23 Groups
Most if not all topics discussed in modern algebra are connected to groups in some way. However, before we can understand what a group is, we must understand what a binary operation is. Fraleigh and Katz provide the following definition [7].
A binary operation
When a binary operation is a mapping from
to
, we say that
is closed under the binary operation.
A binary operation is represented by
, just as addition is represented by + and multiplication by
. Because addition and multiplication are themselves binary operations,
will sometimes be used in place of + or
.
Now that we have a basic understanding of what a binary operation is, we are ready to look at the definition of a group as given by Fraleigh and Katz [7].
A group
- For all
, we have
![Rendered by QuickLaTeX.com \[(a \ast b)\ast c=a\ast(b\ast c).\]](https://iu.pressbooks.pub/app/uploads/quicklatex/quicklatex.com-6c2039a7b3eecb4189f2584d9314327e_l3.png)
- There is an element
in
such that for all
,
![Rendered by QuickLaTeX.com \[e\ast x=x\ast e=x.\]](https://iu.pressbooks.pub/app/uploads/quicklatex/quicklatex.com-a963dd91801fb0e448a7eb5ae955f031_l3.png)
- Corresponding to each
, there is an element
in
such that
![Rendered by QuickLaTeX.com \[a\ast a'=a'\ast a=e.\]](https://iu.pressbooks.pub/app/uploads/quicklatex/quicklatex.com-af96db8a5d06a5338a60e6c1c96a9d32_l3.png)
A group
is a specific type of set (see Part III: Chapter 13) that is closed under a binary operation
and must satisfy a few criteria. First, the binary operation must be associative. Second, the identity element of the binary operation is an element of
. Third, every element in
must have an inverse element that is also in
.
So, to prove that a set
is a group under a binary operation
, we need to show that the group is closed under the operation and that the three conditions presented in the definition are satisfied. Let’s now look at an exercise from Fraleigh and Katz that I completed for this paper [7].
Let
Solution
Because every element in
is the product of a positive integer and an integer, every element in
is an integer because
is closed under multiplication. So, for all
,
because the distributive property holds in the integers. Because
is closed under addition,
Thus,
![]()
and
is closed under addition.
For all integers
,
![Rendered by QuickLaTeX.com \begin{align*} (a+b)+c &=a+(b+c) &&\text{Associativity holds in integers.}\\ n[(a+b)+c]&=n[a+(b+c)] &&\text{Multiply both sides by the integer $n$.} \\ n(a+b)+nc&=na+n(b+c) &&\text{Distributive property holds in integers.} \\ (na+nb)+nc&=na+(nb+nc) &&\text{Distributive property holds in integers.} \end{align*}](https://iu.pressbooks.pub/app/uploads/quicklatex/quicklatex.com-1b72bf9598ad7160aa874eb91c537398_l3.png)
Thus, addition is associative for all elements
.
For all integers
,

