MATH 427: Abstract Algebra
Date:
Notes for the Spring 2025 instance of honors abstract algebra at UIUC, taught by Eugene Lerman.
Chapter 1 Group Theory
First, we describe the application of groups in revealing structure in other mathematical objects. Then, we study the relationship between groups, culminating in a classification of groups of order , where and are primes.
1.1 Groups and Actions
1.1.1 Beginnings
Definition 1.1.1.
A group is a set with an associative binary operation, s.t.
- •
- •
s.t.
- •
Definition 1.1.2.
A subgroup of group is a subset that is also a group.
Example 1.1.3.
Consider the group , and a subgroup . We show that , .
If , then we can write . Otherwise, consider the set , which is non-empty by assumption. Pick (by well-ordering), and for a given , factor it as , . Thus, , by closure, but , thus and . Moreover, , since .
Definition 1.1.4.
A group action is an operation , s.t.
- •
- •
We say acts on (through an action )
Groups interact with sets through actions. Through actions, we can find equivalences in such sets.
Definition 1.1.5.
If acts on , then the orbit of is .
Theorem 1.1.6.
If acts on , then is an equivalence relation.
Proof.
We check the properties:
- •
Reflective: , since
- •
Symmetric: , then , and
- •
Transitive: and , then , , and
∎
Thus, we find that the orbits partition the set into equivalence classes. This observation is central towards our results for this section.
An important example is when , or is acting on itself, through the group operation (or as we will later see, with conjugation).
Example 1.1.7.
Let be a subgroup. Then acts on , . Moreover, . Oftentimes, we write this as . In this case, we also call the orbits cosets.
This idea of equivalence classes also lends itself to quotients.
Definition 1.1.8.
Suppose , acts on . Then, .
Example 1.1.9.
Consider the groups of integers under addition, and . Then,
Example 1.1.10.
We might ask when a quotient is a group. A sufficient condition is called normality. We say a normal subgroup if , or that for all . Indeed, if , then the operation is a well-defined operation:
- •
If , then , and , so .
- •
, so we have inverse and identity elements.
In fact, all orbits are also cosets.
Definition 1.1.11.
Let act on . Then, for , we write , the stabilizer of , and is a subgroup.
Theorem 1.1.12.
If acts on , then
Proof.
We consider . Then, it is a well-defined bijective function, because
- •
For , for some , and .
- •
For , then , and .
- •
For , then , so that , i.e. .
∎
Corollary 1.1.13.
, then the map that sends is bijective.
Proof.
The stabilizer , and so . ∎
Corollary 1.1.14.
, then
Proof.
We know that are a collection of equally sized orbits that partition the set. Thus, the size of the set is a product of the size of each orbit with the number of orbits . ∎
1.1.2 Permutations
We demonstrate the use of our technology on the permutation group.
Definition 1.1.15.
The symmetric group is a group under function composition.
Definition 1.1.16.
is a cycle over its range where , if
- •
, for
- •
for
We say cycles are disjoint if their range are disjoint, i.e. .
The result for this section is to find a representation for the elements in the permutation group,
Theorem 1.1.17.
Every is a unique product of cycles , up to order of .
Lemma 1.1.18.
If cycles are disjoint, they commute.
Proof.
Consider any , and assume WLOG that (and so, ). First, . Moreover, since is injective, then , so , and . ∎
Lemma 1.1.19.
If acts on , then for all , for some .
Proof.
Since is a subgroup, then for some , and . ∎
Now, we prove the decomposition theorem on permutations:
1.1.17.
We prove existence and uniqueness separately.
- •
existence: Consider an action on , where . Then, for every orbit , we consider the cycle
Choosing representatives for the orbits, then is our representation.
- •
uniqueness: Any decomposition of into cycles induces a partition into orbits, so every decomposition can be formed in the above process. Moreover, since these are exactly the orbits of , every decomposition is the same.
∎
Corollary 1.1.20.
Every permutation is a product of transpositions (i.e. cycles of order 2).
Proof.
It is sufficient to prove for cycles. Indeed, a cycle . ∎
1.2 Group Homomorphisms
We turn out attention to studying groups and the relationship between groups (instead of how groups interact with other objects). Our primary tool describing such relationship is the homomorphism.
Homomorphism Properties
Definition 1.2.1.
is a homomorphism if for all , .
Definition 1.2.2.
An isomorphism is a bijective homomorphism.
Lemma 1.2.3.
.
Proof.
∎
Lemma 1.2.4.
If is an isomorphism, then is a homomorphism.
