Group Theory (Math 113), Summer 2016 James McIvor and George Melvin University of California, Berkeley (Updated July 16, 2016 ) Abstract These are notes for the first half of the upper division course 'Abstract Algebra' (Math 113) taught at the University of California, Berkeley, during the summer session 2016. Students are assumed to have attended a first course in linear algebra (equivalent to UCB Math 54). The aim of these notes is to provide an introduction to group theory with a particular emphasis on finite groups: topics to be covered include basic definitions and concepts, Lagrange's Theorem, Sylow's Theorems and the structure theorem of finitely generated abelian groups, and there will be a strong focus on group actions and realising groups through symmetry. The notes are a slightly modified version of those used in summer 2014. Contents 1 Lecture 1 - Examples 3 2 Lecture 2 - Basic arithmetic properties of Z. Equivalence relations. 4 2.1 Arithmetic properties of Z ..................................4 2.2 Equivalence relations . .4 3 Lecture 3 - Definitions: group, subgroups, order. 8 3.1 Groups - basic definitions . .8 4 Lecture 4 - Homomorphisms, isomorphisms. 14 4.1 Group homomorphisms, isomorphisms . 14 5 Lecture 5 - Cosets and Lagrange's Theorem. 18 5.1 Cosets . 18 5.2 Lagrange's Theorem . 19 6 Lecture 6 - Groups of Prime Order. Cyclic groups. 21 6.1 Groups of prime order . 21 6.2 Cyclic groups . 21 7 Lecture 7 - Group actions. Orbits, stabilisers. 23 7.1 Group actions . 23 7.2 Orbits, stabilisers . 25 8 Lecture 8 - More on group actions. Conjugacy. Centralizers. Normalizers. Normal subgroups. 27 8.1 Orbit Partition, Groups acting on themselves . 27 8.2 Conjugacy Classes. Centralisers. normalisers . 28 1 9 Lecture 9 - Symmetric groups. Orbit-Stabilizer Theorem. p-groups. Fixed point con- gruence for p-groups. 31 9.1 Symmetric groups, cycle decompositions . 31 9.2 Cayley's Theorem . 33 9.3 Orbit-Stabiliser Theorem . 34 9.4 Application: p-groups . 35 10 Lecture 10 - Sylow's Theorems. 37 10.1 Sylow's Theorems . 37 10.2 An application: groups of order pq ............................. 38 11 Lecture 11 - Product and Quotient groups. 40 11.1 Direct products . 40 11.2 Quotient groups . 40 12 Lecture 12 - The canonical homomorphism and First Isomorphism Theorem. 43 12.1 The canonical homomorphism . 43 12.2 First Isomorphism Theorem . 44 13 Lecture 13 - Finite abelian groups. 45 13.1 Structure Theorem of finite abelian groups . 45 14 Lecture 14 - Finite abelian p-groups. The Hall polynomial. 48 14.1 Structure Theorem of finite abelian p-groups . 48 14.2 Combinatorics of finite abelian p-groups of type (a, b)................... 48 14.3 The Hall polynomial . 50 15 Lecture 15 - Structure Theorem of finitely generated abelian groups. 52 15.1 Classification of finite abelian groups . 52 15.2 Finitely generated abelian groups . 54 15.3 Structure theorem of finitely generated abelian groups . 55 2 1 Lecture 1 - Examples Further Reading: Goodman 1.1-1.3, Appendices A,B,D Groups should be understood as symmetries of a certain object. We begin by ignoring definitions and jargon, etc., and building some intuition for what symmetries are and how we can work with them and write down statements about them. It will be a rather \hands-on" class, and as such there are not many notes online here. 1. Symmetries of a square 2. The famous \mattress group" 3. Symmetries of a tetrahedron - on HW. Please refer to the separate notes entitled \preliminary materials" and/or the appendices in Good- man's book, for a review of basic concepts about sets and functions. 3 2 Lecture 2 - Basic arithmetic properties of Z. Equivalence re- lations. Previous lecture - Next lecture Keywords: Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, division algorithm, gcd, Euclid algorithm. Equivalence relation, equivalence class, class representative, natural mapping. Further Reading: Goodman 1.6, 2.6 In this lecture we will collect some basic arithmetic properties of the integers that will be used repeatedly throughout the course - they will appear frequently in both Group Theory and Ring Theory - and introduce the notion of an equivalence relation on a set. 2.1 Arithmetic properties of Z The set of integers Z = f0, ±1, ±2, ±3, ±4, ....g, is a fundamental object in both group theory and ring theory. Many of its abstract algebraic properties were explained to us as children. Here