So, 0 is the identity element for
under addition, and
.
For all integers
,

For each
,
is the additive inverse. Additionally,
. Therefore,
is a group.
There are many different types of groups. One is
which we just saw is the set of all integers that are multiples of
. Another common group is
. Other types include cyclic, abelian, dihedral, alternating, and symmetric.
We are now going to look at subgroups, which are specific groups within a group. In particular, we will examine cyclic subgroups.
Cyclic Subgroups
Before we discuss what cyclic subgroups are, we need to understand what a subgroup is. It seems that a subgroup would be group within a group, similar to how a subset is a a set within a set. However, it is a little more complex than that. Fraleigh and Katz provide the following definition [7].
If a subset
If
is a subgroup of a group
under
, it is also a subset of
. That is, every element in
must also be in
. Additionally,
must be closed under the binary operation
and fulfill the three criteria given in definition V.2 for
. We denote a subgroup as
. If we know that
is not equal to
,
is a proper subgroup denoted as
. Notice how the notation and terminology is very similar to that of sets (see Part III: Chapter 13).
Now we are ready to discuss cyclic subgroups. Fraleigh and Katz provide the following definition [7].
Let
The notation of
is a little misleading. We are not taking
to the power of
unless the binary operation is multiplication. For an element
of a group
,
is actually equal to
, where
for all
and
is the binary operation of
.
There is another interesting aspect of these subgroups that Fraleigh and Katz give in the following theorem [7].
Theorem V.5
![]()
is a subgroup of
and is the smallest subgroup of
that contains
, that is, every subgroup containing
contains
.
Any subgroup
of a group
, defined under
, generated by an element
in
, is the smallest subgroup containing
. That is, every subgroup containing
contains
. Let’s take a moment to think through why this is true. Let
be a subgroup of
that contains
. We have that
is mapped to
by
,
is mapped to
by
, and so on. Eventually, we will have
is mapped to
. Because
is a subgroup,
is closed. Because
contains
and is closed,
is in
which implies
is in
and so on. Thus,
is in
for all integers
. Because
,
must contain
.
Cyclic subgroups are helpful in that they make finding the smallest subgroup containing a specific element quite easy. Furthermore, we are guaranteed that the set of elements generated by an element
is a subgroup of
. Let’s look at an example that I created and completed for this paper. Recall that
is equal to the remainder when
is divided by
.
Consider the group
![]()
with binary operation
mod 9. Find the smallest subgroup that contains 3, denoted as
.
Solution
By Theorem V.5, the smallest subgroup containing 3 would be the cyclic subgroup generated by 3.

Since
and
both result in 6, we have found all of the elements of the set. If we keep going we will have a pattern of 0,3,6,0,3,6,… as
increases. Therefore, the smallest subgroup of
containing 3 is ![]()
We have seen how a subgroup, specifically a cyclic subgroup, relates to a group. Now, we are going to look at how groups relate to other groups through isomorphisms.
Isomorphisms
Let’s begin our discussion of isomorphishms by looking at the formal definition Fraleigh and Katz provide for us [7].
Let
![]()
Recall that in Part III: Chapter 15, we discussed one-to-one and onto functions. Now, suppose that we have such a function from one binary algebraic structure
to another binary algebraic structure
. The fact that the function is one-to-one guarantees that each element in
will be mapped to only one element in
. Because the function is onto, we are guaranteed that each element in
will be mapped to only one element in
. If we let
be the number of elements in
and
be the number of elements in
, we have that
because the function is one-to-one and
because the function is onto. Thus,
and
must have the same number of elements. This gives us a glimpse into why isomorphisms are so important.
When two binary algebraic structures
and
are isomorphic (
), we say that they have the same structure, or structural properties. As we have seen, isomorphic binary algebraic structures have the same number of elements, though not necessarily the same elements [7]. Their binary operations would also have the same properties, such as being commutative, even if the binary operations themselves are not the same [7]. There are many more structural properties, but this provides the basic idea. If we can find an isomorphism from
to
, then we know all the structural properties are the same for
and
.
Isomorphisms are of great importance because they help us study complex groups that are not very common and are more difficult to work with. Because two groups that are isomorphic have the exact same structural properties, isomorphisms allow us to find a simpler group with the same structural properties as a more complicated group [11]. Thus, structural properties of the complicated group can be discovered by way of the simpler one that otherwise may have gone undiscovered or taken much more effort to find.
To prove that two groups
and
are isomorphic, we must find a one-to-one mapping
from
onto
that satisfies
![]()
for all
. We already discussed how to prove a mapping is one-to-one and onto in Part III: Chapter 15, and we can then use a direct proof (see Part II: Chapter 11) to show that
![]()
for all
.
Before we complete the following example, we need to introduce one more definition so that what is done in the problem makes sense. This definition comes from Macauley [17].
The direct product of groups
![]()
Now we are ready to begin our example which is a homework problem I completed for Modern Algebra [18].
Let
Show that
![]()
where
with multiplication as the binary operation.
Proof.
Let
be defined as ![]()
To prove that
is one-to-one, we need to show that if
then
. We will show this by proving two cases.
Case 1: Let ![]()

Case 2: Let
.

