Direct factor is not finite-join-closed: Difference between revisions

From Groupprops
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{subgroup metaproperty dissatisfaction|
{{subgroup metaproperty dissatisfaction|
property = direct factor|
property = direct factor|
metaproperty = finite-join-closed subgroup property}}
metaproperty = finite-join-closed subgroup property|
first corollary = join-closed subgroup property|
second corollary = strongly finite-join-closed subgroup property|
third corollary = strongly join-closed subgroup property}}


==Statement==
==Statement==

Latest revision as of 23:53, 17 February 2009

This article gives the statement, and possibly proof, of a subgroup property (i.e., direct factor) not satisfying a subgroup metaproperty (i.e., finite-join-closed subgroup property).This also implies that it does not satisfy the subgroup metaproperty/metaproperties: Join-closed subgroup property (?), .
View all subgroup metaproperty dissatisfactions | View all subgroup metaproperty satisfactions|Get help on looking up metaproperty (dis)satisfactions for subgroup properties
Get more facts about direct factor|Get more facts about finite-join-closed subgroup propertyGet more facts about join-closed subgroup property|

Statement

A join of finitely many direct factors of a group need not be a direct factor. More specifically, it is possible to have a group G and two subgroups H,K of G such that both H and K are direct factors and the join HK is not a direct factor.

Related facts

Proof

An abelian group example

Suppose Cn denotes the cyclic group of order n. Define:

G=C4×C2.

Consider the following subgroups:

H=0×C2,K={(2,1),(0,0)},L=C4×0.

Then, both H and K are direct factors of G, with a common direct factor complement L. On the other hand, we have:

HK={(2,1),(2,0),(0,1),(0,0)}.

This is not a direct factor of G, because if a complement exists, it must have order two, but all elements of G outside HK have order four.