Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

There are a whole bunch of equivalent definitions of a normal subgroup. Is it logically sound (with respect to the usual definitions) to include as a definition of normal, "$N$ is the kernel of some homomorphism $f$"?

share|cite|improve this question
Equivalent definitions usually require proof of equivalence. – EuYu Oct 17 '12 at 23:33
This is precisely the first isomorphism theorem. If we define a normal subgroup $N$ to be a subgroup of $G$ such that $gNg^{-1}\in N$ for all $g\in G$ then the first isomorphism theorem states that every normal subgroup is the kernel of some homomorphism and the kernel of every homomorphism is a normal subgroup. Thus, they are equivalent. – user1729 Oct 18 '12 at 11:08

It's logically sound. Let $G$ be group, $N$ a normal subgroup of $G$. $N$ is the kernel of the canonical homomorphism $G \rightarrow G/N$. Conversely let $f\colon G \rightarrow G'$ be a group homomorphism. $Ker(f)$ is a normal subgroup of $G$.

share|cite|improve this answer
You write "its normal subgroup" -- this would mean a group can only ever have one normal subgroup. If you don't mean it this way you could write something like "$N$ a normal subgroup of $G$". – Rudy the Reindeer Oct 20 '12 at 15:16
@MattN. Thanks for the English grammar. – Makoto Kato Oct 20 '12 at 20:26

Your Answer


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.