Proof.
Let , so that ∎
Now, we make the relationship between homomorphisms and actions clear. First, observe that , the set of homomorphisms between and , and , the set of isomorphisms from to are groups under composition.
Example 1.2.5.
We show that (some) actions are equivalently homomorphisms between to an automorphism group.
If acts on with , then consider , where . Indeed, it a homomorphism, since
- •
is a homomorphism:
- •
is an automorphism Since it is surjective () and therefore injective.
- •
is a homomorphism: .
Conversely, if we have a homomorphism , then we define the action , where indeed,
- •
- •
Finally, we mention important subgroups induced by a homomorphism.
Definition 1.2.6.
If is a homomorphism, then the kernal , and the image are subgroups of and respectively.
Theorem 1.2.7.
If homomorphism, then .
Proof.
For any , for any , then , so . ∎
1.2.1 Isomorphism Theorems
We describe common cases for when groups are isomorphic, as summarized by the three isomorphism theorems.
Theorem 1.2.8.
If is surjective homomorphism, then for , .
Proof.
Consider the map sending .
- •
If , then , and
- •
For , then
- •
For any , , so
- •
If , then , so , and .
∎
Theorem 1.2.9.
If , , then , where .
Proof.
Indeed , with .
Additionally, , since for any , .
Finally, , since for any , (normality of ) and (closure of ).
Thus, consider the surjective homomorphism sending , where . Thus, applying the first isomorphism theorem, we obtain the result. ∎
Theorem 1.2.10.
Let , with . Then, .
Proof.
Indeed, , since . Thus, considering the surjective map sending , with . Thus, applying the first isomorphism theorem, we obtain the result. ∎
1.2.2 Generators and Representations
In addition to applying isomorphism theorems, we can study the generators of a group.
Definition 1.2.11.
Let , then the group generated by , , is the smallest subgroup containing .
For example, considering the dihedral group , the generators are and // TODO
Moreover, an important way homomorphisms are applied is to change the study of groups to the study of linear transformations. For example, the sign function. // TODO
1.3 Classification of Groups
Example 1.3.1.
Consider a group of order , where is prime. Then, for , then the subgroup has order (since ). But, we know that since , then , and so .
Above, we classified groups of prime order by studying the subgroups of . To extend this idea, we will develop the Sylow theorems to understand important subgroups of . Then, we apply the isomorphism theorems to understand how these subgroups compose together to build up to .
1.3.1 Sylow Theorems
First, we describe the subgroups that we are looking for:
Definition 1.3.2.
Let , where . Then, a p-subgroup has order for some . Moreover, we say is a p-Sylow subogroup if .
Towards this, we also consider the subgroup,
Definition 1.3.3.
The normalizer .
Our main tool towards finding such subgroups is going to be through actions and fixed points (contrast: stabilizers).
Definition 1.3.4.
If acts on , then is a fixed-point when , . We denote the fixed points.
Lemma 1.3.5.
If acts on , , then .
Proof.
Recall that the set of orbits partition . Focusing on an orbit , we know that . Thus, for (i.e. ), . So, collecting the fixed points and non-fixed points,
∎
Now, we are ready to prove the Sylow theorems.
Theorem 1.3.6.
If for , then has a -Sylow subgroup.
Proof.
We prove via induction that for any , that there is a subgroup of order .
For , consider . Then, , since has degrees of freedom. Consider sending , and the action on , . We find a non-trivial fixed point of is an element , where . Indeed, for each of the non-fixed orbits, each having order exactly , . Thus, (non-empty).
Otherwise, for , suppose we have , a subgroup of order . Then, consider the action on , where , and the normalizer .
- •
, since , i.e. is a fixed-point.
- •
Thus, choosing a subgroup of order in , let , sending . Constructing , and so . ∎
Theorem 1.3.7.
Let . Then, .
Proof.
Let . We show that we can pick s.t. (since ).
We know acts on , with . Then, , so pick any , so that for all , , i.e. . ∎
Theorem 1.3.8.
Let be the number of p-Sylow subgroups, and a p-Sylow group. Then, and .
Proof.
Let be the set of p-Sylow subgroups, with acting on by conjugation. Then, , so . Since, , then , and so .
Moreover, acts on , with . Charactizing , consider any , so that , i.e. . Moreover, since , then and are p-Sylow subgroups of , and thus, . Finally, since , , and . ∎
1.3.2 Semi-Direct Products
Now that we have developed our key subgroups, we focus on how to compose them.
Definition 1.3.9.
Let , , where and . Then is a group over the set where .
