Problem: Assume $S$ is a nonempty set and $G$ is a group. Let $G^S$ denote the set of all mappings from $S$ to $G$. Find an operation on $G^S$ that will yield a group.

Update (full attempted proof--is it correct?): Let $*$ be the operation on the given group $G$ and let $\bigstar$ be the operation on $G^S$. For all $\alpha,\beta\in G^S$, define $(\alpha\,\bigstar\,\beta)(x)=\alpha(x)*\beta(x)$. Now we must prove $G^S$ is a group.

  • Closure: This is inherited from $G$.
  • Associativity: This is also inherited from $G$.
  • Existence of an identity element: This is also inherited from $G$; more explicitly, $e_G(x)=1=e_{G^S}(x)$ because $(\alpha\,\bigstar\,e_G)(x)=\alpha(x)*e_G(x)=\alpha(x)$ and, in the other direction, $(e_G\,\bigstar\,\alpha)(x)=e_G(x)*\alpha(x)=\alpha(x)$.
  • Existence of inverse elements: If $\eta(x)\in G$, then $\eta^{-1}(x)\in G$ also. Thus, for $\alpha\in G^S$, we have $(\alpha\,\bigstar\,\alpha^{-1})(x)=\alpha(x)*\alpha^{-1}(x)=e_G(x)=e_{G^S}(x)$ and, in the other direction, $(\alpha^{-1}\,\bigstar\,\alpha)(x)=\alpha^{-1}(x)*\alpha(x)=e_G(x)=e_{G^S}(x)$.

This concludes the proof that the operation $\bigstar$ on $G^S$ yields a group. $\blacksquare$

$\color{red}{\mathbf{\text{Question:}}}$ Is this above proof correct? Also, by the way the operation $\bigstar$ works, it seems like $G^S$ would be a subgroup of $G$ or am I wrong?

Original work shown for problem:

Book solution: For $\alpha,\beta\in G^S$, define $(\alpha\beta)(x)=\alpha(x)\beta(x)$ for each $x\in S$.

My questions: I thought about this problem for a good while but got nowhere and finally decided to look at the answer, but it does not make a ton of sense to me. How does the given operation yield a group? And what really is the operation being considered? Is it composition? That is, $(\alpha\beta)(x)\equiv(\alpha\circ\beta)(x)$? If it is composition, then I know all compositions are associative, and thus I do not need to prove that as part of proving that $G^S$ is a group. But what about closure? Existence of an identity element? Existence of inverse elements?

For the existence of an identity element, I thought about $e_G(x)=1$ and having $(\eta e_G)(x)=\eta(x)e_G(x)=\eta(x)$ and $(e_G\eta)(x)=e_G(x)\eta(x)=\eta(x)$, but this doesn't really seem right or is it?

Lastly, the problem gives the condition that $S\neq\varnothing$ (why is that important?), and no operation is specified concerning $G$--does that matter? I guess not, but it seems interesting to me that no operation is specified for $G$ when we are trying to find an operation for $G^S$ that involves $G$.

  • $\begingroup$ The proof seems fundamentally fine. I'm not sure what the distinction is between the notation $e_G(x)$ and $e_G^S(x)$. You could write out associativity more explicitly, although I tend not to do so unless it's not obvious. $\endgroup$ – Rolf Hoyer Apr 9 '15 at 17:22
  • $\begingroup$ @RolfHoyer I just meant that $e_G(x)$ is the identity element for $G$ while $e_G^S(x)$ is the identity element for $G^S$. If $G^S$ is a subgroup of $G$ (it looks like it is, but is it?), then I know the distinctions do not matter because the identity and inverses are the same. $\endgroup$ – fancynancy Apr 9 '15 at 17:32
  • $\begingroup$ @RolfHoyer OK--I just fixed up the question with the modified notation ($e_{G^S}(x)$ instead of $e_G^S(x)$). Look all good now? Your answer definitely helped me to start thinking along the right lines. $\endgroup$ – fancynancy Apr 9 '15 at 17:38

It definitely looks much better!

