10
$\begingroup$

Let $H_1$ and $H_2$ be subgroups of some group $G$. Prove that the left $G$-sets $G/H_1$ and $G/H_2$ are isomorphic (as left $G$-sets) iff the subgroups $H_1$ and $H_2$ are conjugate.

If $H_1$ and $H_2$ are conjugate, then they are isomorphic, thus $G/H_1 \cong G/H_2$. I am having problems with the other direction!

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Could you please add the definition of "Isomorphic $\;G$ - sets" ? $\endgroup$ – DonAntonio Nov 24 '13 at 20:10
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Two $G$-sets $X$ and $Y$ are called isomorphic if there is a bijection $\varphi : X\to Y$ with $\varphi(gx) = g\varphi(x)$ for all $g\in G$ and all $x\in X$. $\endgroup$ – azimut Nov 24 '13 at 21:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, however I am having trouble understanding why that would be useful? $\endgroup$ – Matt Costa Nov 24 '13 at 21:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ be careful because two subgroups can be isomorphic without the corresponding quotients being isomorphic, so in your proof you should use that it isn't just any old isomorphism. $\endgroup$ – user2055 Nov 24 '13 at 22:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ to expand on @Jason's comment, consider for example $G=\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\oplus \mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$ with subgroups $H_1=\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\oplus 1$ and $H_2=1\oplus \langle 2+4\mathbb{Z} \rangle$. Then $G/H_1\cong \mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$, whereas $G/H_2\cong \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}\oplus \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Gruber Nov 25 '13 at 4:27
6
$\begingroup$

If $\phi : G/H_1 \to G/H_2$ is a homomorphism of $G$-sets, and $\phi([1])=[g]$, then it follows more generally that $\phi([x])=[xg]$. But $\phi$ should be well-defined, i.e. $y^{-1} x \in H_1$ implies $(y g)^{-1} x g \in H_2$. This reduces to $g^{-1} H_1 g \subseteq H_2$. Conversely, this relation implies that $\phi([x]):=[xg]$ is a well-defined homomorphism of $G$-sets. Similarly, $\phi$ is injective iff $g H_2 g^{-1} \subseteq H_1$. And $\phi$ is automatically surjective. It follows that $G/H_1 \cong G/H_2$ as $G$-sets iff $H_1$ and $H_2$ are conjugated.

As already pointed out in the comments, it is really important to work in the category of $G$-sets here. But there aren't any alternatives anyway. Of course the category of sets is too weak, and the category of groups doesn't make sense since $H_1,H_2$ aren't assumed to be normal.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry, but could you expand a little more? I am a little confused on your notation [g]. $\endgroup$ – Matt Costa Nov 25 '13 at 14:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Generally, for an equivalence relation $\sim$ on a given set $X$, the notation $\left[x\right]_\sim$ (or simply $\left[x\right]$ when the relation is obvious) is used to denote the equivalence class of $x$. That is $$\left[x\right]=\left\{ y\in X\vert x\sim y\right\} $$ In our case, for $H\leq G$ we denote $\left[g\right]=gH$. Notice that in the above answer the coset is of $H_1$ in some usages and of $H_2$ in others. So for example $$\phi\left(\left[1\right]\right)=\left[g\right]$$ should be interpreted as $\phi\left(1H_{1}\right)=gH_{2}$ $\endgroup$ – 8l2s Jan 8 '17 at 13:23

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.