maths.free › Abstract Algebra › Group Actions › Groups Acting on Sets

Groups Acting on Sets

Let X be a set and G be a group. A (left) action of G on X is a map G \times X \rightarrow X given by (g,x) \mapsto gx, where ex = x for all x \in X; (g_1 g_2)x = g_1(g_2 x) for all x \in X and all g_1, g_2 \in G

Groups Acting on Sets

Let \(X\) be a set and \(G\) be a group. A (left) action of \(G\) on \(X\) is a map \(G \times X \rightarrow X\) given by \((g,x) \mapsto gx\), where

\(ex = x\) for all \(x \in X\);
\((g_1 g_2)x = g_1(g_2 x)\) for all \(x \in X\) and all \(g_1, g_2 \in G\).

Under these considerations \(X\) is called a \(G\)-set. Notice that we are not requiring \(X\) to be related to \(G\) in any way. It is true that every group \(G\) acts on every set \(X\) by the trivial action \((g,x) \mapsto x\); however, group actions are more interesting if the set \(X\) is somehow related to the group \(G\).

Example

Let \(G = GL_2( {\mathbb R} )\) and \(X = {\mathbb R}^2\). Then \(G\) acts on \(X\) by left multiplication. If \(v \in {\mathbb R}^2\) and \(I\) is the identity matrix, then \(Iv = v\). If \(A\) and \(B\) are \(2 \times 2\) invertible matrices, then \((AB)v = A(Bv)\) since matrix multiplication is associative.

Example

Let \(G = D_4\) be the symmetry group of a square. If \(X = \{ 1, 2, 3, 4 \}\) is the set of vertices of the square, then we can consider \(D_4\) to consist of the following permutations: \[\begin{aligned}\end{aligned}\]. The elements of \(D_4\) act on \(X\) as functions. The permutation \((1 \, 3)(2 \, 4)\) acts on vertex \(1\) by sending it to vertex \(3\), on vertex \(2\) by sending it to vertex \(4\), and so on. It is easy to see that the axioms of a group action are satisfied.

In general, if \(X\) is any set and \(G\) is a subgroup of \(S_X\), the group of all permutations acting on \(X\), then \(X\) is a \(G\)-set under the group action \[\begin{aligned}\end{aligned}\] for \(\sigma \in G\) and \(x \in X\).

Example

If we let \(X = G\), then every group \(G\) acts on itself by the left regular representation; that is, \((g,x) \mapsto \lambda_g(x) = gx\), where \(\lambda_g\) is left multiplication: \[\begin{aligned}e \cdot x = \lambda_e x = ex = x \\ (gh) \cdot x = \lambda_{gh}x = \lambda_g \lambda_h x = \lambda_g(hx) = g \cdot ( h \cdot x)\end{aligned}\]. If \(H\) is a subgroup of \(G\), then \(G\) is an \(H\)-set under left multiplication by elements of \(H\).

If \(G\) acts on a set \(X\) and \(x, y \in X\), then \(x\) is said to be \(G\)-equivalent to \(y\) if there exists a \(g \in G\) such that \(gx =y\). We write \(x \sim_G y\) or \(x \sim y\) if two elements are \(G\)-equivalent.

Condensed: the full section is in Judson, Abstract Algebra: Theory and Applications.

Şimdi sen Hiçbir hesap makinesi bu soruyu çözemez, ama parçaları hesaplanabilir. Aşağıdakilerden birini deneyin veya kendinizinkini yazın.

Kendi çalışmalarınızı saklayın

Ücretsiz bir hesap her ders için notlar, bitirdiğiniz şeylerin kaydı, çözüldüğünüz problemlerin bir yerdeki kaydı ve bu sayfa hakkında soru sormak için bir öğretmen ekler. Matematik kendisi, giriş yapmış veya yapmamış herkese açıktır.

Kayıt Ol Giriş

Burada kullanılan sembolleri

Tüm tanım, resim ve her harfin anlamı için herhangi bir sembolü tıklayın.

Sık sorulan sorular

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.

Parts of this page are adapted from Judson, Abstract Algebra: Theory and Applications (GFDL 1.3). Burada tekrar özetlenmiş ve açıklanmıştır. Hatalar bizim.

More in Abstract Algebra

Groups Subgroups, cosets and Lagrange's theorem Cyclic groups and permutation groups Homomorphisms, normal subgroups and quotient groups Rings and fields Galois theory: why the quintic has no formula