Normal Subgroups
A subgroup is normal, written , if for every , where . Equivalently, for every : the left and right cosets of agree.
Conjugation never changes as a set, though it may rearrange its elements. This is exactly the extra condition needed for the left cosets of to form a group under (the next section): without it, two different choices of representative for the same cosets can give different products. Every subgroup of an abelian group is automatically normal, since for all — normality is a question only for non-abelian groups. Topic 6 already met one normal subgroup in disguise: the kernel of any homomorphism is closed under conjugation by the whole group, so always.
In (Topic 6), let , the rotations. Since already contains every power of , conjugating by a rotation keeps fixed pointwise. Conjugating by the reflection sends to (using and ), and every other element of along with it. So as well, and .
Let , order , and test conjugation by : . Using repeatedly, (moving past each flips its sign). So , which is neither nor : . One failing conjugate is enough, so is not normal in , even though divides and passes Lagrange's theorem fine.
Let , the identity together with the three ways to pair up into two disjoint -cycles. First, is a subgroup: any two of the three double-transpositions compose to the third or to (for instance ). For normality, conjugating a double-transposition by any just relabels its two pairs by , which can only produce another double-transposition (or, if itself fixes the pairing, the same one back) — never a -cycle or a single transposition. So conjugation always lands back inside , and .
means the SET maps to itself, not that each element is individually fixed. In the example, conjugating by gives — a different element of , not the one you started with. is still normal: the whole set came back to itself, just permuted internally. Confusing "setwise fixed" with "pointwise fixed" is the single most common error with this definition.
Using the conjugation rule found above, is normal in ?
Show the answerHide the answer
Conjugate by : . Since (sliding past flips its sign), this is (using ). Since , this conjugate escapes the subgroup, so is not normal in — order- reflection subgroups of are never normal, only the rotation subgroup and the whole group and are.
Quotient Groups
For , the quotient group is the set of cosets of with multiplication . This is well defined exactly because is normal (proved in Why It Works), and is itself a group: identity , inverse , and by Lagrange (Topic 5).
A quotient group "divides out" by : every element of collapses to the identity coset, and two elements of become equal in exactly when they differ by something in . This is the same idea as from the very first topics — the integers modulo ARE the quotient of by the subgroup , and generalizes that construction to any normal subgroup of any group. The well-definedness condition is the entire reason normality matters: pick any representatives and , and must come out the same whichever representatives you multiply.
Let in , order , so . The six cosets are for . Adding cosets by adding representatives, , and repeating, , which only returns to when . So has order in the quotient, generating all of it: .
Let (normal since it is the kernel of the sign map, Topic 6). There are cosets, and . Multiplying the nontrivial coset by itself: , since . So has two elements, one of which squares to the identity — it is , even though itself is non-abelian.
Let (normal: is fixed by conjugation by , and also squares to , more carefully checked in Why It Works). There are cosets: . Since and , both and : every generator has order in the quotient. Checking the mixed product both ways, and ; since differs from by the element , as cosets — so the two orders agree and is abelian. With three elements of order besides the identity, .
Trying to form for a non-normal gives an operation that depends on which representative you pick — it is not a group at all. Take in (shown not normal above), so the coset has two representatives, and . Squaring the coset two different ways: using , , landing in the coset ; using instead, , landing in the coset . Since , the two representatives of the SAME coset give two different answers for "" — the rule is not even well defined unless is normal.
In , let . What is , as a familiar group?
Show the answerHide the answer
, so . The coset has order : adding it to itself times gives , which equals only when , and is the smallest such . A cyclic group of order generated by one coset is .
The First Isomorphism Theorem
For a homomorphism , and , via the map .
This theorem says every homomorphism factors into two simple steps: collapse by its kernel, then relabel. Collapsing by the kernel is forced — anything that already maps to has to become indistinguishable from — and once that collapsing is done, nothing is left to cause two different images, so the resulting map is automatically injective, hence an isomorphism onto its image. It explains the coincidence Topic 6 flagged, : this is just matching . The theorem is also the reason deserves its name: is exactly for , .
Let send . Then (order ) and (every residue is hit, order ). The First Isomorphism Theorem predicts , and indeed the quotient has order , matching .
For , , the even permutations, with (half of , since the even and odd permutations are in bijection via multiplying by any fixed transposition). The image is all of , order . First Isomorphism Theorem: , and checks out.
Let send ; it is a homomorphism since is abelian, so . Squaring every element: for respectively (e.g. , ). So , order , and , order ; indeed . By the theorem, .
The theorem gives , the image — NOT the whole codomain , unless happens to be surjective. Let send ; this is a homomorphism with (the even residues, order ) and (order ), since is only ever or . The quotient has order , matching — but the codomain has order , nothing like . Writing "" here would be flatly wrong.
Let send . Find , , and the isomorphism the theorem gives.
Show the answerHide the answer
, order (the multiples of in ), and every residue mod is hit, so , order . Since , the theorem gives .
The Second and Third Isomorphism Theorems
Let . Second: for any , is a subgroup of , , and . Third: if as well, then and .