Thus,
is one-to-one. To prove that
is onto, we need to show that for each
, there exists
such that
. We will show this by proving two cases as well.
Case 1: Let
be in ![]()

Case 2: Let
be in
.

Thus,
is onto.
Finally, for all
and
,

Because
is a one-to-one mapping from
onto
and
![]()
holds for all
and
,
![]()
Isomorphisms will come up again later when we discuss factor groups, which are groups made up of cosets. So, let’s find out what cosets are.
Cosets
Cosets are derived from an element of a group
and a subgroup of
. Let’s examine the following definition provided by Fraleigh and Katz [7].
Let
For a group
under a binary operation
and a subgroup
of
, if we take an element
of
and perform the binary operation on
and every element in
, the resulting set of elements is known as a coset. As not every binary operation is commutative,
is not necessarily equal to
, where
is an element of
. The elements of the form
make up the left coset of
containing
, denoted as
, because
is to the left of
. Similarly, the elements
make up the right coset
because
is to the right of
.
Another interesting fact of left cosets is that they partition the group
[7]. That is, if we take the union of all of the left cosets, we will get the entire group
. Additionally, none of the left cosets have an element in common. That is, the intersection of the left cosets is the empty set.
We could also replace “left” with “right” in the preceding paragraph and still get true statements. (Refer back to Part III: Chapter 13 for a review of the terms union, intersection, and empty set.)
Let’s now try to find all of the cosets of a subgroup. The following example is an exercise from Fraleigh and Katz that I completed for this paper [7].
Find all cosets of the subgroup
![]()
with the binary operation
mod(12).
Solution
The subgroup
is the cyclic subgroup generated by 4.

If we continue on, we will have a pattern of 0,4,8,0,4,8,…. So,
![]()
The left cosets are then:

and the right cosets are:

Because the right cosets are identical to the left cosets, the cosets of the subgroup
of
are
and
.
Notice how none of the left cosets have an element in common. Additionally, every element of
appears in one of these left cosets. The same is true for the right cosets. This is what it means to say that the left or right cosets partition the group that they are subsets of. This now brings us to the Theorem of Lagrange which is developed from this idea that cosets partition the group.
Theorem of Lagrange
This theorem is stated by Fraleigh and Katz as follows, and the proof is one I wrote based off of the proof given by Fraleigh and Katz [7].
Theorem V.9 (Theorem of Lagrange)
Proof.
The order of a group is simply the number of elements in the group. So, what we need to show is that the number of elements in
is a divisor of the number of elements in
.
We have that every left (or right) coset of
has the same number of elements as
. Because the union of the left cosets is
and their intersection is the empty set, we have
![]()
where
and
are the orders of
and
respectively. Thus,
for some
. Therefore,
is a divisor of
.
The contrapositive (see Part II: Chapter 11) of this theorem is true. That is, any subset
of a group
with an order that is not a divisor of the order of
is not a subgroup of
. However, the converse of this theorem is not true. If the order of
is a divisor of the order of
, it does not necessarily follow that
is a subgroup of
.
Let’s look at an example that I wrote that puts these ideas into practice.
Consider the group
![]()
under addition modulo 16. Are the sets
![]()
and
![]()
subgroups of
?
Solution
We have that
![]()
Because the order of
is 6 and the order of
is 16,
is not a subgroup of
by the Theorem of Lagrange.
Additionally, we have that
![]()
Because the order of
is 8 and the order of
is 16, the Theorem of Lagrange is inconclusive.
By definition V.3,
is a subgroup of
if and only if it is a subset of
that is a group under the binary operation of
. Because every element in
is in
, it is a subset. However, the identity element for addition modulo 16 is 0, which is not an element of
. Thus,
is not a group under the binary operation of
. Therefore,
is not a subgroup of
.
We have seen how the Theorem of Lagrange grew from the idea of cosets. Now, we are going to discuss another topic that would not be possible without cosets, factor groups.
Factor Groups
A factor group is
where
is a subgroup of
[7]. Because the elements of
are just the left cosets of
, we are more concerned with finding what group a factor group is isomorphic to than we are with finding what the actual elements of a factor group are.
To compute a factor group is to find a group that the factor group is isomorphic to [7]. The best way to understand how to compute a factor group is to see an example so we will work through one now. This is a homework problem that I completed for this paper that comes from Fraleigh and Katz [7].
Compute the factor group
Solution
We first need to show that
is a subgroup of
. By definition V.3,
must be a group under the binary operation of
. We are given that both
and
are defined under addition. Moreover, they are both groups under addition by example 49. All that remains left to show is that every element of
is in
. That is, we need to show that any integer that is a multiple of 8 is also a multiple of 2. We have that for an element
,

