2
$\begingroup$

I've seen some definitions of a Normalizer that do not seem equivalent to me and was wondering if I am missing something.

First to setup the basic stuff:

$H$ is a subgroup of $G$.

Denote the normalizer of $H$ as $N(H)$.

So now the different definitions:

Group 1:

  1. $N(H)=\{a \in G: aha^{-1} \in H \text{ for }\forall h \in H\}$
  2. $N(H)=\{a \in G: aHa^{-1} \subseteq H\}$

Group 2:

  1. $N(H)=\{a \in G: aH=Ha\}$
  2. $N(H)=\{a \in G: aHa^{-1}=H\}$
  3. $N(H)=\cup\{Ha : aH=Ha\}$
  4. $N(H)=\cup\{Ha : aHa^{-1}=H\}$

My conclusions so far:

  1. The solutions in Group 1 are equivalent
  2. The solutions in Group 2 are equivalent
  3. The solutions in Group 1 are not equivalent to those in Group 2 in general.
  4. Group 1 basically says to gather all elements for which the conjugate of H is a subgroup of H, while Group 2 says to gather all the elements for which the conjugate of H is equvalent to H.
  5. If G is finite, Group 1 will be equivalent to Group 2, because $aHa^{-1}$ is a bijective image of $H$ so if $H$ is finite and $aHa^{-1} \subseteq H$ => $aHa^{-1}=H$.
  6. So Group 1 and Group 2 are equivalent if G is finite.

So my question comes to this:

Is this correct or not?

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ To add some more to this question: It seems to me that the definitions in Group 1 do not make $N(H)$ a group, so unless G is finite in which case Group 1=Group 2 => $N(H)$ is a group. So Group 1 seems like a bad way to define things. So why use the definitions in Group 1 at all? $\endgroup$ Oct 11, 2020 at 21:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The definitions in Group 1 are simply wrong because, as you said, they do not define a subgroup in general. So it is better not to use them at all (unless you are sure that $H$ is finite). $\endgroup$
    – Derek Holt
    Oct 11, 2020 at 21:53
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Related $\endgroup$ Oct 11, 2020 at 21:58
  • $\begingroup$ @DerekHolt So why does Pinter use this definition then(Group 1)? Of course he is stating that G is a finite group, so it works, but I still do not see the merit? Isn't it better to just use one of the definitions in Group 2, like Dummit and Foote/Lang/Artin do, so that it works for an infinite group? In general, is there any reason to shy away from normalizers of infinite groups? $\endgroup$ Oct 11, 2020 at 22:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Everstudent: I don't have any edition of Pinter. The comments in the question I linked to had that exchange. Take it up with them. Aside: use \text{ for every } to get regular text in the middle of a math formula; otherwise, it comes out awful. $\endgroup$ Oct 12, 2020 at 15:32

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

You left one cute one out: the normalizer of $H$ in $G$ is the largest subgroup of $G$ in which $H$ is normal.

Of course, then we have: $H\triangleleft G\iff N(H)=G$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ For the $\text{Cute one}$ (+1),,,:)) $\endgroup$
    – A learner
    Oct 12, 2020 at 8:00

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.