2
$\begingroup$

I'm reading a proof of the Correspondence Theorem and I'm seeing a step for which I'm not sure of the justification. So suppose that $G$ is a subgroup and $K< H_{1},H_{2} <G$, and $K\trianglelefteq G$. The move the proof makes is to say, "Since $H_{1}/K = H_{2}/K$ then $H_{1}=H_{2}$."

I've tried proving this by the following,

Suppose $h_{1}\in H_{1}$ so that $h_{1}K \in H_{1}/K = H_{2}/K$ and so there is some $h_{2}$ such that $h_{1}K = h_{2}K$. Since $h_{1}\in h_{1}K$ this implies there is some $k$ such that $h_{1}=h_{2}k$ ...

And at this point I don't see a way forward.

I think the big problem for me is that I don't have a criteria for "being in $H_{2}$".

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $H$ is precisely the union of the cosets contained in $H/K$... $\endgroup$
    – whacka
    Nov 8 '14 at 1:26
1
$\begingroup$

Got it based on whacka's comment. If I were going to keep with my very flat-footed proof style, then I would remark that $K<H_{2}$ and therefore $h_{1}=h_{2}k\in H_{2}$.

But the proof suggested by whacka is shorter and easier: $H_{1}$ is the union of all cosets of $H_{1}/K$ is the union of all cosets of $H_{2}/K$ is $H_{2}$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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