we record some of the basic (algebraic) facts about this set: Theorem 2.1.1 (Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic). Let n 2 Z>0. Then, there exist primes p1, ... , pr n1 n2 nr and integers n1, ... , nr ≥ 1 such that n = p1 p2 ··· pr . Moreover, if we order p1 < p2 < ... < pr , then the above product is unique.1 Theorem 2.1.2 (Division algorithm in Z). Let x, a 2 Z, a 6= 0. Then, there exists b, r 2 Z, with 0 ≤ r < a, such that x = ba + r. Definition 2.1.3. Let a, b 2 Z. Then, the greatest common divisor of a, b, denoted gcd(a, b), is the largest (positive) integer c such that c divides a and c divides b. If gcd(a, b) = 1 then we say that a, b are coprime. Theorem 2.1.4 (Euclid's algorithm). Let a, b 2 Z. Then, there exist u, v 2 Z such that gcd(a, b) = ua + bv. 2.2 Equivalence relations Let A be an arbitrary nonempty set. There are many ways that we can partition a set into collections of similar objects - in this context, the term `partition' means that A is `broken up' into disjoint nonempty subsets. For example, - if A is the set of people in this classroom then we could partition A by hair colour or height or country of birth. - if A = Z then we can partition A into three subsets A0, A1, A2, where Ai consists of all those integers that have remainder i when divided by 3. In mathematics we embody this process - of breaking up a set into disjoint nonempty subsets - using equivalence relations. Definition 2.2.1 (Equivalence Relation). Let A be a (nonempty) set. We say that R ⊂ A × A = f(a, b) j a, b 2 Ag is an equivalence relation on A if the following properties hold: (ER1) R contains the diagonal subset ∆A = f(a, a) j a 2 Ag; (reflexive) (ER2) if (a, b) 2 R then (b, a) 2 R; (symmetric) 1Recall that a prime number is an integer p, p > 1, such that the only divisors of p are 1 and p. 4 (ER3) if (a, b) 2 R and (b, c) 2 R, then (a, c) 2 R. (transitive) This definition seems to be quite different from our notions of similarity that we introduced above. For example, why should we care about a subset of the product A × A? Let's see how the definition of an equivalence relation just given does actually embody `similarity': first, let us write a ∼R b , (a, b) 2 R, and say a ∼R b , a is equivalent to b. Note that the order in which we write a ∼R b (and say `a is equivalent to b') must respect the order of the ordered pair (a, b). Thus, we can reformulate ER1, ER2, ER3 in the following way: (ER1)' if a 2 A then a ∼R a - `every a 2 A is equivalent to itself'; (ER2)' if a ∼ b then b ∼R a - `if a is equivalent to b then b is equivalent to a'; (ER3)' if a ∼R b and b ∼R c then a ∼R c - `if a is equivalent to b and b is equivalent to c then a is equivalent to c'. It should now feel more plausible that an equivalence relation is capturing the notion of similarity of objects. For example, check (by saying aloud) that if we let A be the set of people in this classroom and R = f(a, b) 2 A × A j a and b have the same hair colourg ⊂ A × A, then R satisfies ER1, ER2, ER3 and so defines an equivalence relation on A. How does this all relate to partitioning a set A into disjoint nonempty subsets? Definition 2.2.2 (Equivalence Class). Let A be a (nonempty) set, R ⊂ A × A an equivalence relation on A. For a 2 A we define the equivalence class of a (with respect to R) to be the subset of A def [a] = fb 2 A j a ∼R bg ⊂ A. So, the equivalence class of a (with respect to R) is the set of all elements in A that are equivalent to a. We will also refer to [a] as an equivalence class (of R) (without reference to a) when the context is clear. If b 2 [a] then we say that b is a (class) representative of [a]. We denote the set of all equivalence classes of R by A=R or A= ∼R , or even A= ∼ when the equivalence relation R is understood. We will often write the set of all equivalence classes making use of some (nice) choice of class representatives (see Example 2.2.6). We define the natural mapping associated to R (or ∼R , or ∼) to be π : A ! A= ∼ ; a 7! [a], the function that sends an element of A to its equivalence class. The main reason we are interested in equivalence classes is that they are precisely the subsets that describe a partition of a set. This will be made precise and proved in the following results. First, consider the example discussed above: A is the set of people in this classroom and R = f(a, b) j a and b have the same hair colourg.