6
$\begingroup$

I'd like to demonstrate that every automorphism of $S_3$ is a conjugation but without looking at the order of the elements. My attempt is the following :

I've already proved that there is an injective homomorphism $f : Aut(S_3) \hookrightarrow S_3$ and also that the conjugation map $Ad$ is an automorphism.

Now let's consider $g : S_3 \longrightarrow Aut(S_3)$ such as $g(\sigma) = Ad(\sigma)$. It is easy to prove that $g$ is an injective homomorphism.

Let $\psi$ be in $Aut(S_3)$ and $\sigma$ be in $S_3$. Thus we have :

$$g \circ f : Aut(S3) \hookrightarrow S_3 \hookrightarrow Aut(S_3)$$ $$ (g \circ f)(\psi) = g(\sigma) = Ad(\sigma)$$

Because of the two injections, we can deduce that $S_3 \cong Aut(S_3)$ and thus $g \circ f$ is an automorphism. I think it also proves that there is as much elements in $Aut(S_3)$ than conjugations by the elements of $S_3$. Therefore, as the set of conjugations by the elements of $S_3$ is a subset of $Aut(S_3)$ we can deduce that every automorphism of $S_3$ is a conjugation.

I'm not quite sure about what I said. Could you please help me ?

Thanks a lot.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What is your injective map $f \colon \mathrm{Aut}(S_3) \to S_3$? $\endgroup$
    – Nick
    Nov 21, 2020 at 19:31
  • $\begingroup$ It is probably expecting you to say that $S_3$ is generated by the $3$ transpositions. Since you like arrows, the center is trivial thus $S_3$ embeds into $Aut(S_3)$. $\endgroup$
    – reuns
    Nov 21, 2020 at 19:56
  • $\begingroup$ @Nick math.stackexchange.com/q/3913926/850849 just notice that $Bij(X) \cong S_3$ $\endgroup$
    – Laury
    Nov 22, 2020 at 7:32
  • $\begingroup$ But how do you define your map ${\rm Aut}(S_3) \to {\rm Bij}(X)$ without using orders of elements? $\endgroup$
    – Derek Holt
    Nov 24, 2020 at 9:40
  • $\begingroup$ I am not convinced that this question makes much sense. It would be useful to prove that an automorphism of ${\rm Sym}(3)$ induces a permutation of the set $X = \{(1,2),(1,3),(2,3)\}$. OK, suppose not, and suppose for example we had an automorphism $\phi$ with $\phi((1,2)) = (1,2,3)$. Then (with $e$ equals identity) $e = \phi(e) = \phi((1,2)(1,2)) = \phi(1,2)\phi(1,2)=$ $ (1,2,3)(1,2,3) = (1,3,2)$, contradiction. But we have surreptitiously been using the fact that $(1,2)$ has order $2$ and $(1,2,3)$ does not, so it is dubious to claim that we have not looked at orders of elements. $\endgroup$
    – Derek Holt
    Nov 24, 2020 at 9:46

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

I'd attempt the following geometric argument.

Consider 2-simplex (an equilateral triangle on the plane). Its symmetry group is precisely $S_3.$ Moreover, $S_3$ acts simply transitively on the "flags" (sequences of faces ordered by inclusion) of faces of the triangle. In other words: it acts simply transitively on the poset of faces $\mathcal{P}(S_3)$ of $\Delta^2.$ Thus we can identify the poset of faces with the group $S_3$ as sets.

Now consider an arbitrary automorphism $\varphi:S_3\to S_3.$ It induces an automorphism of $\mathcal{P}(S_3).$ Geometric realization of this poset=barycentric subdivision of $\Delta^2.$ Any symmetry of $\Delta^2$ clearly induces an automorhism of the barycentric subdivision and vice versa, hence automorphisms of $S_3$ is the group $S_3$ itself.

$\endgroup$

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.