Searching for an alternative definition of group homomorphism












1












$begingroup$


I am searching for an alternative definition of a group homomorphism using only their impact on subgroups. I thought of something like




Let $G$, $G'$ be groups. A map from $G$ to $G'$ is called homomorphism of groups if the image of every subgroup of $G$ is a subgroup in $G'$.




I guess this definition wouldn't work. It's maybe too weak to be a homomorphism.



Does anyone have an idea?






abstract-algebra group-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It definitely is too weak. According to your definition any bijection $mathbb{Z}_ptomathbb{Z}_p$ that fixes $0$ would be a homomorphism. Why are you looking for an alternative if there is a simple classical definition?
    $endgroup$
    – freakish
    Dec 3 '18 at 9:33








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Are you trying to do something that mimics the definition of a continuous map?
    $endgroup$
    – Tobias Kildetoft
    Dec 3 '18 at 9:44






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @freakish When if first learned about normal subgroups I had absolutely no idea what this definition using conjugation really wants to tell me. It just seemed to be not very intuitive, but when I began to think of normal groups as the kernels of group homomorphism it really helped me a lot to understand what normal subgroups are all about.I hoped to find a definition which makes even clearer which structures of a group "survive" a homomorphism.
    $endgroup$
    – Dominik
    Dec 3 '18 at 9:52
















1












$begingroup$


I am searching for an alternative definition of a group homomorphism using only their impact on subgroups. I thought of something like




Let $G$, $G'$ be groups. A map from $G$ to $G'$ is called homomorphism of groups if the image of every subgroup of $G$ is a subgroup in $G'$.




I guess this definition wouldn't work. It's maybe too weak to be a homomorphism.



Does anyone have an idea?






abstract-algebra group-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It definitely is too weak. According to your definition any bijection $mathbb{Z}_ptomathbb{Z}_p$ that fixes $0$ would be a homomorphism. Why are you looking for an alternative if there is a simple classical definition?
    $endgroup$
    – freakish
    Dec 3 '18 at 9:33








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Are you trying to do something that mimics the definition of a continuous map?
    $endgroup$
    – Tobias Kildetoft
    Dec 3 '18 at 9:44






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @freakish When if first learned about normal subgroups I had absolutely no idea what this definition using conjugation really wants to tell me. It just seemed to be not very intuitive, but when I began to think of normal groups as the kernels of group homomorphism it really helped me a lot to understand what normal subgroups are all about.I hoped to find a definition which makes even clearer which structures of a group "survive" a homomorphism.
    $endgroup$
    – Dominik
    Dec 3 '18 at 9:52














1












1








1





$begingroup$


I am searching for an alternative definition of a group homomorphism using only their impact on subgroups. I thought of something like




Let $G$, $G'$ be groups. A map from $G$ to $G'$ is called homomorphism of groups if the image of every subgroup of $G$ is a subgroup in $G'$.




I guess this definition wouldn't work. It's maybe too weak to be a homomorphism.



Does anyone have an idea?






abstract-algebra group-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I am searching for an alternative definition of a group homomorphism using only their impact on subgroups. I thought of something like




Let $G$, $G'$ be groups. A map from $G$ to $G'$ is called homomorphism of groups if the image of every subgroup of $G$ is a subgroup in $G'$.




I guess this definition wouldn't work. It's maybe too weak to be a homomorphism.



Does anyone have an idea?






abstract-algebra group-theory




abstract-algebra group-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 3 '18 at 9:29









José Carlos Santos

163k22130233




163k22130233










asked Dec 3 '18 at 9:26









DominikDominik

965




965








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It definitely is too weak. According to your definition any bijection $mathbb{Z}_ptomathbb{Z}_p$ that fixes $0$ would be a homomorphism. Why are you looking for an alternative if there is a simple classical definition?
    $endgroup$
    – freakish
    Dec 3 '18 at 9:33








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Are you trying to do something that mimics the definition of a continuous map?
    $endgroup$
    – Tobias Kildetoft
    Dec 3 '18 at 9:44






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @freakish When if first learned about normal subgroups I had absolutely no idea what this definition using conjugation really wants to tell me. It just seemed to be not very intuitive, but when I began to think of normal groups as the kernels of group homomorphism it really helped me a lot to understand what normal subgroups are all about.I hoped to find a definition which makes even clearer which structures of a group "survive" a homomorphism.
    $endgroup$
    – Dominik
    Dec 3 '18 at 9:52














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It definitely is too weak. According to your definition any bijection $mathbb{Z}_ptomathbb{Z}_p$ that fixes $0$ would be a homomorphism. Why are you looking for an alternative if there is a simple classical definition?
    $endgroup$
    – freakish
    Dec 3 '18 at 9:33








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Are you trying to do something that mimics the definition of a continuous map?
    $endgroup$
    – Tobias Kildetoft
    Dec 3 '18 at 9:44