Both theorems are the First Isomorphism Theorem in disguise, applied to a cleverly chosen map (Why It Works). The Second theorem says that merging a subgroup into a normal subgroup only ever "sees" the part of already outside : dividing by gives back exactly divided by its overlap with — a diamond-shaped relationship between , , , and that is often drawn as a lattice diagram. The Third theorem says quotients can be taken in stages: dividing by all at once gives the same answer as first dividing by the smaller , then dividing what is left by the leftover piece — the group-theoretic version of cancelling like a fraction.
Let (order ) and (order ) in ; both are normal since is abelian. Then (order , generated by ) and , all even residues (generated by ). Checking the theorem: and — they agree, so .
Keep (order ) and let (order ); since is a multiple of , . Then and , so has order . Directly, as well — the two sides match, both isomorphic to , exactly as demands.
In , let (shown normal above) and , order — itself NOT normal in , since conjugating by gives . Since has order (prime) and has only elements of order or , . Then has order ; since and (Topic 5), . The theorem gives — a clean isomorphism, even though itself was never normal in .
The Second Isomorphism Theorem requires only ; can be any subgroup at all, normal or not — the previous example used a non-normal and the theorem still applied perfectly, because what actually gets divided out, , is always normal IN (never claimed to be normal in the bigger group ). The error is assuming must be normal in too, and refusing to apply the theorem to a non-normal subgroup when it is exactly the right tool.
In , let (order ) and (order ). Find , , and the group is isomorphic to.
Show the answerHide the answer
Since , , trivial. And , all of it. So , and since is cyclic, .
The Center and the Commutator Subgroup
The center is the set of elements commuting with everything. The commutator subgroup , generated by all commutators , is the smallest normal subgroup with abelian. Both and are normal (Why It Works), and is abelian iff iff .
These are two opposite measurements of how far is from being abelian. collects the elements that already behave abelianly with the rest of the group; collects exactly the failures of commutativity, precisely when , so exactly when every pair commutes. Quotienting by forces commutativity by construction — is the largest abelian "shadow" of one can build as a quotient, called the abelianization. The two need not coincide: Section 2 already found abelian, which hints that is tied to both of these invariants at once, made precise below.
From Section 2, commutes with every rotation (rotations commute with each other) and with every reflection, since — so . No other nonidentity element works: since , and no reflection commutes with either, by the same computation that showed is not normal. So exactly — the same subgroup by which Section 2 found the abelian quotient .
Test : it fails to commute with , since while , and . So , and by symmetry neither does or any transposition (each fails against some other element the same way). With every nonidentity element ruled out, : has a trivial center, even though some of its elements (like ) commute with SOME others (like ).
Since is abelian (shown in Section 3), is a normal subgroup with abelian quotient, so — the commutator subgroup can never be bigger than any such subgroup. For the reverse inclusion, compute one commutator: , give , a -cycle. Since -cycles generate all of (Topic 4), and is a subgroup containing this -cycle, as well. Together, , order — while is trivial, the same way was: the center and the commutator subgroup can be wildly different sizes.
It is tempting to guess always, since happened to satisfy above. The example kills that guess outright: while — about as different as two subgroups of the same group can be. and measure different things (who commutes with everyone, versus what must be divided out to force commutativity) and only coincide by coincidence, as they did for .
Compute directly in , and use it to find .
Show the answerHide the answer
Since and (sliding past flips its sign), . So . Since is already abelian (Section 2), no bigger subgroup is forced, so equality holds: — and here it does equal .
Why It Works
Suppose for every (the containment alone, which looks weaker than full equality). Apply this to as well: , which rearranges (left-multiply by , right-multiply by ) to . Combined with the original containment, . So checking for every already forces full equality — there is no weaker, one-sided version of normality to worry about separately.
() Suppose and , ; write , . Then . Since is normal, , so , giving — the same coset as , regardless of which representatives were chosen. () Suppose instead the rule is well defined for some subgroup that is not assumed normal. For any and , compare the cosets of and (equal, since ) multiplied by : must equal . The left side contains , so it equals ; well-definedness forces the right side, which contains , to also equal . So for every — exactly normality.
Topic 6 already showed and . Define by . Well defined: if then , so , giving . Homomorphism: . Injective: if then , so , meaning is the identity coset. Surjective onto : every element there is for some , by definition of image. So is an isomorphism.
Let and . Restrict the quotient map , , to , giving a homomorphism . Its kernel is , which is therefore normal in (kernels always are, Topic 6). Its image is , which equals : every coset with is a coset of the form for , and conversely. Since is a kernel, (a union of cosets closed under the group operation via 's image) is a genuine subgroup of . Applying the First Isomorphism Theorem to : .
Let with too. Define by . Well defined: if then , so . It is a homomorphism since both maps are built from the same multiplication: . Its image is all of , since every coset comes from . Its kernel is , which is therefore normal in . By the First Isomorphism Theorem applied to : .
For : it is a subgroup (if commute with every , so does ), and for any , : (using , i.e. ), so is fixed pointwise by conjugation, hence certainly normal. For : conjugating a commutator gives another commutator, (direct substitution), so conjugation permutes the generating set of and therefore sends into itself; applying this to as well gives equality, so . Finally, and always land in the same coset of : by definition, so , i.e. for every : is abelian.