5
$\begingroup$

I have proved this proposition, which has been stated on other StackExchange pages.

Proposition: Let $N$ and $H$ be groups and let $\phi_1,\phi_2: H\to\newcommand{\Aut}{\operatorname{Aut}} \Aut(N)$ be group homomorphisms s.t. for some $g\in \Aut(N)$, $\phi_2(h)=g\phi_1(h)g^{-1}$ for all $h\in H$. Then $N \rtimes_{\phi_1} H \cong N\rtimes_{\phi_2} H$.

The map \begin{align*} f: N \rtimes_{\phi_1} H &\to N\rtimes_{\phi_2} H, (n,h)\mapsto (g(n),h). \end{align*} is an isomorphism.

Proof: This map is clearly well-defined and bijective since $g$ is a group automorphism. So it suffices to check the group homomorphism properties: $f((n,h)(n',h'))=f((n\phi_1(h)(n'),hh'))= (g(n\phi_1(h)(n')),hh')= (g(n) g\phi_1(h)(n'),hh')\\ =(g(n) g \phi_1(h)g^{-1}g(n'),hh')\\ =(g(n) \phi_2(h) g(n'),hh')\\ =(g(n),h)(g(n'),h')\\ = f(n,h)f(n',h').$ $ f((n,h)^{-1})=f((\phi_1(h^{-1})(n^{-1})),h^{-1})=(g\phi_1(h^{-1})(n^{-1}),h^{-1})\\ =((g\phi_1(h^{-1})g^{-1})(g(n^{-1})),h^{-1})\\ =(\phi_2(h^{-1})g(n^{-1}),h^{-1})\\ =(g(n),h)^{-1}\\ =f((n,h))^{-1}.$

Interestingly, when I do my homework, classifying groups of order 18,70,75, the converse is true.

For example, group of order 70.

"By Sylow Theorem, $n_5=n_7=1$. Then $N=N_5N_7 \cong Z/35Z$ is a normal subgroup since it is a product of two normal ones. Let $H$ be the $2-$Sylow subgroup, then $H=Z/2Z$. So we need to determine all the maps $\phi:Z/2Z \to \Aut(N) =\Aut(Z/5Z \times Z/7Z) \cong Z/4Z \times Z/6Z$. So we have the possibilities $\phi(1)=(0,0),(0,3),(2,0),(2,3)$. So there arev at most 4 groups of order $70$."

And according to the wiki, there are 4 groups of order 70, so the result follows.

My questions:

1) Is the converse true? Is there a counterexample? 2) Is my proof correct? THis is a ridiculously strong proposition, but I think my proof is not wrong.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your condition isn't strong enough. You need for your two automorphisms to be conjugate in $\operatorname{Out}(G)$, so conjugate modulo the inner automorphisms, rather than equal modulo the inner automorphisms (which is the condition you have written). So you can cook up a counter-example to your condition by understanding my above sentence. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Nov 18 '19 at 16:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (The condition I give above isn't equivalent either, at least not for infinite groups. Can't think of a counter-example at the moment though.) $\endgroup$ – user1729 Nov 18 '19 at 16:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Weird stuff happens in infinite groups: math.stackexchange.com/questions/527800/… $\endgroup$ – AnalysisStudent0414 Nov 18 '19 at 16:43
  • $\begingroup$ let me write my proof for that, it is ridiculously strong, yes, But I do not see any mistakes $\endgroup$ – T C Nov 18 '19 at 16:43
  • $\begingroup$ @chi See my comment above. Your condition can be made much stronger. $\endgroup$ – user1729 Nov 18 '19 at 16:55
5
$\begingroup$

Consider the special case where $\phi_2$ is constant equal to the identity, so that one of the semi-direct products is actually a direct product. The converse of your proposition in that case would be :

If $N \rtimes_{\phi_1} H \cong N\times H$ then there is some $g\in \operatorname{Aut}(N)$ such that $\phi_2(h)=g\phi_1(h)g^{-1}$ for all $h\in H$, which in turn implies that $\phi_1$ is constant equal to the identity as well.

But it is well-known that non-trivial actions can lead to direct products.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.