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @freakish When if first learned about normal subgroups I had absolutely no idea what this definition using conjugation really wants to tell me. It just seemed to be not very intuitive, but when I began to think of normal groups as the kernels of group homomorphism it really helped me a lot to understand what normal subgroups are all about.I hoped to find a definition which makes even clearer which structures of a group "survive" a homomorphism.
    $endgroup$
    – Dominik
    Dec 3 '18 at 9:52








2




2




$begingroup$
It definitely is too weak. According to your definition any bijection $mathbb{Z}_ptomathbb{Z}_p$ that fixes $0$ would be a homomorphism. Why are you looking for an alternative if there is a simple classical definition?
$endgroup$
– freakish
Dec 3 '18 at 9:33






$begingroup$
It definitely is too weak. According to your definition any bijection $mathbb{Z}_ptomathbb{Z}_p$ that fixes $0$ would be a homomorphism. Why are you looking for an alternative if there is a simple classical definition?
$endgroup$
– freakish
Dec 3 '18 at 9:33






1




1




$begingroup$
Are you trying to do something that mimics the definition of a continuous map?
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Dec 3 '18 at 9:44




$begingroup$
Are you trying to do something that mimics the definition of a continuous map?
$endgroup$
– Tobias Kildetoft
Dec 3 '18 at 9:44




1




1




$begingroup$
@freakish When if first learned about normal subgroups I had absolutely no idea what this definition using conjugation really wants to tell me. It just seemed to be not very intuitive, but when I began to think of normal groups as the kernels of group homomorphism it really helped me a lot to understand what normal subgroups are all about.I hoped to find a definition which makes even clearer which structures of a group "survive" a homomorphism.
$endgroup$
– Dominik
Dec 3 '18 at 9:52




$begingroup$
@freakish When if first learned about normal subgroups I had absolutely no idea what this definition using conjugation really wants to tell me. It just seemed to be not very intuitive, but when I began to think of normal groups as the kernels of group homomorphism it really helped me a lot to understand what normal subgroups are all about.I hoped to find a definition which makes even clearer which structures of a group "survive" a homomorphism.
$endgroup$
– Dominik
Dec 3 '18 at 9:52










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

Others have pointed out the trouble with this definition. This is the way one learns anyway. Try to see why this definition and not this gives a clear and critical understanding.



Let me point out another example where your suggested alternative definition fails: Take a group which is NOT abelian, say symmeric group on $n$ letters, . $n>3$. Consider the function $xmapsto x^{-1}$. As a function from a group to itself, it satisfies your condition, image of any subgroup is a subgroup (in fact it is the same subgroup). However it is not true in general that $(xy)^{-1}= x^{-1}y^{-1}$. So it is not a homomorphism.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    This definition is far too weak! you need compatibility with the group structure, which gets completely forgotten by your definition, for example, consider the following map: $$mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}/qmathbb{Z}\
    x mapsto [x]$$     where we interpret $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z} $ as ${0,1,...,p-1}$.
    Now if $q le p$ this is would be by your "definition" a "groupmorphism", but all the properties of the elements, like order gets messed up, and you lose all control!






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "69"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3023830%2fsearching-for-an-alternative-definition-of-group-homomorphism%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      2












      $begingroup$

      Others have pointed out the trouble with this definition. This is the way one learns anyway. Try to see why this definition and not this gives a clear and critical understanding.



      Let me point out another example where your suggested alternative definition fails: Take a group which is NOT abelian, say symmeric group on $n$ letters, . $n>3$. Consider the function $xmapsto x^{-1}$. As a function from a group to itself, it satisfies your condition, image of any subgroup is a subgroup (in fact it is the same subgroup). However it is not true in general that $(xy)^{-1}= x^{-1}y^{-1}$. So it is not a homomorphism.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$


















        2












        $begingroup$

        Others have pointed out the trouble with this definition. This is the way one learns anyway. Try to see why this definition and not this gives a clear and critical understanding.



        Let me point out another example where your suggested alternative definition fails: Take a group which is NOT abelian, say symmeric group on $n$ letters, . $n>3$. Consider the function $xmapsto x^{-1}$. As a function from a group to itself, it satisfies your condition, image of any subgroup is a subgroup (in fact it is the same subgroup). However it is not true in general that $(xy)^{-1}= x^{-1}y^{-1}$. So it is not a homomorphism.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$
















          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          Others have pointed out the trouble with this definition. This is the way one learns anyway. Try to see why this definition and not this gives a clear and critical understanding.



          Let me point out another example where your suggested alternative definition fails: Take a group which is NOT abelian, say symmeric group on $n$ letters, . $n>3$. Consider the function $xmapsto x^{-1}$. As a function from a group to itself, it satisfies your condition, image of any subgroup is a subgroup (in fact it is the same subgroup). However it is not true in general that $(xy)^{-1}= x^{-1}y^{-1}$. So it is not a homomorphism.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Others have pointed out the trouble with this definition. This is the way one learns anyway. Try to see why this definition and not this gives a clear and critical understanding.



