- #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
- 3,998
- 48
I am reading the book: "Advanced Modern Algebra" (Second Edition) by Joseph J. Rotman ...
I am currently focused on Chapter 1: Groups I ...
I need help with an aspect of the proof of Proposition 1.82 (Correspondence Theorem) ...
Proposition 1.82 reads as follows:
In the above proof by Rotman we read the following:
" ... ... For the reverse inclusion let ##a \in \pi^{-1} \pi (S)##, so that ##\pi (a) = \pi (s)## for some ##s \in S##. It follows that ##as^{-1} \in \text{ ker } \pi = K## ... ... "Can someone please explain exactly how/why ##\pi (a) = \pi (s)## implies that ##as^{-1} \in \text{ ker } \pi = K## ... ...?Peter
===========================================================================================***EDIT***
Just had some thoughts ... BUT ... unfortunately my logic does not seem to line up with Rotman's logic ...
My thoughts are as follows:
##\pi (a) = \pi (s)##
##\Longrightarrow aK = sK##
##\Longrightarrow a = sk## for some ##k \in K## since ##a## must belong to ##sK## ... ... (is this a legitimate step ...)
##\Longrightarrow s^{-1} a = k##
##\Longrightarrow as^{-1} = k##
##\Longrightarrow as^{-1} \in \text{ker } \pi = K##Is that correct?
BUT note ... logic is different from Rotman's set of steps ... ... what is Rotman's logic ...?Peter
I am currently focused on Chapter 1: Groups I ...
I need help with an aspect of the proof of Proposition 1.82 (Correspondence Theorem) ...
Proposition 1.82 reads as follows:
In the above proof by Rotman we read the following:
" ... ... For the reverse inclusion let ##a \in \pi^{-1} \pi (S)##, so that ##\pi (a) = \pi (s)## for some ##s \in S##. It follows that ##as^{-1} \in \text{ ker } \pi = K## ... ... "Can someone please explain exactly how/why ##\pi (a) = \pi (s)## implies that ##as^{-1} \in \text{ ker } \pi = K## ... ...?Peter
===========================================================================================***EDIT***
Just had some thoughts ... BUT ... unfortunately my logic does not seem to line up with Rotman's logic ...
My thoughts are as follows:
##\pi (a) = \pi (s)##
##\Longrightarrow aK = sK##
##\Longrightarrow a = sk## for some ##k \in K## since ##a## must belong to ##sK## ... ... (is this a legitimate step ...)
##\Longrightarrow s^{-1} a = k##
##\Longrightarrow as^{-1} = k##
##\Longrightarrow as^{-1} \in \text{ker } \pi = K##Is that correct?
BUT note ... logic is different from Rotman's set of steps ... ... what is Rotman's logic ...?Peter
Attachments
Last edited: