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 $\alpha$ be a functor from the category of groups in the category of groups which assigns to every group $G$ a characteristic subgroup $\alpha (G)$ of $G$ and to every homomorphism $\theta : H \rightarrow K$ the restriction $\theta|_{\alpha(H)}:\alpha(H)\rightarrow \alpha(K)$ (in other words, $\alpha(H)^\theta \leq \alpha(K)$). So we have, in particular, that $\alpha(H)^\theta \leq \alpha(H^\theta)$. Is it true that also happen that $\alpha(H)^\theta$ is equal to $\alpha(H^\theta)$? I think it holds, but why?

References

D.J.S. Robinson, "Finiteness Conditions and Generalized Soluble Groups", Vol. 1 Pag. 18, (1.3, at the bottom of the page)

share|improve this question
    
There are many characteristic subgroups (e.g. all subgroups of $G$ is $G$ is cyclic), so $\alpha$ might make different "choices" for different $G$. Do I understand the statement right that the only restriction to these choices is that $\alpha(H)^\theta \le \alpha(K)$ for each homomorphism $\theta\colon H\to K$? –  Hagen von Eitzen Jan 14 at 15:55
    
Yes, but I think that this isn't a real restriction since otherwise $\alpha$ could not be a functor assigning the restriction to each homomorphism. –  W4cc0 Jan 14 at 15:57
    
Yes but you need this assumption (which is stronger than being characteristic!) in order to get a functor. –  Martin Brandenburg Jan 14 at 16:33
1  
ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=173699 and ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=188277 are the papers of Baer mentioned. Baer appears to have switched from functor in the first to Robinson's definition in the second. Presumably Baer also found the equivalence obvious. –  Jack Schmidt Jan 14 at 16:42
    
@JackSchmidt this is why I asked my question. It seems that both Robinson and Baer found the equivalence obvious. But to me is not so obvious :(. I "read" the paper of Baer but I cannot realize anything new. –  W4cc0 Jan 14 at 16:51

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

It is not true at least for the category of Abelian groups. Take $\alpha (G)$ the subgroup of all elements of finite order. Set $H=\mathbb{Z}$ and $K=\mathbb{Z}_n$.

share|improve this answer
1  
But in this case: $\alpha(H)^i=[H,H]^i=\{1\}^i=\{1\}=[H^i,H^i]$ since $H$ and $H^i$ are both abelian (where $i$ is the identity function of $H$ in $K$). So this isn't a counterexample I think. –  W4cc0 Jan 14 at 16:08
    
Sorry, I read the question wrong. I changed the answer. –  Boris Novikov Jan 14 at 16:39
    
The subgroup generated by the elements of finite order might work in general. –  Jack Schmidt Jan 14 at 16:54
    
In your counterexample (following my notation) I think must be $K$ changed by $H$. Anyway it seems to work also in general. So the statment in Robinson's book is false? –  W4cc0 Jan 14 at 17:08
    
I don't know, I have not this book. –  Boris Novikov Jan 14 at 17:17

If you look at $\alpha(G)=G'$, the commutator subgroup, then it is true. In general verbal subgroup will do.

share|improve this answer
    
Yes but only the verbal subgroup will do this? This means that if $\alpha$ satisfies to my requirements then $\alpha$ is a "verbal" mapping? –  W4cc0 Jan 14 at 16:31
    
Well, that is not clear. With respect to any variety of groups in any case you will have a lot of characteristic subgroups that are eligible, see for example groupprops.subwiki.org/wiki/Verbal_subgroup –  Nicky Hekster Jan 14 at 16:34
    
Well, I know about verbal subgroup; my problem is the fact that Robinson in the text I cited says that: a group theoretical function (a function $\alpha$ assigning to each group $G$ a subgroup $\alpha(G)$ s.t. if $\theta : G \rightarrow K$ is an isomorphism of $G$ then $\alpha(G)^\theta=\alpha(G^\theta)$ is a functor of the category of groups if and only if for every homomorphism $\theta: G \rightarrow H$ it follows that $\alpha(G)^\theta=\alpha(G^\theta)$ - here the image of a homormorphism $G\rightarrow H$ under $\alpha$ is the restriction to $\alpha(G)$) –  W4cc0 Jan 14 at 16:41
    
I proved that if the condition holds then $\alpha$ is a functor but I cannot see why if $\alpha$ is a functor the condition hold. If the condition hold then it can be proved that $\alpha$ is a "verbal" mapping. @JackSchmidt Thanks, I removed it –  W4cc0 Jan 14 at 16:43

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.