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.

I recently read the well known theorem that for a group $G$ and $H$ a normal subgroup of $G$, then $G$ is solvable if and only if $H$ and $G/H$ are solvable. In my book, only the fact that $G$ is solvable implies $H$ is solvable was proven. I was able to show that if $H$ and $G/H$ are solvable, then so is $G$, but I can't quite show that $G$ is solvable implies $G/H$ is solvable.

My idea was this. Since $G$ is solvable, there exists a normal abelian tower $$ G=G_0\supset G_1\supset\cdots\supset G_r=\{e\}. $$ I let $K_i=G_i/(H\cap G_i)$, in hopes of getting a sequence $$ G/H\supset K_1\supset\cdots\supset K_r=\{e\}. $$ My hunch is that the above is also a normal abelian tower. However, I'm having trouble verifying that $K_{i+1}\unlhd K_i$ and that $K_i/K_{i+1}$ is abelian.

Writing $H_i=H\cap G_i$, I take $gH_{i+1}\in K_{i+1}$ for some $g\in G_{i+1}$. If $g'H_i\in K_i$, then I want to show $g'H_igH_{i+1}g'^{-1}H_i$ is still in $K_{i+1}$, but manipulating the cosets threw me off. I also tried to use either the second or third isomorphism theorems to show that $K_i/K_{i+1}$ is abelian, but I'm not clear on how to apply it exactly. I'd be grateful to see how this result comes through. Thank you.

share|improve this question
    
@yuone: Since you are reading group theory, please do check these: ysharifi.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/… and ysharifi.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/… –  user9413 May 19 '11 at 12:53
    
@yuone: I am impressed that at such an young age you are already reading group theory on your own. Good luck reading. Thats why i sent that link. –  user9413 May 19 '11 at 12:54
    
@Chandru, thanks for the links. I know there are a lot of great math blogs out there, but so far a lot have been inaccessible to me at my level. Hopefully that will change a little in the future. –  yunone May 19 '11 at 21:38
    
Yes, I know, thats, why I sent something very elementary to you. But it's worth reading. –  user9413 May 20 '11 at 7:21

2 Answers 2

up vote 8 down vote accepted

You're approach looks good to me. It might help to rewrite $K_i = G_i/(H\cap G_i)$ in the form $K_i = (G_i H)/H,$ so that you have a sequence of groups $G_i H$ all containing $H$, whose quotients are giving the $K_i$. Now to verify that $K_{i+1}$ is normal in $K_i$, you just have to verify that $G_{i+1} H$ is normal in $G_i H$, which isn't too hard to do. (Essentially, the computations with cosets that were giving you trouble have all been wrapped up once and for all into the isomorphism $G_i/(H\cap G_i) \cong (G_i H)/H$, and the coset computations with $G_{i+1} H$ inside $G_i H$ will be quite a bit easier.)

To see that $K_i/K_{i+1}$ is abelian, you can again use isomorphism theorems, to rewrite it as $(G_i H)/(G_{i+1} H) \cong G_i/(G_{i+1} H \cap G_i).$ You should be able to see that the latter group is a quotient of $G_i/G_{i+1}$, and so, being a quotient of an abelian group, is abelian.


As a general remark, when studying the image of a subgroup $G'$ under a quotient map $G \to G/H$, passing back and forth between the descriptions $G'/G'\cap H$ and $G'H/H$ is a very standard method. The former description helps you think about the the image as a quotient of the given subgroup $G'$, while the latter description is useful for bringing into play the fact that "the lattice of subgroups of $G/H$ corresponds to the lattice of subgroups of $G$ containing $H$" --- it rewrites the image as the quotient of a subgroup containing $H$, and so helps you understand the inclusion relations and so on between different images as $G'$ varies.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for your answer, Matt. One thing I'm not quite clear on is why $G_i/(G_{i+1} H \cap G_i)$ is a quotient of $G_i/G_{i+1}$. Does this follow because $G_{i+1}\subset (G_{i+1} H \cap G_i)$? –  yunone May 18 '11 at 10:09
    
@yunone: Dear Yunone, Yes, that's precisely the point. Regards, –  Matt E May 18 '11 at 11:47

I can't quite show that $G$ is solvable implies $G/H$ is solvable.

$G$ is solvable if and only if the process $G_0 = G, G_i = [G_{i-1}, G_{i-1}]$ of repeatedly taking commutator subgroups eventually terminates in the trivial group. If it terminates after $n$ steps, this is equivalent to saying that a certain word made of $n$ levels of nested commutators vanishes identically for every choice of elements of $G$, and this property is automatically preserved by homomorphisms $G \to G/H$ (as well as taking subgroups).

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you Qiaochu, Lang starts talking about commutator subgroups right after he proves this result, so I believe this answer will be helpful to me pretty soon. Thanks. –  yunone May 18 '11 at 7:37

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.