Homomorphisms
A function between groups is a homomorphism if for all , where the left-hand product uses 's operation and the right-hand product uses 's.
This single equation is the whole idea of the course from here on: it says the map respects multiplication, so anything built from multiplying elements in — orders, generated subgroups, the shape of the Cayley table — has a matching picture in . A homomorphism can lose information (several elements of may land on one element of ) but it can never scramble the operation. Checking the equation on every pair looks expensive, but because every element of is built by multiplying generators, it is enough to check it on a generating set, as the third example below shows. The rest of this topic is about what a homomorphism preserves, and when it preserves everything.
Let send to its remainder mod . Check it on : and . Directly, , and going the other way, as well — the two routes to the answer agree, as the homomorphism equation demands for every pair, not just this one.
For given by , take and . Then , so , while : they agree. is a theorem of linear algebra, and it says exactly that carries matrix multiplication to real multiplication — the homomorphism property in disguise.
A homomorphism is determined by , since every element of is a multiple of the generator . Applying to forces , so must have order dividing in . Only and have order dividing , giving exactly homomorphisms: the trivial map , and . Checking the second one stays consistent all the way around: .
It is tempting to treat any "nice-looking" formula as a homomorphism. The map , , looks structure-respecting, but while : they disagree, so is not a homomorphism — it does not even send to . The equation must hold for literally every pair; checking it on a few values is never a proof, and checking it only on a generating set is only valid once you know the map is well defined there, as in the example above.
Is given by a homomorphism?
Show the answerHide the answer
Yes: for any nonzero , , using that turns products into sums. So carries the multiplicative structure of onto the additive structure of — the answer is yes.
Kernel and Image
For a homomorphism , the kernel is and the image is . Both are subgroups (proved in Why It Works): is a subgroup of , is a subgroup of , and is injective exactly when .
The kernel measures how far is from being injective: everything in the kernel collapses onto , so the kernel is the "blind spot" of the map. The image measures how much of gets hit at all. Testing injectivity through the kernel is far cheaper than comparing all pairs of elements — one subset of to inspect instead of pairs — which is why the kernel, not a direct comparison, is how injectivity gets checked in practice. The kernel will turn out to be more than just a subgroup: it is closed under conjugation by every element of , the property that Topic 7 names normal and uses to build quotient groups.
Let send to . Then , since those are exactly the elements sent to , so . Every residue is hit (by and alike), so and . Notice — no coincidence; it previews the counting identity behind the First Isomorphism Theorem.
Let send to ; it is a homomorphism of since . If then , so and is injective. But , not all of : for instance , since has no integer solution. Injective does not imply surjective.
For the sign homomorphism , the kernel is — the even permutations, also called — since those are the only elements of with sign . The image is all of , because the transposition has sign . So and , and again .
The kernel is a subset of the DOMAIN , not the codomain — it is easy to write out of habit, confusing the single target point with the (often large) set of inputs sends there. For above, , two elements, not the one-element set that "" might suggest at a glance.
Let send to . Find and .
Show the answerHide the answer
Solve : this holds exactly when , so . The image consists of all even residues, , and indeed .
Isomorphisms
A homomorphism is an isomorphism if it is also a bijection; then and are called isomorphic, written . Isomorphic groups have identical Cayley tables up to relabeling elements, so every group-theoretic fact about one transfers to the other.
Isomorphism is the right notion of "the same group": via the identity map (reflexive), is an isomorphism whenever is (symmetric), and composing two isomorphisms gives another (transitive) — so is an equivalence relation, and group theory really classifies groups only up to this relation, not up to having identical elements. Proving needs one explicit bijective homomorphism; proving , which the next section takes up, needs only a single mismatched invariant. Being a bijection is not enough on its own — the sidenote below shows a bijection that is not a homomorphism at all.
Define by . Listing all six images: — six distinct pairs, exactly the six elements of , so is a bijection. It is a homomorphism because reduction mod and mod are each homomorphisms; for instance matches .
Both have order , but check element orders in under multiplication mod : , so every non-identity element has order — has no element of order . But has one (namely ). Since isomorphisms preserve element order, : same size, different internal structure.
In , the powers of are , so generates all of : it is cyclic of order . The map turns multiplication into addition of exponents, so it is an isomorphism . Check one instance: corresponds to .
