Quotient Group - Definition

Definition

Let N be a normal subgroup of a group G. We define the set G/N to be the set of all left cosets of N in G, i.e., G/N = { aN : a in G }. The group operation on G/N is the product of subsets defined above. In other words, for each aN and bN in G/N, the product of aN and bN is (aN)(bN). This operation is closed, because (aN)(bN) really is a left coset:

(aN)(bN) = a(Nb)N = a(bN)N = (ab)NN = (ab)N.

The normality of N is used in this equation. Because of the normality of N, the left cosets and right cosets of N in G are equal, and so G/N could be defined as the set of right cosets of N in G. Because the operation is derived from the product of subsets of G, the operation is well-defined (does not depend on the particular choice of representatives), associative, and has identity element N. The inverse of an element aN of G/N is a−1N.

For example, consider the group with addition modulo 6:

G = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5}.

Let

N = {0, 3}.

The quotient group is:

G/N = { aN : a ∈ G } = { a{0, 3} : a ∈ {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5} } =
{ 0{0, 3}, 1{0, 3}, 2{0, 3}, 3{0, 3}, 4{0, 3}, 5{0, 3} } =
{ {(0+0) mod 6, (0+3) mod 6}, {(1+0) mod 6, (1+3) mod 6},
{(2+0) mod 6, (2+3) mod 6}, {(3+0) mod 6, (3+3) mod 6},
{(4+0) mod 6, (4+3) mod 6}, {(5+0) mod 6, (5+3) mod 6} } =
{ {0, 3}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 0}, {4, 1}, {5, 2} } =
{ {0, 3}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {0, 3}, {1, 4}, {2, 5} } =
{ {0, 3}, {1, 4}, {2, 5} }.

The basic argument above is still valid if G/N is defined to be the set of all right cosets.

Read more about this topic:  Quotient Group

Famous quotes containing the word definition:

    No man, not even a doctor, ever gives any other definition of what a nurse should be than this—”devoted and obedient.” This definition would do just as well for a porter. It might even do for a horse. It would not do for a policeman.
    Florence Nightingale (1820–1910)

    Was man made stupid to see his own stupidity?
    Is God by definition indifferent, beyond us all?
    Is the eternal truth man’s fighting soul
    Wherein the Beast ravens in its own avidity?
    Richard Eberhart (b. 1904)

    The physicians say, they are not materialists; but they are:MSpirit is matter reduced to an extreme thinness: O so thin!—But the definition of spiritual should be, that which is its own evidence. What notions do they attach to love! what to religion! One would not willingly pronounce these words in their hearing, and give them the occasion to profane them.
    Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)