The integers form a group under the operation of addition. The binary operation on two integers is just their sum. Since the integers under addition already have a well-established notation, we will use the operator instead of that is, we shall write instead of The identity is 0, and the inverse of is written as instead of Notice that the set of integers under addition have the additional property that and therefore form an abelian group.
Section 3.2 Definitions and Examples
Subsection 3.2.1 Definition of a Group
The integers mod and the symmetries of a triangle or a rectangle are examples of groups. A binary operation or law of composition on a set is a function that assigns to each pair a unique element or in called the composition of and A group is a set together with a law of composition that satisfies the following axioms.
- The law of composition is associative. That is,for
- There exists an element
called the identity element, such that for any element - For each element
there exists an inverse element in G, denoted by such that
A group with the property that for all is called abelian or commutative. Groups not satisfying this property are said to be nonabelian or noncommutative.
Subsection 3.2.2 Examples of Groups
Example 3.2.1. Group of All Integers.
Most of the time we will write instead of however, if the group already has a natural operation such as addition in the integers, we will use that operation. That is, if we are adding two integers, we still write for the inverse, and 0 for the identity as usual. We also write instead of
It is often convenient to describe a group in terms of an addition or multiplication table. Such a table is called a Cayley table.
Example 3.2.2. Group of Integers Modulo .
The integers mod form a group under addition modulo Consider consisting of the equivalence classes of the integers 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4. We define the group operation on by modular addition. We write the binary operation on the group additively; that is, we write The element 0 is the identity of the group and each element in has an inverse. For instance, Figure 3.2.3 is a Cayley table for (Contributed by Robert Beezer). By Proposition 3.1.4, is a group under the binary operation of addition mod
Example 3.2.4. Multiplication of Integers Modulo .
Not every set with a binary operation is a group. For example, if we let modular multiplication be the binary operation on then fails to be a group. The element 1 acts as a group identity since for any however, a multiplicative inverse for does not exist since for every in Even if we consider the set we still may not have a group. For instance, let Then 2 has no multiplicative inverse since
By Proposition 3.1.4, every nonzero does have an inverse in if is relatively prime to Denote the set of all such nonzero elements in by Then is a group called the group of units of Figure 3.2.5 is a Cayley table for the group
Example 3.2.6. Symmetries of a Triangle is not Abelian.
The symmetries of an equilateral triangle described in Section 3.1 form a nonabelian group. As we observed, it is not necessarily true that for two symmetries and Using Figure 3.1.7, which is a Cayley table for this group, we can easily check that the symmetries of an equilateral triangle are indeed a group. We will denote this group by either or for reasons that will be explained later.
Example 3.2.7. Matrix Multiplication of Matrices is a Group.
We use to denote the set of all matrices. Let be the subset of consisting of invertible matrices; that is, a matrix
is in if there exists a matrix such that where is the identity matrix. For to have an inverse is equivalent to requiring that the determinant of be nonzero; that is, The set of invertible matrices forms a group called the general linear group. The identity of the group is the identity matrix
The inverse of is
The product of two invertible matrices is again invertible. Matrix multiplication is associative, satisfying the other group axiom. For matrices it is not true in general that hence, is another example of a nonabelian group.
Example 3.2.8. Group of Quaternions.
Let
where Then the relations and hold. The set is a group called the quaternion group. Notice that is noncommutative.
Example 3.2.9. Group of Nonzero Complex Numbers.
Let be the set of nonzero complex numbers. Under the operation of multiplication forms a group. The identity is 1. If is a nonzero complex number, then
is the inverse of It is easy to see that the remaining group axioms hold.
A group is finite, or has finite order, if it contains a finite number of elements; otherwise, the group is said to be infinite or to have infinite order. The order of a finite group is the number of elements that it contains. If is a group containing elements, we write The group is a finite group of order 5; the integers form an infinite group under addition, and we sometimes write
Subsection 3.2.3 Basic Properties of Groups
Proposition 3.2.10.
The identity element in a group is unique; that is, there exists only one element such that for all
Proof.
Suppose that and are both identities in Then and for all We need to show that If we think of as the identity, then but if is the identity, then Combining these two equations, we have (David Farmer helped with this proof.)
Inverses in a group are also unique. If and are both inverses of an element in a group then and We want to show that but We summarize this fact in the following proposition.
Proposition 3.2.11.
Proposition 3.2.12.
Proof.
Let Then Similarly, But by the previous proposition, inverses are unique; hence,
Proposition 3.2.13.
Proof.
Observe that Consequently, multiplying both sides of this equation by we have
It makes sense to write equations with group elements and group operations. If and are two elements in a group does there exist an element such that If such an does exist, is it unique? The following proposition answers both of these questions positively.
Proposition 3.2.14.
Proof.
Suppose that We must show that such an exists. Multiplying both sides of by we have
To show uniqueness, suppose that and are both solutions of then So The proof for the existence and uniqueness of the solution of is similar.
Proposition 3.2.15.
This proposition tells us that the right and left cancellation laws are true in groups. We leave the proof as an exercise.
We can use exponential notation for groups just as we do in ordinary algebra. If is a group and then we define For we define
and
Theorem 3.2.16.
In a group, the usual laws of exponents hold; that is, for all
for all for all for all Furthermore, if is abelian, then
We will leave the proof of this theorem as an exercise. Notice that in general, since the group may not be abelian. If the group is or we write the group operation additively and the exponential operation multiplicatively; that is, we write instead of The laws of exponents now become
for all for all for all
It is important to realize that the last statement can be made only because and are commutative groups.
Subsection 3.2.4 Historical Note
Although the first clear axiomatic definition of a group was not given until the late 1800s, group-theoretic methods had been employed before this time in the development of many areas of mathematics, including geometry and the theory of algebraic equations.
Joseph-Louis Lagrange used group-theoretic methods in a 1770–1771 memoir to study methods of solving polynomial equations. Later, Évariste Galois (1811–1832) succeeded in developing the mathematics necessary to determine exactly which polynomial equations could be solved in terms of the polynomial’s coefficients. Galois’ primary tool was group theory.
The study of geometry was revolutionized in 1872 when Felix Klein proposed that geometric spaces should be studied by examining those properties that are invariant under a transformation of the space. Sophus Lie, a contemporary of Klein, used group theory to study solutions of partial differential equations. One of the first modern treatments of group theory appeared in William Burnside’s The Theory of Groups of Finite Order [1], first published in 1897.
You have attempted 1 of 1 activities on this page.