          Let me point out another example where your suggested alternative definition fails: Take a group which is NOT abelian, say symmeric group on $n$ letters, . $n>3$. Consider the function $xmapsto x^{-1}$. As a function from a group to itself, it satisfies your condition, image of any subgroup is a subgroup (in fact it is the same subgroup). However it is not true in general that $(xy)^{-1}= x^{-1}y^{-1}$. So it is not a homomorphism.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Dec 3 '18 at 10:42

























          answered Dec 3 '18 at 10:35









          P VanchinathanP Vanchinathan

          15.2k12136




          15.2k12136























              0












              $begingroup$

              This definition is far too weak! you need compatibility with the group structure, which gets completely forgotten by your definition, for example, consider the following map: $$mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}/qmathbb{Z}\
              x mapsto [x]$$               where we interpret $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z} $ as ${0,1,...,p-1}$.
              Now if $q le p$ this is would be by your "definition" a "groupmorphism", but all the properties of the elements, like order gets messed up, and you lose all control!






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                This definition is far too weak! you need compatibility with the group structure, which gets completely forgotten by your definition, for example, consider the following map: $$mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}/qmathbb{Z}\
                x mapsto [x]$$                 where we interpret $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z} $ as ${0,1,...,p-1}$.
                Now if $q le p$ this is would be by your "definition" a "groupmorphism", but all the properties of the elements, like order gets messed up, and you lose all control!






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  This definition is far too weak! you need compatibility with the group structure, which gets completely forgotten by your definition, for example, consider the following map: $$mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}/qmathbb{Z}\
                  x mapsto [x]$$                   where we interpret $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z} $ as ${0,1,...,p-1}$.
                  Now if $q le p$ this is would be by your "definition" a "groupmorphism", but all the properties of the elements, like order gets messed up, and you lose all control!






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  This definition is far too weak! you need compatibility with the group structure, which gets completely forgotten by your definition, for example, consider the following map: $$mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z} to mathbb{Z}/qmathbb{Z}\
                  x mapsto [x]$$                   where we interpret $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z} $ as ${0,1,...,p-1}$.
                  Now if $q le p$ this is would be by your "definition" a "groupmorphism", but all the properties of the elements, like order gets messed up, and you lose all control!







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 3 '18 at 10:18









                  EnkiduEnkidu

                  1,36719




                  1,36719






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid …



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3023830%2fsearching-for-an-alternative-definition-of-group-homomorphism%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      -

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

                      Image
                      2 2 I have a Zotero bibliography in Overleaf. I use biblatex . usepackage[backend=biber,citestyle=authoryear]{biblatex} addbibresource{zoteroALH.bib} Bibliography entries look like: @book{de_saint-gervais_uniformization_2016, title = {Uniformization of {Riemann} {Surfaces}}, isbn = {978-3-03719-145-3}, url = {https://www.ems-ph.org/books/book.php?proj_nr=198&srch=series%7Chem}, urldate = {2019-02-03}, author = {de Saint-Gervais, Paul Henri}, year = {2016}, doi = {10.4171/145} } In the bibliography down the paper the reference shows like this: There is the DOI, great, but also the URL which is unnecessary when the DOI is there. How can I remove the URL when the DOI is present? biblatex bibliographies overleaf zote
                      Read more

                      How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

                      Image
                      3 Recently upgrade to 18.10 from 18.04, and using the terminal is becoming annoying: the new alert sound is a drip ( /usr/share/sounds/gnome/default/alerts/drip.ogg ), and the previous one is still located at ( /usr/share/sounds/ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg ). My issue is that at the gnome-terminal, when autocompleting or pressing left BOTH sounds are reproduced, at the same time. I want to just have ubuntu/stereo/bell.ogg active, not both . At the moment I have been only able to reduce the volume of the alerts (but still both are played), or turn the alerts down (but I dislike both "solutions"). gnome-terminal 18.10 teminal-bell share | improve this question
                      Read more

                      Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents

                      Image
                      up vote 5 down vote favorite 2 I would like to make it so that the vertical space below the title of each chapter is the same when using the Bjornstrup package (i.e. so that the descenders do not affect the spacing - as shown by the red arrow in the picture below). I think I'm fairly happy with the spacing around "A chapter", so I'd really like titles without descenders (e.g. "Contents") to have the same vertical spacing as "A chapter" below the title. I would also like to remove the large "0" in the contents title. Any help appreciated, as always. documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{book} % Packages[![enter image description here][1]][1] usepackage[left=3.5cm, right=3.5cm, top=4.3cm, bottom=4.25cm]{geometry} usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} usepackage{libertine} usepackage[libertine]{newtx
                      Read more