2
$\begingroup$

I found this proposition in the Doerk's book of Finite Soluble Groups, which is referenced from the book Endliche Gruppen I from B. Huppert.

Let $G=\langle g_1,\dots, g_n\rangle$, and let $U$ be a subgrouup of $G$ of finite index. Then $U$ has a generating set with $2n|G:U|$ elements.

But if $G=D_4=\langle \alpha,\beta\mid \alpha^4=\beta^2=e,\beta\alpha=\alpha^3\beta\rangle$, and $U=\langle\alpha\rangle$, then $|G:U|=2$. But the proposition says that $U$ should have a generating set of $2\cdot 2\cdot 2=8>4=|U|$ elements which is impossible.

What's the problem?

By the way, he original proposition says

Sei $\mathfrak{G}=\langle G_1,\dots,G_n \rangle$ eine endlich erzeugbare Gruppe und $\mathfrak{U}$ eine Untergruppe von $\mathfrak{G}$ von endlichem Index. Dann ist $\mathfrak{U}$ mit $2n |\mathfrak{G}:\mathfrak{U}|$ Elementen erzeugbar.

which more or less means

Let $\mathfrak{G}=\langle G_1,\dots,G_n \rangle$ a finitely generated group and $\mathfrak{U}$ a subgroup of $\mathfrak{G}$ of finite index. Then $\mathfrak{U}$ has a generating set with $2n |\mathfrak{G}:\mathfrak{U}|$ elements.

It seems to me that the proposition is the same, am I missing something?

The proof can be found in the Hubbert's book, but I'm a novice in german and I don't understand, starting from Nebenklassenzerlegung. Is there any extra hypothesis used in the proof?

enter image description here

Note: In Doerk's it says it's a simplified version of Schreier Subgroup Theorem.

$\endgroup$
12
  • $\begingroup$ did you really copy it verbatim? $\endgroup$ – Jorge Jan 2 '17 at 18:12
  • $\begingroup$ I'm confused: what "original proposition" is that? In Doerk's book or in Hubbert's? $\endgroup$ – DonAntonio Jan 2 '17 at 18:12
  • $\begingroup$ Original proposition is Hubbert's. And yes, I copied it verbatim. $\endgroup$ – LeviathanTheEsper Jan 2 '17 at 18:13
  • $\begingroup$ Is there a reason to assume the elements of the generating set must be distinct? Since there are no assumptions on the generating set $\{g_1,\ldots,g_n\}$ of $G$, it seems to me like the goal of this theorem may just be to give an upper bound on the size of a generating set of $U$. $\endgroup$ – sTertooy Jan 2 '17 at 18:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The second sentence translates as "Then $U$ can be generated with $2n|G:U|$ elements." That does not imply that these elements are distinct. The word "set" is not used. $\endgroup$ – Derek Holt Jan 2 '17 at 18:49
3
$\begingroup$

the way that the proof works is that it lets $G_1,G_2,\dots G_n$ be the generators of $\mathcal G$ and it makes $G_{n+j}=G_j^{-1}$, then it takes representatives $V_1,V_2,\dots V_m$ for the cosets of $\mathcal U$ in $\mathcal G$, such that $V_1$ is thentity of the group.

Now he defines $U_{i,j}$ as the solution to the equation $V_iG_j=U_{ij}V_k$, where $k$ is the representative for the appropriate coset (so that this $U_{i,j}$ is in $\mathcal U$).

We now prove that the $U_{i,j}$ generate $\mathcal U$.

Take an element of $\mathcal U$, then it is of the form $G_{a_1}G_{a_r}\dots G_{a_m}$ such that every $a_i\in \{1,2,3\dots,2n\}$.

We then have:

$G_{a_1}G_{a_2}\dots G_{a_r}=V_1G_{a_1}\dots G_{a_r}=U_{1,a_1}V_{a_1'}G_{a_2}\dots G_n=\dots U_{1,a_1}U_{a_1',a_2}\dots U_{a_{r-1}',a_r}V_{a_r'}$

and since all of the first factors are in $U$ we must have $a_r'=1$ and so $U=U_{1,a_1}U_{a_1',a_2}\dots U_{a_{r-1}',a_r}$.

So the proof shows that the elements $U_{i,j}$ generate $\mathcal U$, but of course it doesn't show they are different, so we can build a genering set with at most $2mn$ elements.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ PS: I really don't like the fact tat he uses big cap letters to represent elements of the group. $\endgroup$ – Jorge Jan 2 '17 at 18:39
3
$\begingroup$

The proposition does not say that the elements need to be distinct.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ The proposition says that the generating set has $2n|G:U|$ elements. In the way it's stated, they should be distinct. Perhaps I misinterpreted it that way. $\endgroup$ – LeviathanTheEsper Jan 2 '17 at 18:27
  • $\begingroup$ @LeviathanTheEsper Look at the proof. Where does he show that the elements $G_{i_1},$ etc are distinct? $\endgroup$ – Igor Rivin Jan 2 '17 at 18:32
  • $\begingroup$ And as far as I can see, Huppert does not use the word set (which would be Menge in German). $\endgroup$ – Derek Holt Jan 2 '17 at 18:40

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.