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.

Let's call $\frak{G}$ the class of all groups. Let's consider on $\frak{G}$ the equivalence relation $\sim$ such that $G \sim G' \Leftrightarrow \exists \varphi $ isomorphism of groups such that $G=\varphi(G')$

Consider $\chi: (\frak{G}/\sim) \rightarrow (\frak{G}/\sim)$ such that $\chi([G]_{\sim})=[Aut(G)]_{\sim}$.

What can I say about $\chi$ (one-to-one, onto)? What if I just consider finite groups?

share|improve this question
    
The set of all groups does not exist. You need to say “the class of all groups.” –  Haskell Curry Jan 4 '13 at 16:45
3  
A simpler way of asking this question is "can non-isomorphic groups have isomorphic automorphism groups?" The answer is "yes they can", as illustrated by Andrea Mori below. –  Clive Newstead Jan 4 '13 at 16:47
1  
related: mathoverflow.net/questions/5635/does-autaut-autg-stabilize –  user29743 Jan 4 '13 at 16:50
2  
I think this question is too vague, and you need to ask something more specific. –  Derek Holt Jan 4 '13 at 16:52
2  
You want to know as much as you can about the operation of taking the automorphism group of a group? This is far far far too broad for this site. –  Chris Eagle Jan 4 '13 at 17:32
show 1 more comment

3 Answers 3

up vote 7 down vote accepted

To begin with, there is no such thing as the 'set of all groups.' What you are looking for is a proper class, for which this question should be helpful.

In response to the part about $\chi$ being injective, this is surely not true, as many groups have the same automorphism group - the trivial group and $\mathbb{Z}_2$, for a simple example.

An interesting paper by Iyer contains numerous other examples of groups with the same automorphism groups, in particular Prop. 6.1 - 6.6. He also shows that a nonabelian simple group has the same automorphism group as its covering group.

Furthermore $\chi$ is not surjective. For example, $\mathbb{Z}_p$ is not an automorphism group of any group for $p>2$. (Jack Schmidt says it best here.) Additionally, there is no group $G$ such that $\text{Aut}(G)$ is an Abelian $p$-group of order $\leq p^{11}$ for $p>2$. (reference.) It is also worth noting that Iyer proves that $S_6$ is not the automorphism group of any finite group, and that every finite group occurs as the automorphism group of at most finitely many finite groups.

share|improve this answer
add comment

$\operatorname{Aut}(\Bbb Z/4\Bbb Z)\simeq\operatorname{Aut}(\Bbb Z/3\Bbb Z)$.

share|improve this answer
1  
+1: A simple counterexample says it all. –  Haskell Curry Jan 4 '13 at 16:47
    
What about onto?! –  Ivan Jan 4 '13 at 16:51
add comment

There's also another thing which can be said about the map above: it cannot be extended to a functor: this is an exercise from Barr and Wells' Topos Triples and Theories. A prove of this fact is given by the observation that $GL_3(\mathbf F_2)$ the group of automorphisms of $\mathbb F_2^3\cong (\mathbb Z/2 \mathbb Z)^3$ is simple, so the only non injective homomorphism from this group to any other group must be the null homomorphism. We have trivial embedding of $\mathbb F_2^2$ in $\mathbb F_2^3$ and a trivial projection from this to $\mathbb F_2^2$: $$\mathbb F_2^2 \stackrel{i}{\hookrightarrow} \mathbb F_2^3 \stackrel{\pi}{\rightarrow} \mathbb F_2^2 $$

such that $\pi \circ i = 1_{\mathbb F_2^2}$. If there was a functor $\chi$ as above we should get a diagram of type $$\chi(\mathbb F_2^2) \stackrel{\chi{i}}{\rightarrow} \chi(\mathbb F_2^3) \stackrel{\chi{\pi}}{\rightarrow} \chi(\mathbb F_2^2)$$ where $\chi(\pi) \circ \chi (i) = 1_{\chi(\mathbb F_2^2)}$ but $\chi(\pi)$ should be a null homomorphism, because $\chi(\mathbb F_2^3)$ has 168 elements while $\chi(\mathbb F_2^2)$ has just six elements (so the homomorphism cannot be injective). So we get the absurd and it follows that $\chi$ cannot be extended to a functor.

share|improve this answer
1  
It is a functor if we restrict the domain category to its subcategory of isomorphisms, however. –  Zhen Lin Jan 5 '13 at 18:44
    
That's true, but how does it look like when we restrict it to a skeletal category? –  Giorgio Mossa Jan 5 '13 at 18:58
    
mannaggiaggiorgiomossa –  Ivan Jan 6 '13 at 9:46
add comment

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.