I am reading Abstract Algebra. I cannot visualise the following example:

Let $n$ be a positive integer, and consider the set $S_n$ of all permutations from the set $n = {1, 2, \ldots , n}$ to itself. Let $n = 3$, and consider the group $S_3$ . Two of the permutations in this group are $\phi_1$ and $\phi_3$ , where $\phi_1$ sends $1$ to itself and transposes $2$ and $3$, and $\phi_3$ sends $3$ to itself and transposes $1$ and $2$.

Let's apply the group operation to this pair of permutations, looking at $\phi_1\circ \phi_3$ and $\phi_3\circ \phi_1$ . The effect that $\phi_1\circ \phi_3$ has on $1$ is $(\phi_1\circ \phi_3)(1) = \phi_1(\phi_3(1)) = \phi_1(2) = 3$, but the effect that $\phi_3\circ \phi_1$ has on $1$ is $(\phi_3\circ \phi_1)( 1 ) = \phi_3(\phi_1(1)) = \phi_3(1) = 2$. Hence $\phi_1\circ \phi_3 \neq \phi_3 \circ \phi_1$.

I did not understand what happened here.

My Attempt: $S_3$ should have $6$ elements. What are $\phi_1$ and $\phi_3$ here?

I don't see how/why $\phi_3(1)=2$ and $\phi_1(2)=3$. Please advise.


2 Answers 2


enter image description here Going through the reflections in the order pictured, you can see that you end with what I labeled as $r_1$ (most books use $\rho$ to denote rotations. paint doesn't have greek. >_<)

Going through the reflections in the other order will give you what I labeled as $r_2$.

The point of the exercise is to show that the reflections aren't abelian because you can do things in a different order and get different results and aren't a subgroup because you can get something other than a reflection (the rotations by themselves are however an abelian subgroup).

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks a ton for putting so much effort to explain this .. you are awesome :) $\endgroup$
    – square_one
    Oct 26, 2014 at 3:44
  • $\begingroup$ You are quite welcome. Also, a fair warning, some literature refers to the group as $S_n$ to refer to the symmetric group of symmetries on $n$ elements, while others refer to the same group as $S_{2n}$ since there are $2n$ symmetries. Be careful if/when you change books to keep track of what their personal notation use is. $\endgroup$
    – JMoravitz
    Oct 26, 2014 at 3:46

Your conclusion should be that $$\phi_1 \circ \phi_3 \neq \phi_3 \circ \phi_1,$$ which is correct. The group $S_3$ is a standard example (in fact, the smallest example) of a nonabelian group, in which (by definition) not all pairs of elements commute.

As for visualizing, I like to think of $S_3$ as the group of isometries (symmetries) that fix an equilateral triangle. For example, we can label the vertices $1, 2, 3$, in which case we can identify (for example) $\phi_1$ as the reflection that fixes vertex $1$ and exchanges $2$ and $3$. In this realization, the transpositions are reflections, and the $3$-cycles are rotations.

Likewise, one can visualize $S_4$ as the group of isometries of a regular tetrahedron; after this one runs out of a easily visualizable dimensions, and so you might prefer to view $S_n$, $n > 4$, as the set of shuffles of a deck of $n$ cards.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks .. but my doubts are at a more basic level than your explaination .. I don't see how/why $\phi_3(1)$=2 and $\phi_1$(2)=3 .. :( $\endgroup$
    – square_one
    Oct 26, 2014 at 3:30

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.