4
$\begingroup$

Question- If $G$ is complete, then the holomorph of $G$ is isomorphic to $G$×$G$.

I am studying semidirect products for the first time, and in some notes i found this exercise. As far as i know about this problem, if $G$ is a group then let $H$=Aut($G$) and let $\phi$:$H \to Aut(G) $ be the identity map, i.e. all elements go to itself, then Holomorph of $G$ is $G \rtimes_\phi Aut(G)$. Now if $G$ is complete then its outer automorphism group is identity, then $G \cong Aut(G)$ so Holomorph is $G \rtimes_\phi G$ but $G \rtimes_\phi G \cong G\times G$ when $\phi$ is the trivial homomorphism i.e. everything goes to 1.

so what am i missing here?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think you are missing anything :-) I'm not sure what 'complete' means, but if it includes trivial center then I have no objections. Maybe you are thinking that the isomorphism $G\rtimes_\phi G \cong G\times G$ is given by the identity map $(a,b)\mapsto (a,b)$ but that is not the case. $\endgroup$ – Myself Sep 1 '14 at 17:37
  • $\begingroup$ complete means trivial centre and trivial outer automorphism group. all i am saying is if $G \rtimes_\phi G \cong G\times G$ then shouldn't $\phi$ be trivial homomorphism and not identity homomorphism as we take it for holomorph definition. $\endgroup$ – Bhaskar Vashishth Sep 1 '14 at 17:40
  • $\begingroup$ No because you are concluding too much from the $\cong$ sign. What it actually means is that there exists a map $\alpha : G\rtimes_\phi G\to G\times G$ such that ..., what you seem to think is that the specific map $G\rtimes_\phi G\to G\times G: (a,b)\mapsto (a,b)$ is an isomorphism. And that is not always the case. $\endgroup$ – Myself Sep 1 '14 at 17:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Here is a hint: In the group $H = G \times_\phi A$, where $A = {\rm Aut}(G) \cong G$, we have $C_H(G) \cong G$ and $H = G \times C_H(G)$. $\endgroup$ – Derek Holt Sep 1 '14 at 19:11
  • $\begingroup$ I think as it is $G \rtimes_\phi G$ so definitely a copy of $G$ is normal in $G \rtimes_\phi G$ so both copies of $G$ are normal and thus it is direct product, as $K \rtimes_\phi H \cong K\times H$ iff $H_0$ & $K_0$ both are normal in $G$ where $H_0$ & $K_0$ denotes obvious copies in $K \rtimes_\phi H$. am i right here. i must be. after studying split extension whole night.:P $\endgroup$ – Bhaskar Vashishth Sep 2 '14 at 1:07
1
$\begingroup$

Let $G$ be a group with $Z(G)=1$ and $I = {\rm Inn}(G)$. So $I = \{c_g : g \in G\}$ with $c_g: h \mapsto ghg^{-1}$, and the map $g \mapsto c_g$ is an isomorphism $G \to I$.

Let $S = G \rtimes I$ be the semodirect product. So, for $g_1,g_2,h_1,h_2 \in G$, we have

$$(g_1,c_{h_1})(g_2,c_{h_2}) = (g_1c_{h_1}(g_2),c_{h_1h_1}) = (g_1h_1g_2h_1^{-1},c_{h_1h_1}).$$

As usual, we identify $G$ with the subgroup $\{ (g,1) : g \in g \}$ of $S$.

Let $C = \{ (g^{-1},c_g) : g \in G \} \le S$. Then, using the above multiplication rule, it is routine to check that $C \le C_S(G)$, and the map $g \mapsto (g^{-1},c_g)$ is an isomorphicm $G \to C$.

We also see easily that $S = GC$ and (since $Z(G)=1$) $G \cap C = 1$, so $S = G \times C \cong G \times G$. In fact $Z(G)=1$ implies that $C = C_S(G)$.

More generally, if $Z(G) \ne 1$ and $I = {\rm Inn}(G)$, then $G \rtimes I$ is a central product of two copies of $G$ with their centres amalgamated.

$\endgroup$

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.