Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

If $G$ is a group and $H \subset G$ is a subgroup, how would I show a map $\phi : G/H \longrightarrow$ $H\setminus G$ defined by $gH \mapsto (gH)^{-1}$ is well-defined?

I know we need to show that, for some $g_1,g_2 \in G$ such that $g_1H=g_2H$, we have $Hg_1^{-1}=Hg_2^{-1}$. I found that

$g_1H=g_2H \Longrightarrow H =g_1^{-1}g_2H \Longrightarrow Hg_1^{-1} = g_1^{-1}g_2Hg_1^{-1}$.

However, I am not sure how to show that $g_1^{-1}g_2Hg_1^{-1} = Hg_2^{-1}$.

share|improve this question
    
What are $\,G/H\,\,,\,H/G\,$? I'd say these two are one and the same set: the set of left cosets of H in G, but then why would you use two different notations? –  DonAntonio Sep 28 '12 at 3:31
    
@DonAntonio $G/H$ is for the left cosets of $H$ in $G$, while $H\G$ is for the right cosets of $H$ in $G$ ...that's also clear from my work following the definition of the map –  afedder Sep 28 '12 at 3:40
    
Then what you actually meant is to define $\,gH\to Hg^{-1}\,$ , right? –  DonAntonio Sep 28 '12 at 3:42
    
@DonAntonio actually $(gH)^{-1} = Hg^{-1}$, so not really –  afedder Sep 28 '12 at 3:43
    
@DonAntonio to be precise, $(gH)^{-1} = H^{-1}g^{-1} = Hg^{-1}$ where the last equality came from the fact that subgroups are closed under inversion –  afedder Sep 28 '12 at 3:45

3 Answers 3

Suppose

$$gH=xH\Longleftrightarrow x^{-1}g\in H\Longleftrightarrow Hx^{-1}=Hg^{-1}$$

and voila: going from left to right you get the map is well defined, and going from right to left you get the map is $\,1-1\,$

share|improve this answer

Assume $$(g_{1}H)^{-1}=(g_{2}H)^{-1}$$ then $$(g_{1}H)(g_{1}H)^{-1}=(g_{1}H)(g_{2}H)^{-1}\iff e=(g_{1}H)(g_{2}H)^{-1}$$ thus $$e(g_{2}H)=((g_{1}H)(g_{2}H)^{-1})(g_{2}H)\iff g_{2}H=g_{1}H$$

So to conclude: $$(g_{1}H)^{-1}=(g_{2}H)^{-1} \iff g_{2}H=g_{1}H$$

share|improve this answer
    
that would be to show injectivity, not well-definedness –  afedder Sep 28 '12 at 3:37
    
I guess, would that show well-definedness AND injectivity? –  afedder Sep 28 '12 at 3:42
    
yes, it shows both –  Belgi Sep 28 '12 at 3:53
    
what about surjectivity? would that just come from the fact that given any right coset $Hg$, $g^{-1}H \mapsto Hg$? –  afedder Sep 28 '12 at 4:02
    
Indeed @afedder , surjectivity follows almost immediately. –  DonAntonio Sep 28 '12 at 4:04

In general, for this sort of argument it helps to use the following fact: $$ g_1H= g_2 H\ \text{ iff }\ g_1^{-1}g_2\in H.$$

This is because both are equivalent to $H = g_1^{-1}g_2 H$. Similarly, we have $$Hg_1^{-1}= Hg_2^{-1}\ \text{ iff }\ g_1^{-1}g_2\in H,$$ because both are equivalent to $Hg_1^{-1}g_2 = H$. Put those together and you're done.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.