution sets
x=c
y = − (c + 1)
z = c · (c + 1)
and
x=c+1
y = −c
z = −c · (c + 1) ,
where c is an integer, c 6= 0, 1.
We now assume |x + y| > 1. Let n = gcd (|x| , |y|). Suppose that |x| and |y|
are relatively prime. Then by the lemma, |x + y| and |xy| are relatively prime,
a contradiction, since x + y | xy and |x + y| > 1.
Hence, n > 1. Choose integers a, b such that x = na and y = nb. This gives:
Since n = gcd (|x| , |y|), |a| and |b| must be relatively prime. So by the lemma,
the above holds if and only if a + b | n. Put n = k · (a + b). This gives the
solution set:
x = k · a · (a + b)
y = k · b · (a + b)
z = k · a · b.
Finally, note that the previous two solution sets are contained within this one
(for the first set, take k = −1, a = c, b = − (c + 1); for the second set, take
k = 1, a = c + 1, b = −c). Hence, this is the entire family of solutions, as
desired.
7
0.6 Motivation and History
One of the most useful properties of Rn is invariance under a linear transforma-
tion. That is, if a ∈ Rn and f is any Lebesgue–integrable function, then
Z Z
f (x) dx = f (y + a) dy.
Rn Rn
At some time in the early twentieth century, people started to wonder if there
was an invariant measure on all topological groups. The first two people to make
significant progress on this problem were Alfréd Haar and John von Neumann
in 1933. Haar in 1933 proved that there exists an invariant measure on any
separable compact group. Using Haar’s result, von Neumann proved the special
case of David Hilbert’s Fifth Problem for compact locally Euclidean groups.
The following year, von Neumann proved the uniqueness of invariant measures.
Ultimately, neither Haar nor von Neumann proved the existence of invariant
measures on all locally compact groups. The first one to come up with a full
proof was André Weil. This proof, however, was criticized for using the Axiom
of Choice in the form of Tychonoff’s Theorem. Later, Henri Cartan proved the
existence of invariant measures on locally compact groups without the Axiom
of Choice. Since then, several other people have also proved this theorem.
0.7 Definitions
Definition 1 A topological group G is a group as well as a topological
space with the property that the mapping (g1 , g2 ) 7→ g1−1 g2 is continuous for all
g1 , g2 ∈ G. The multiplicative group of positive reals, for example, is a topolog-
ical group since (g1 , g2 ) 7→ gg12 is continuous due to continuity of multiplication
and nonzero division of real numbers.
8
Definition 2 A topological space X is said to be locally compact if for all
x ∈ X, there is a compact set containing a neighborhood of x.
Definition 5 A content λ is a set function that acts on the set of compact sets
C that is finite, nonnegative, additive, subadditive, and monotone. A content
induces an inner content and an outer measure. The inner content λ∗ is defined
by λ∗ (A) = sup{λ(K) | K ∈ C, K ⊂ A}. Let O denote the set of open sets. The
outer measure µe is defined by µe (A) = inf{λ∗ (O) | O ∈ O, A ⊂ O}.
Lemma 1 Let λ be a content, and let λ∗ and µe be the inner content and outer
measure, respectively, induced by λ. Then for all O ∈ O and for all K ∈ C,
λ∗ (O) = µe (O) and µe (int(K)) ≤ λ(K) ≤ µe (K).
Proof For any O ∈ O, it is clear that µe (O) ≤ λ∗ (O) since we can pick O as an
open superset of O in the definition of µe . Now if O0 ∈ O with O ⊂ O0 , then
9
λ∗ (O) ≤ λ∗ (O0 ). Hence
Proof Let λ∗ be the inner content induced by λ, let B be a σ–bounded set, and
let O ∈ O satisfying B ⊂ O. Since
The other direction and the converse follow from the definition of subadditivity
and µe –measurability.
Thus
µe (O) ≥ λ(K 0 ) + sup λ(K)
e = λ(K 0 ) + λ∗ (O ∩ K 0c )
K
e
10
= λ(K 0 ) + µe (O ∩ K 0c ) ≥ λ(K 0 ) + µe (O ∩ K).
