After grappling with the concept of a quotient group I have come across two different definitions of a quotient group. The first which is used in Algebra Chapter 0 uses an equivalence relation $\sim$ on the underlying set of a group $G$ to obtain $G/{\sim}$ and then defines an operation on the equivalence classes. But the definition on Mathworld says a quotient group $G/N$ by a normal subgroup $N$ is simply the set of all cosets of $N$ in $G$ where the operation is coset multiplication , which doesn't even mention an equivalence relation. My question is are these definitions (in your opinion) equivalent and which do you feel is more useful in defining a quotient ring? Thanks
-
1$\begingroup$ Yes they are equivalent. It would be a good exercise for you to determine why---in particular, try to find an equivalent relation on $G$ whose equivalence classes are precisely the left cosets of $N$. $\endgroup$– Santiago CanezCommented Mar 3, 2015 at 2:38
1 Answer
Yes, they are equivalent. The normal subgroup $N$ corresponds to the equivalence class of $e$ in the first variant, and the equivalence class version can be recovered from $N$ by using the equivalence relation:
$g_1 \sim_N g_2 \iff g_1^{-1}g_2 \in N$
EDIT: Personally I prefer to view a quotient group $G/N$ as the image $\phi(G)$ of a homomorphism:
$\phi: G \to G'$
The equivalence class view generalizes more nicely to monoids, whereas the "normal subgroup/kernel" view generalizes more nicely to rings and modules.
-
1$\begingroup$ Even better: a quotient group is a surjective homomorphism. This gives a nice symmetry, since a subgroup is an injective homomorphism. $\endgroup$– Tac-TicsCommented Mar 3, 2015 at 3:04