2
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ be a group and $H,K$ nontrivial subgroups of $G$. Does $H \cap K \cong K$ imply $H \cap K = K$ (and then $K \le H$)? If not in general, are there conditions on $H,K$ making this implication to hold?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Hongyi Huang, it seems to me that this is an example in which the statement trivially holds, being $K$ chosen to be a subgroup of $H$, but doesn't prove the statement in general. Did I misunderstand? $\endgroup$ – Luca Jul 3 at 6:26
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Luca He probably meant it the other way around. $H = 2\mathbb{Z}$ and $K = \mathbb{Z}$. Then $H \cap K = 2\mathbb{Z} \cong \mathbb{Z} = K$ but obviously $H \cap K = 2\mathbb{Z} \neq \mathbb{Z} = K$. This is a counterexample to your question. $\endgroup$ – 0XLR Jul 3 at 6:29
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Arthur Yes I mean $H< K$ and I wrote as an answer. $\endgroup$ – Hongyi Huang Jul 3 at 6:30
7
$\begingroup$

Counterexample: $K = \mathbb{Z}$ and $H$ be the group of all even integers under addition. Then $H\cap K = H\cong \mathbb{Z}\cong K$ but $H\cap K\ne K$.

If $K$ is a finite group, then $H\cap K\cong K$ implies $H\cap K = K$ because $H\cap K$ is a subgroup of $K$.

$\endgroup$

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.