maths.free › Abstract Algebra › Cosets and Lagrange's Theorem › Cosets
Cosets
Let G be a group and H a subgroup of G. Define a left coset of H with representative g \in G to be the set \[\begin{aligned}\end{aligned}\]. Right cosets can be defined similarly by \[\begin{aligned}\end{aligned}\].
Cosets
Let \(G\) be a group and \(H\) a subgroup of \(G\). Define a left coset of \(H\) with representative \(g \in G\) to be the set \[\begin{aligned}\end{aligned}\]. Right cosets can be defined similarly by \[\begin{aligned}\end{aligned}\]. If left and right cosets coincide or if it is clear from the context to which type of coset that we are referring, we will use the word coset without specifying left or right.
Example
Let \(H\) be the subgroup of \({\mathbb Z}_6\) consisting of the elements \(0\) and \(3\). The cosets are \[\begin{aligned}0 + H = 3 + H = \{ 0, 3 \} \\ 1 + H = 4 + H = \{ 1, 4 \} \\ 2 + H = 5 + H = \{ 2, 5 \}\end{aligned}\]. We will always write the cosets of subgroups of \({\mathbb Z}\) and \({\mathbb Z}_n\) with the additive notation we have used for cosets here. In a commutative group, left and right cosets are always identical.
Example
Let \(H\) be the subgroup of \(S_3\) defined by the permutations \(\{(1), (1 \, 2 \, 3), (1 \, 3 \, 2) \}\). The left cosets of \(H\) are \[\begin{aligned}(1)H = (1 \, 2 \, 3)H = (1 \, 3 \, 2)H = \{(1), (1 \, 2 \, 3), (1 \, 3 \, 2) \} \\ (1 \, 2)H = (1 \, 3)H = (2 \, 3)H = \{ (1 \, 2), (1 \, 3), (2 \, 3) \}\end{aligned}\]. The right cosets of \(H\) are exactly the same as the left cosets: \[\begin{aligned}H(1) = H(1 \, 2 \, 3) = H(1 \, 3 \, 2) = \{(1), (1 \, 2 \, 3), (1 \, 3 \, 2) \} \\ H(1 \, 2) = H(1 \, 3) = H(2 \, 3) = \{ (1 \, 2), (1 \, 3), (2 \, 3) \}\end{aligned}\].
It is not always the case that a left coset is the same as a right coset. Let \(K\) be the subgroup of \(S_3\) defined by the permutations \(\{(1), (1 \, 2)\}\). Then the left cosets of \(K\) are \[\begin{aligned}(1)K = (1 \, 2)K = \{(1), (1 \, 2)\} \\ (1 \, 3)K = (1 \, 2 \, 3)K = \{(1 \, 3), (1 \, 2 \, 3)\} \\ (2 \, 3)K = (1 \, 3 \, 2)K = \{(2 \, 3), (1 \, 3 \, 2)\};\end{aligned}\] however, the right cosets of \(K\) are \[\begin{aligned}K(1) = K(1 \, 2) = \{(1), (1 \, 2)\} \\ K(1 \, 3) = K(1 \, 3 \, 2) = \{(1 \, 3), (1 \, 3 \, 2)\} \\ K(2 \, 3) = K(1 \, 2 \, 3) = \{(2 \, 3), (1 \, 2 \, 3)\}\end{aligned}\].
The following lemma is quite useful when dealing with cosets. (We leave its proof as an exercise.)
In all of our examples the cosets of a subgroup \(H\) partition the larger group \(G\). The following theorem proclaims that this will always be the case.
Example
Let \(G= {\mathbb Z}_6\) and \(H = \{ 0, 3 \}\). Then \([G:H] = 3\).
Condensed: the full section is in Judson, Abstract Algebra: Theory and Applications.
Tagad tu Neviens kalkulators nenoslīgst šo, bet tā gabali ir komplējami. Izmēģiniet vienu zemāk vai ievadiet paši savu.
Bezmaksas konts pievieno piezīmes par katru nodarbību, ierakstu par to, ko esat pabeidzis, jūsu atrisinātās problēmas vienā vietā, un pasniedzēju, kuru varat jautāt par šo lapu. Pati matemātika ir pieejama ikvienam, kas ir vai nav parakstījies.
Pierakstīties PieteikšanāsŠeit izmantotie simboli
Piesitiet visiem simboliem, kas apzīmē pilnu definīciju, attēlu un ko katrs burts tajā nozīmē.
Jautājumi, ko cilvēki vaicā
What is a group, in plain words?
A set with one operation that is associative, has an identity, and lets every element be undone. Symmetries of any object form a group. That is where the idea came from.
What is the difference between a ring and a field?
A ring has addition and multiplication that behave like the integers (you cannot always divide); a field is a ring where every non-zero element has a reciprocal, like the rationals or the reals.
Daļas šīs lapas ir pielāgotas no Judson, Abstract Algebra: Theory and Applications (GFDL 1.3). Šeit ir pārliecināts un vēlreiz izskaidrots; kļūdas ir mūsu.
Vairāk Abstract Algebra
GroupsSubgroups, cosets and Lagrange's theoremCyclic groups and permutation groupsHomomorphisms, normal subgroups and quotient groupsRings and fieldsGalois theory: why the quintic has no formula