A bijection alone does not make an isomorphism — it must also respect the operation. The map with is a perfectly good bijection, but while in : they disagree, so is not a homomorphism, let alone an isomorphism, even though it only rearranges the same four elements.
Is the group of th roots of unity under multiplication isomorphic to ?
Show the answerHide the answer
Yes: send . Multiplication of powers of corresponds exactly to addition of exponents mod — for instance corresponds to — so this map is a bijective homomorphism, an isomorphism. The answer is yes, with .
Invariants That Tell Groups Apart
If is an isomorphism then , is abelian iff is, and for every — so the multiset of element orders, and every other property built purely from the group operation, must match on both sides. A single mismatch proves outright, with no need to rule out every possible bijection by hand.
Invariants turn an infinite search (all possible bijections) into a finite checklist. Order and "abelian or not" are the cheapest invariants and the first to check; element orders are finer and settle most small examples. None of this proves two groups ARE isomorphic — matching invariants only narrows the field, as the sidenote below shows — but a mismatch on even one invariant is a complete proof that they are not.
Take and in . Composing right-to-left, , while . Since , : is non-abelian. But is abelian — it is cyclic — and "abelian" is an isomorphism invariant, so , even though both groups have order .
Build , the symmetries of a square, as with and . Computing orders: and have order , while all have order — five elements of order in total. In , only the element has order (since ). Both groups have order , but they disagree on the number of elements of order ( versus ), so — confirmed without ever listing a full bijection.
There are exactly two groups of order up to isomorphism: , which has an element of order , and (the Klein four-group ), in which every non-identity element has order since for all . The presence or absence of an order- element separates them instantly, so .
Matching the easy invariants — same order, both abelian — does not prove two groups are isomorphic; it only narrows the search. and both have order and are abelian, yet has order in the first while every non-identity element of the second has order (doubling any coordinate in gives ). A finer invariant — the list of element orders — tells them apart; nothing short of an explicit, verified bijective homomorphism can prove two groups ARE isomorphic.
Are and isomorphic?
Show the answerHide the answer
has an element of order (namely ), but in every non-identity element satisfies , so its order divides and can never be . Since element order is an isomorphism invariant and the two groups disagree on it, the answer is no.
Automorphisms
An automorphism of is an isomorphism from to itself. The set of all automorphisms, , forms a group under composition: its identity element is the identity map, and the inverse of an automorphism is itself an automorphism.
An automorphism is a way of relabeling that leaves its multiplication table looking exactly the same — a genuine symmetry of the group itself, not just of a set. For a cyclic group , every automorphism is multiplication by a unit, so : this is the bridge back to the units mod from Number Theory, now seen as a group of symmetries. For a non-abelian group, conjugation by a fixed gives another kind of automorphism, called inner; these become the central tool of the Conjugacy topic.
Every automorphism of has the form for a unit , so . The nontrivial one is . Check it is a homomorphism on : , matching .
As the table above showed, the units mod are , each of order at most : in particular , so the automorphism satisfies . So has order but every non-identity element squares to the identity — it is the Klein four-group from the Invariants section, not .
Conjugation by a fixed element is always an automorphism: . In , conjugating the -cycle by the transposition relabels its entries by swapping : becomes , the inverse -cycle. So is a nontrivial inner automorphism of , even though has only elements.
It is tempting to guess , since itself has elements — but only multiplication by a UNIT survives as a bijection. , not : multiplying by is not even injective on , since , so it is not an automorphism at all.
Find , and say whether it is cyclic.
Show the answerHide the answer
Since is prime, consists of every nonzero residue, and . Checking powers of : , so has order and generates , which is cyclic. So , and it is cyclic.
Why It Works
For any homomorphism : since , applying gives ; multiplying both sides on the left by in leaves . Then for any , , so is a two-sided inverse of in ; by uniqueness of inverses, .
Let . First, since . If then , so : closure. If then , so : closed under inverses. By the subgroup test (Topic 3), .
Let . For any and , . So for every and every — the kernel absorbs conjugation by the whole group. This is exactly the property Topic 7 calls normal, and it is what will let be built as a group.
Let . . If then : closure. If then : closed under inverses. By the subgroup test, .
() If is injective and , then , so injectivity forces : the kernel is trivial. () Suppose and . Then , so , giving , i.e. . So is injective.