« previous | Thursday, November 21, 2013 | next »
Group Rings and Group Fields
Consider group of two elements and field . We construct the group ring .
The addition and multiplication tables are:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Quaternions
This is a noncommutative division ring (skew field)
Discovered by Hamilton
Denoted
Addition
Addition defined as
"identity" elements:
For scalar multiplication (any ):
Thus any can be written as the sum of components .
Multiplication
- for any ,
- (idempotent)
Cyclic
- ,
- ,
- ,
Think of moving CCW around triangle:
k
i j
Carefully expand the following product:
Conjugates
If , the conjugate of , denoted is given by
Now
This also happens to be , where is the "length" or "norm" of .
By the way, if and only if .
Observe
Theorem 24.9
The quaternions form a strictly skew field under , .
Theorem 24.10: Wedderburn's Theorem
Every finite division ring is a field.
Group Action on a Set
Let be a set and be a group
Definition
An action of on is a map such that
- for all and for all (associativity)
The notation Failed to parse (unknown function "\lefttorightarrow"): {\displaystyle G \lefttorightarrow X}
means " acts on "
Alternatively, we say that is a -set.
Example
Consider (symmetric group of size ) and .
Failed to parse (unknown function "\lefttorightarrow"): {\displaystyle S_n \lefttorightarrow X}
: Let , then
Also consider the alternating group consisting of even permutations. Failed to parse (unknown function "\lefttorightarrow"): {\displaystyle A_n \lefttorightarrow X}
.
- In general, if Failed to parse (unknown function "\lefttorightarrow"): {\displaystyle G \lefttorightarrow X}
and , then Failed to parse (unknown function "\lefttorightarrow"): {\displaystyle H \lefttorightarrow X}
as well.
If , then it happens that Failed to parse (unknown function "\lefttorightarrow"): {\displaystyle S_X \lefttorightarrow X}
(even for infinite sets!)
Theorem 16.3
Let be a -set. Then for each , the function defined by for is a permutation of .
Also, the map defined by is a homomorphism with the property that
In other words, we claim that is a bijection:
- injectivity: suppose for distinct elements and . Then . Apply the inverse action to both sides, and we get implies
- surjectivity: ???
Properties
Failed to parse (unknown function "\lefttorightarrow"): {\displaystyle G \lefttorightarrow X}
is transitive if for all , there existts a such that .
We define orbits of (notation: ) as
In fact, is a disjoint union of orbits.
Membership in an orbit imposes an equivalence relation on : each orbit represents the equivalence class .
The action is transitive if and only if there is only one orbit.
Lazy Elements
We call an element "lazy" if for all . Let denote the set of lazy elements. Then .
In fact, is the kernel of our action (), in which case the kernel of a homomorphism is always a normal subgroup.
We say that the action Failed to parse (unknown function "\lefttorightarrow"): {\displaystyle G \lefttorightarrow X}
is faithful if (i.e. if the identity element is the only lazy element.
If this is the case, our homomorphism is injective and therefore an isomorphism on its image .
Self-Actions
We can represent the action of a group on itself by left (or right) multiplication
Isotropy
Suppose Failed to parse (unknown function "\lefttorightarrow"): {\displaystyle G \lefttorightarrow X}
. Then for a particular element , we define the isotropy subgroup (or stabilizer of ) as
Note: Do not confuse the isotropy subgroup with the lazy elements above!
Similarly, we can consider the elements for which for a particular . The group of such elements contains fixed points for .
Theorem 16.16
We define . Observe that Failed to parse (unknown function "\lefttoright"): {\displaystyle G \lefttoright O_x}
is a transitive relation (in fact it is an equivalence relation forming a single equivalence class).
Theorem.
- If is a -set and , then .
- If , then is a divisor of
Proof. Let and let (set of cosets of H, or .
We will show that is a bijection:
injective. Let . Then there is such that . Is well-defined? Suppose there exists such that . By transitivity, we have
Therefore and thus .
surjective. For any coset, we have and .
Therefore the order of the orbit is identical to the order of the set of cosets, which is the same as the index:
If , then .
quod erat demonstrandum
If we have two orbits and , we claim that they are conjugate; that is, there exists an element such that :
Let . Then . Hence .