Therefore,
= λ(K 0 ) = µe (O ∩ K) + µe (O ∩ K c ).
Now it is necessary to show that µ(K) is finite. To do so, take L ∈ C with
K ⊂ int(L). Then
{κ(K) | K ⊂ O, K ∈ C} = {λ(h(K)) | K ⊂ O, K ∈ C}
= {λ(A) | A = h(K), K ⊂ O, K ∈ C}
= {λ(A) | h−1 (A) ⊂ O, h−1 (A) ∈ C}
= {λ(A) | A ⊂ h(O), A ∈ C}.
Thus κ∗ (O) = λ∗ (h(O)). Let B a σ–bounded set. Then
11
Because of Lemma 4, one must simply find a content λ on G which is invari-
ant under left translation to demonstrate existence. By Lemma 1, the induced
measure of λ will be nonzero.
Q
For each K ∈ C, consider the interval IK = [0, K : A], and let Ξ = IK . By
Tychonoff’s Theorem, Ξ is compact. Ξ consists of points that are the direct
products of functions φ acting on C with the property that 0 ≤ φ(K) ≤ K : A.
λO ∈ Ξ for all O ∈ N .
Now define
Λ(O) = {λO0 | O0 ⊂ O, O0 ∈ N }
given O ∈ N . If {Oj }nj=1 ⊂ N , then
n
! n
\ \
Λ Oj ⊂ Λ(Oj ).
j=1 j=1
Tn
Clearly Λ j=1 Oj is nonempty. Since Ξ is compact, there is some point in
the intersection of the closures of all the Λs
\
λ ∈ {Λ(O) | O ∈ N }.
O
12
To prove additivity, first note the restricted additivity of λO . Let gO be a left
translation of O, and fix K1 , K2 ∈ C so that K1 O−1 ∩K2 O−1 = 0. If K1 ∩gO 6= 0,
then g ∈ K1 O−1 , and if K2 ∩ gO 6= ∅, then g ∈ K2 O−1 . Thus there are no left
translations of O that do not intersect either K1 or K2 , and so λO has additivity
given that K1 O−1 ∩ K2 O−1 = ∅. Let K1 , K2 ∈ C with K1 ∩ K2 = ∅. Then there
is some O ∈ N satisfying K1 O−1 ∩ K2 O−1 = ∅. If O0 ∈ N and O0 ⊂ O, then
K1 O0−1 ∩ K2 O0−1 = ∅ as well. Thus λO0 (K1 ∪ K2 ) = λO0 (K1 ) + λO0 (K2 ). Then
if O0 ⊂ O,
λO0 ∈ Θ0 = {φ | φ(K1 ∪ K2 ) = φ(K1 ) + φ(K2 )}.
Thus λ is additive. This establishes the existence of a Haar measure on any
locally compact group.
13
Now let υ and φ be two continuous functions on G, and let Ψ be defined as
above. Also, let ν be another left Haar measure. Then
Z Z Z Z
υ(x) dµ(x) φ(y) dν(y) = υ(x) dµ(x)φ(y) dν(y)
G G G G
Z Z
= υ(xy) dµ(x)Ψ(y)φ(y) dν(y)
G G
Z Z
= υ(xy)φ(y)Ψ(y) dν(y) dµ(x)
G G
Z Z
= υ(y)φ(x−1 y)Ψ(x−1 y) dν(y) dµ(x)
G G
Z Z
= φ((y −1 x)−1 )Ψ((y −1 x)−1 ) dµ(x)υ(y) dν(y)
G G
Z Z
= φ(x−1 )Ψ(x−1 ) dµ(x)υ(y) dν(y)
G G
Z Z
= φ(x) dµ(x) υ(y) dν(y).
G G
R R R R
Thus G υ dµ G φ dν = G φ dµ G υ dν. Now letting υ be a positive continuous
function and setting R
υ dν
c = RG
G
υ dµ
R R
gives G φ dν = c G φ dµ.
14