I'm a little confused about the distinction between $e_G$ and $e_{G^S}$; they both seem like the identity of $G^S$, and you seem to be using $1$ for the identity of $G$. Maybe make it more explicit that you're defining $e_{G^S}: S \to G$ so that $e_{G^S}(x) = 1_G$; it's the map sending everything in $S$ to the identity of $G$. So my only suggestion would be to clean up the notation (how exactly are you writing the identity of $G$? Of $G^S$?) and make it clear exactly what the identity of $G^S$ does.

For the inverses, essentially the same thing: Given $\alpha: S \to G$, you just start using $\alpha^{-1}$ without explicitly stating that, if $\alpha(x) = g$, then $\alpha^{-1}(x) = (\alpha(x))^{-1} = g^{-1}$. That is, make it clear that we invert $\alpha:S \to G$ pointwise, by inverting its output (using the inverse in $G$).

For your other question, very rarely will it be the case that $G^S \cong G$. I think it's more likely that $G^S$ is isomorphic to a direct product of several copies of $G$ (how many copies?).

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Hmm okay. So I should write $e_G(x)=1$ and $e_{G^S}(x)=1_G$ to more clearly indicate that $1$ is the identity for $G$ while $1_G$ is the identity for $G^S$ right? You're right--my notation is a bit mangled. Okay. I get the identity part now. I'm still a little fuzzy on the inverse part though. Are you saying I'm technically correct with what I've written but it would be clearer to actually assign an element to $\alpha(x)$ to clearly indicate that invertibility is pointwise? $\endgroup$ – fancynancy Apr 9 '15 at 18:10
  • $\begingroup$ What I mean about identities is that there should really only be two in sight: That of $G$, let's call it $1_G$, and that of $G^S$, let's call it $1_{G^S}$. So, I'm not sure why there are two functions whose notation suggest that they're both identities of $G^S$; that they're both functions $S \to G$. $\endgroup$ – pjs36 Apr 9 '15 at 18:12
  • $\begingroup$ And for the inverses, yes, it's correct, provided you explicitly state how $\alpha^{-1}: S \to G$ (or $\eta^{-1}$, for that matter) is defined. $\endgroup$ – pjs36 Apr 9 '15 at 18:14
  • $\begingroup$ Okay so I should have (for identities, that is), in one direction, $(\alpha\,\bigstar\,e_G)(x)=\alpha(x)*e_G(x)=\alpha(x)*1_G=\alpha(x)$. The same would happen in the other direction. So the identity exists and, explicitly, we have $e_{G^S}=e_G=1$. Correct? $\endgroup$ – fancynancy Apr 9 '15 at 18:16
  • $\begingroup$ I do see what you're saying now about the confusion between writing $e_G(x)$ and $e_{G^S}(x)$ because they are both mappings from $S$ to $G$; thus, that notation is rather clumsy. $\endgroup$ – fancynancy Apr 9 '15 at 18:19

The group operation is not defined by composition, unless you mean the composition $S \to S\times S \to G\times G \to G$, where the first map is the diagonal $s \to (s,s)$, the second map is the product of the two given maps $\alpha, \beta$, and the third map is the group operation on $G$. When the author writes $(\alpha\beta)(x) = \alpha(x)\beta(x)$, the latter product is defined using the operation of $G$, just to clarify.

This definition is using the operation of $G$ pointwise, just like how addition and multiplication are defined for real-valued functions, ie $(f+g)(x) = f(x) + g(x)$. The identity element is the constant function $e_G(x) = 1$ for every $x$, and you correctly give the proof that this works. The inverse of a function $\alpha: S \to G$ is given by taking inverses pointwise, namely $\alpha^{-1}(x) = (\alpha(x))^{-1}$. Associativity follows from the associativity of $G$.

As regards to the empty set, if $S = \emptyset$ then there is a unique empty function $S \to G$, and I guess the authors would rather rule out this case than give the trivial product on this set.

Hopefully this makes things more clear.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ I just updated my question with a fully attempted proof in light of your helpful answer. Can you let me know if you think it's correct? Thanks for your answer--I think I am at least on the right track now. $\endgroup$ – fancynancy Apr 9 '15 at 14:23

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.