1
$\begingroup$

First I suuuuuck at proofs. I think I am on the right track but I need some fine tuning. Or if I am totally off let me know.

First we show that $H_i$ is nonempty.

Note that since $H_i$ is a subgroup of $G_i, H_i$ contains the identity element. So $e_G \in H_1, e_G \in H_2,..., e_G \in H_n.$ This means that $e_G \in H_1 \times H_2 \times \cdots \times H_n.$ Hence $H_i$ is non empty.

Next we show it is a subset. Let $(x_1,x_2,...,x_n) \in H_1 \times H_2 \times...\times H_n.$ This means $x_1 \in H_1, x_2 \in H_2,...x_n \in H_n.$ Since $H_i \leq G_i, x_1 \in G_1, x_2 \in G_2,...x_n \in G_n,$ which shows that $(x_1,x_2,...,x_n) \in H_1 \times H_2 \times...\times H_n$ and therefore $\in G_1 \times G_2 \times...\times G_n.$ Hence $ H_1 \times H_2 \times...\times H_n \subseteq G_1 \times G_2 \times...\times G_n.$

Let $x= (x_1,x_2,...,x_n)$ and $y= (y_1,y_2,...,y_n) \in H_1 \times H_2 \times...\times H_n.$ Then $xy^{-1}= (x_1,x_2,...,x_n)(y_1^{-1},y_2^{-1},...,y_n^{-1})= (x_1y_1^{-1},x_2y_2^{-1},...,x_ny_n^{-1}).$ Then $x_1y_1^{-1} \in H_1, x_2y_2^{-1} \in H_2,..., x_ny_n^{-1} \in H_n.$ This means that $(x_1y_1^{-1},x_2y_2^{-1},...,x_ny_n^{-1}) \in H_1 \times H_2 \times \cdots \times H_n$ since $H_i \leq G_i$ and inverses are elements in the group.

Hence $H_1 \times H_2 \times \cdots \times H_n$ is a subgroup of $G_1 \times G_2 \times \cdots \times G_n$.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

How about doing it for $n=2$, and then iterating?

Also, how about using the subgroup criterion? Namely, if $h_1,h_2\in H\implies h_1h_2^{-1}\in H$, then $H\le G$.

So take $(a_1,b_1),(a_2,b_2)\in H_1×H_2$. Just check that $(a_1,b_1)(a_2,b_2)^{-1}=(a_1,b_1)(a_2^{-1},b_2^{-1})=(a_1a_2^{-1},b_1b_2^{-1})\in H_1×H_2$, which it is since $H_1,H_2$ are subgroups.

Now, looking at what you did, I think you've got it. I see you also used the subgroup criterion. I guess my solution was largely hot air, because you already did it.

Taking one more look, let me fine tune a little bit. I don't think you need to separately show $e$ is in the subset. Because, it follows from $xy^{-1}\in H$, by setting $y=x$. Of course, you did note that $H=H_1×\dots ×H_n$ is non-empty already. But that does also follow from the fact that the $H_i$ are all non-empty.

On second thought, your way of doing it was quite right: you get $e$ pretty much immediately. Even if you haven't proved it is $e$ yet.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Sometimes I like to talk in circles in my proofs or put unnecessary things in. My professor however grumbles when we don't specifically show its nonempty but I suppose there is different way to show it like you pointed out. Just want to make sure the way I showed it wasn't totally off. Thanks for your input. $\endgroup$ – PhysicsBish Mar 28 '20 at 4:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sure. I'm guilty of rambling a bit here myself. I think you did a good job with it. $\endgroup$ – Chris Custer Mar 28 '20 at 4:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Awesome thanks again! $\endgroup$ – PhysicsBish Mar 28 '20 at 5:29

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.