Because
and 4 are integers and the integers are closed under multiplication,
is an integer. Thus, if an integer is a multiple of 8, it is also a multiple of 2. Therefore, we can conclude that
is a subgroup of
.
Now, we need to find all left cosets of the subgroup
of
. Because
is the group of all integers that are multiples of 2, we need to add
to every even integer to get the left cosets. We have then

where
. So, we have that
![]()
which is a group under the binary operation
![]()
Because
has four elements, we know that any group isomorphic to it must have four elements as well. This is because an isomorphism is a one-to-one, onto mapping, which means that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the elements of the domain and codomain (see Part III: Chapter 15). Thus, the domain and codomain (when they are finite) have the same number of elements. One group that has four elements is
with the binary operation
![]()
Now, we need to see if we can find an isomorphism
from
to
. Let
It is easy to show that
is one-to-one and onto.
One-to-One

Onto

Additionally, we have

Therefore,
is isomorphic to
.
We have now seen two examples of how to find an isomorphism, each one demonstrating how long this process can be. Thankfully, we do have some shortcuts, such as the FTFGAG.
FTFGAG
FTFGAG stands for the Fundamental Theorem of Finitely Generated Abelian Groups. This theorem is given by Macauley as follows [17].
Theorem V.10 (FTFGAG)
![]()
where each
is a prime power, i.e.,
, where
is prime and
.
There are a couple terms in this theorem that we have not yet covered. A group
under
is abelian if and only if
is commutative for all elements in
. A group
is cyclic if and only if there exists an element in
that generates all of
[17]. For example,
is cyclic for all natural numbers
because
![]()
So, every finite abelian group is isomorphic to a direct product of cyclic groups. More specifically, the cyclic groups are of the form
where
is a prime number raised to some power. Let’s demonstrate this using an example. This exercise is a homework problem I completed for Modern Algebra [18].
List every direct product of cyclic groups that is isomorphic to an abelian group of order 54.
Solution
Finite isomorphic groups have the same order because an isomorphism is a one-to-one, onto mapping (see Part III: Chapter 15). Because the order of
is equal to
, we need to find every combination of products of primes to some power that equal 54. Because
, we have the following combinations:

Therefore, every finite abelian group of order 54 is isomorphic to one of these direct products of cyclic groups by the FTFGAG.
Listing out all of the possible direct products becomes a long task when an abelian group is of an order that is the product of many primes. But if we only need to find one group that is isomorphic to a particular abelian group, this theorem is extremely useful.
We have covered a good amount of information relating to the algebraic binary structure known as a group. We covered cyclic subgroups, isomorphisms, cosets, and factor groups. We also discussed a couple of important and useful theorems, the Theorem of Lagrange and the FTFGAG. We are now going to turn our attention to other types of algebraic binary structures. These are rings, integral domains, and fields.