I don't understand why the following two definitions of nilpotence are equivalent:

Definition 1. $G$ is $0$-step nilpotent if $G=\{e\}$. G is $k+1$th-step nilpotent if G is not $k$-step nilpotent, but $G/Z(G)$ is.

Definition 2. Let $\gamma_{i+1}(G)$ such that $\gamma_0(G) = \{e\}, \gamma_1(G) = Z(G)$ and $\gamma_{i}(G) \subseteq \gamma_{i+1}(G)$ and $\gamma_{i+1}(G)/\gamma_i(G) = Z(G/\gamma_i(G))$. For any G, we can define $\gamma_0 \subseteq \gamma_1 \subseteq \gamma_2...$. G is nilpotent if $\gamma_k(G)=G$ for some $k$.

The first definition is clear, but for the second definition, I cannot figure out the implications of having such $\gamma_{i+1}(G)$ which satisfies $\gamma_{i+1}(G)/\gamma_i(G) = Z(G/\gamma_i(G))$ which would make it equivalent to the first definition.

  • $\begingroup$ Possible duplicate of Definition of a nilpotent group. $\endgroup$
    – Ted
    Dec 6 '15 at 0:59
  • $\begingroup$ @Ted I've read that post before adding my question, and I couldn't relate it to the first definition that I posted (which isn't on there). $\endgroup$ Dec 6 '15 at 1:00
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I read your question too fast and thought you were asking a different one. $\endgroup$
    – Ted
    Dec 6 '15 at 1:05
  • $\begingroup$ You seem to be missing $\gamma_0(G)=0$? Otherwise you could take $\gamma_i(G)=G$ "proving every group is nilpotent". $\endgroup$
    – Nex
    Dec 6 '15 at 2:20
  • $\begingroup$ @Nex Good catch. I've updated the definition. $\endgroup$ Dec 6 '15 at 2:54

The two definitions are related as follows:

$G$ is $k$-step nilpotent iff $k$ is the minimum value such that $\gamma_k(G) = G$.

This follows from the easily-checked fact $\gamma_{i+1}(G)/Z(G) = \gamma_i(G/Z(G))$, i.e., the $\gamma$ sequence for $G/Z(G)$ is obtained from the $\gamma$ sequence for $G$ by dropping the $\gamma_0(G)$ (trivial) term, then taking the quotient of the remaining groups by $Z(G)$.

To check the above fact, we must prove that $\overline{\gamma_{i+1}(G)} = \gamma_i(\overline{G})$ where the bar denotes projection from $G$ to $G/Z(G)$. The case $i=0$ is easy. For $i>0$, we proceed by induction.

By definition $$\gamma_{i+1}(G) / \gamma_i(G) = Z(G/\gamma_i(G)).$$

Since $\gamma_i(G) \supseteq \gamma_1(G) = Z(G)$ for $i>0$, we have the natural isomorphism $$G/\gamma_i(G) \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} \overline{G} / \overline{\gamma_i(G)}.$$ The centers of the two sides correspond under the isomorphism: $$\gamma_{i+1}(G) / \gamma_i(G) \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} Z(\overline{G} / \overline{\gamma_i(G)}).$$

Using the induction hypothesis (*) as well as the definition of the $\gamma$ groups for $\overline{G}$ (**), $$Z(\overline{G} / \overline{\gamma_i(G)}) \stackrel{(*)}{=} Z(\overline{G} / \gamma_{i-1}(\overline{G})) \stackrel{(**)}{=} \gamma_i(\overline{G}) / \gamma_{i-1}(\overline{G}) \stackrel{(*)}{=} \gamma_i(\overline{G}) /\overline{\gamma_i(G)}.$$ Thus we have $$\gamma_{i+1}(G) / \gamma_i(G) \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} \gamma_i(\overline{G}) /\overline{\gamma_i(G)}.$$ But by the definition of the isomorphism $\cong$, we have $$\gamma_{i+1}(G) / \gamma_i(G) \stackrel{\cong}{\longrightarrow} \overline{\gamma_{i+1}(G)}/\overline{\gamma_i(G)}.$$ Comparing the last 2 displayed equations, we get $\overline{\gamma_{i+1}(G)} = \gamma_i(\overline{G})$, as desired.

I should add that all this looks more complicated than it really is. If you think through the construction of the $\gamma$'s, you see the construction for $\overline{G}$ is really just "one step ahead" of the corresponding construction for $G$ at all times (up to the identification by $\cong$), thus the sequence for $\overline{G}$ terminates one step earlier.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How do we have $\gamma_{i+1}(G)/Z(G) = \gamma_i(G/Z(G))$ from the original $\gamma_{i+1}(G)/\gamma_i(G) = Z(G/\gamma_i(G))$? $\endgroup$ Dec 6 '15 at 20:16
  • $\begingroup$ @user2193268 See edits. $\endgroup$
    – Ted
    Dec 7 '15 at 0:50

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.