Let $G$ be a group. Say what it means for a map $\varphi: G \rightarrow G$ to be an automorphism. Show that the set-theoretic composition $\varphi \psi = \varphi \circ \psi$ of any two automorphisms $\varphi, \psi$ is an automorphism. Prove that the set $\mathrm{Aut}(G)$ of all automorphisms of the group $G$ with the operation of taking the composition is a group.

I have said: A map is an automorphism of a group $G$ if it is an isomorphism to itself.

a) For the next bit, I want to show if $\varphi, \psi$ is bijective, then $\varphi \circ \psi$ is bijective: For two elements $a, b \in G$ we have

$$\varphi \circ \psi (ab) = \varphi(\psi(ab)) = \varphi(\psi(a)\psi(b))$$

as $\psi$ is an isomorphism. Also, as $\varphi$ is an isomorphism, we have

$$\varphi(\psi(a) \psi(b)) = \varphi \circ \psi(a) \varphi \circ \psi(b)$$

Showing $\varphi \circ \psi$ is an isomorphism iff $\varphi, \psi$ are isomorphisms.

For the group bit, we want to prove the 3 group axioms.

1) Associativity: $\varphi \circ (\psi \circ \zeta) = (\varphi \circ \psi) \circ \zeta$. So for some $x \in G$, we get:

$$\varphi \circ (\psi \circ \zeta)(x) = (\varphi \circ \psi) \zeta(x) = \varphi(\psi(\zeta(x))) $$

2) Identity: If we let the identity automorphism, $e: G \rightarrow G$, be the map $e(x) = x$, then clearly we get that $e \circ \psi = \psi \circ e = \psi$.

3) Inverse: As the automorphisms are bijective (already proved) then we know that by definition of a bijection, there is well defined inverse such that $\psi^{-1}: G \rightarrow G$ exists.

(Second edit to correct proof for inverse): For any two elements $a,b \in G$, we want to see if $\psi^{-1}(ab) = \psi^{-1}(a)\psi^{-1}(b)$. Apply $\psi$ to both sides gives us

$$\psi \circ \psi^{-1}(ab) = \psi(\psi^{-1}(ab)) = ab$$

Doing the same on RHS gives us $ab$ and so we have proved the inverse exists and is unique.

Is this right and enough to prove this?

EDIT: Actually, can I just say that by definition of two bijective maps, the composition is also bijective and this is enough?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ You showed that $\phi\circ\psi$ is a homomorphism and not necessarily an isomorphism. For part (3) you showed that the function is invertible, but you do not say why the inverse is a homomorphism. $\endgroup$ – peoplepower Dec 30 '12 at 15:08
  • $\begingroup$ @peoplepower What am I missing? Definition of an isomorphism: $f: G \rightarrow H$ for two groups $G, H$ is an isomorphism if 1) $f$ is bijective, 2) $f(1_G) \rightarrow 1_H$ and 3) For any $a, b \in G$, we have $f(ab) = f(a)f(b)$. Where part 2 and 3 define a homomorphism (right?) and so I actually haven't shown its bijective? $\endgroup$ – Kaish Dec 30 '12 at 15:12
  • $\begingroup$ As far as I can tell, you have not shown anything other than the third criterion. (It is noteworthy that the second criterion for isomorphisms is superflous: $f(1_G)=f(1_G1_G)=f(1_G)f(1_G)$, so applying $f(1_G)^{-1}$ to both sides gives $f(1_G)=1_H$.) $\endgroup$ – peoplepower Dec 30 '12 at 15:26
  • $\begingroup$ @peoplepower Great. So I have to show its bijective? Lol I still can't do that :( I'll try it an put an edit with what I have done. Once I've shown its bijective, then in my OP, I can keep part 3 as it is as now I'm referring to an isomorphism and not a homomorphism right? $\endgroup$ – Kaish Dec 30 '12 at 15:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ To answer your question in the EDIT section, yes, it follows easily from the definition of bijective map that the composition of two bijective maps is bijective, but at this level I think you are meant to do the simple calculation and prove it carefully. To demonstrate that the composition is one-to-one, take $x_1 \neq x_2$ and explain why $\phi(\psi(x_1))\neq\phi(\psi(x_2))$. To show that the composition is onto, take an arbitrary $y$ and explain why there exists $x$ such that $\phi(\psi(x)) = y$. $\endgroup$ – William DeMeo Dec 30 '12 at 16:30

Best Answer: Let Aut(G) be the set of all automorphisms φ: G --> G. In order to show that this is a group under the operation of composition, we must verify:

(1) Is the set is closed under composition? Yes! If you are given isomorphisms φ, ψ: G --> G, then it is not too tough to show that ψ∘φ and φ∘ψ are isomorphisms. I can expand on this in more detail if you like, but you have probably seen a proof before that a composition of bijective functions is bijective. If a and b are elements of the group, ψ∘φ(ab) = ψ(φ(ab)) = ψ(φ(a)φ(b)), because φ is an isomorphism. Since ψ is also an isomorphism, ψ(φ(a)φ(b)) = ψ∘φ(a)ψ∘φ(b), so the composition ψ∘φ preserves products. Thus, ψ∘φ is an isomorphism if ψ and φ are.

(2) Is the set associative? Yes! All you need to do is show that, for any three isomorphisms φ, ψ and ξ, φ∘(ψ∘ξ) = (φ∘ψ)∘ξ. To do that, just show that for each x in G, φ∘(ψ∘ξ)(x) = (φ∘ψ)∘ξ(x) = φ(ψ(ξ(x))). It's just pushing around definitions.

(3) Does the set contain an identity element? Yes! Let the identity automorphism e: G --> G be the map e(x) = x. Clearly, e∘φ = φ∘e = φ.

(4) Does each element of the set have an inverse under ∘? Yes! Since each isomorphism φ: G --> G is bijective, there is a well-defined inverse map φ^(-1): G --> G. You may have already seen a proof that the inverse of an isomorphism is an isomorphism. If not, it isn't too difficult to prove: I'll leave it to you, but I can expand on it if you need me to. Further, the composition φ^(-1) ∘ φ = φ ∘ φ^(-1) = e.

Since Aut(G) satisfies all the group axioms, it forms a group under ∘, as needed.


The bijections of G form a group. Thus we are trying to prove the automorphisms are a group; sufficiently, that the inverse of an automorphism is an automorphism and that the composition of automorphisms is an automorphism. But an automorphism is a bijective homomorphism.


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.