Recall the similarities between the semi-direct product and the direct-sum from linear algebra. The operation is forced in order for to be a homomorphism, since
Theorem 1.3.10.
(indeed is a group).
Proof.
The identity element is , where . Moreover, the operation is associative,
Finally, consider homomorphism sending , where
- •
Injective, since
- •
Surjective, since
and so indeed, isomorphic. ∎
1.3.3 Classification of Groups of order pq
We conclude our chapter on group theory with a quick classification of some groups.
Theorem 1.3.11.
If , then or .
Proof.
If there is some , then .
Otherwise, consider acting on itself via conjugation. Choose , and . Indeed, .
Now, we verify that
- •
, since but .
- •
, since the map is injective.
∎
Theorem 1.3.12.
If , , then .
Proof.
Consider subgroups of order and respectively. We know that , and since , then . Thus,
- •
, since is p-Sylow (conjugation is iso), and so
- •
, since
- •
, since and so .
∎
Chapter 2 Ring Theory
2.1 Integers
We outline our path on the integers. First, recall this useful property of the integers.
Theorem 2.1.1.
For every where , we can factor s.t. .
Proof.
Consider . Then, satisifes the inequality. ∎
From the division algorithm, we work towards a decomposition of integers into prime factors.
Definition 2.1.2.
We say divides , denoted as if .
Definition 2.1.3.
The if , , and moreover for any other , implies .
For example, for , then . However, note that is not defined, since all integers are common divisors.
We show that the is a well-defined function on .
Proof.
Let . In particular, , so is non-empty.
Now, considering , then if and , then . Moreover, for any other that claims to be the gcd, then and shows that (since positive). ∎
Definition 2.1.4.
We say is a unit if for some .
Definition 2.1.5.
We say is an irreducible if only when or is a unit.
Definition 2.1.6.
We say and are coprime if . Moreover, is prime if is coprime with every other integer.
Now, we relate these concepts.
Theorem 2.1.7.
and are coprime if and only if .
Proof.
Suppose , i.e. we can find . Then, when , then .
Conversely, if and are coprime, then let be a common divisor, so that and . Now, since , then . But also, , so and . ∎
Theorem 2.1.8.
is prime if and only if is irreducible.
Proof.
Suppose is prime, and write , i.e. . WLOG, assume that , and since , then , i.e. and is a unit.
Conversely, suppose is irreducible and let . Then, since the only divisors of are or , then or . If , then and are coprime, and so . Otherwise, if , then and . ∎
Now, we can talk about factorization into irreducibles, i.e. primes.
Definition 2.1.9.
and are associates if , for a unit.
Theorem 2.1.10.
If not a unit, then , where is a unit and are irreducible. Moreover, if , then and we can reorder with and being associates.
Proof.
We proceed by induction on . If is an irreducible, then we win. Otherwise, is reducible, and writing , applying the induction hypothesis proves the existence of factorization.
Arguing uniqueness, we induct on . Since , then , say . Then, and are associates (since both irreducible), so inducting on , we win. ∎
2.2 Domains
Definition 2.2.1.
A (commutative) ring is an abelian group with an operation ,
Definition 2.2.2.
is a zero-divisor if s.t. .
Definition 2.2.3.
We say is a domain if there are no zero-divisors.
Note that a field is a domain, since units can not be zero-divisors. Moreover, finite domains are fields, since for , we have the bijection , with .
Here, we only concern ourselves with domains, since whenever for , then , i.e. .
Definition 2.2.4.
We say is an Euclidean domain with a function s.t. for any with
For convenience, we denote .
Definition 2.2.5.
We say is a unique-factorization domain if , up to associates.
The main result is to show that in general, Euclidean domains are UFDs. Towards this, we introduce an intermediate concept of ideals.
Definition 2.2.6.
An ideal is a subgroup where for all , .
Definition 2.2.7.
is principal if (as a group). is a principal ideal domain if all ideals are principal.
Considering the subgroup , it is moreover a ring with the operation . We also define the following operations on ideals (generating new ideals):
Definition 2.2.8.
Lemma 2.2.9.
.
Proof.
We know , by definition, so . Moreover, is an ideal, since and . ∎
Note that the integers are Euclidean domains , as well as PIDs (since only subgroups are ), and UFDs.
Theorem 2.2.10.
Euclidean Domains are PIDs.
Proof.
Let be an ideal. If , then is principal.
Otherwise, let , non-empty, and pick . Writing , we know . But, since , then and so . Thus, , and so . ∎
To show that PIDs are UFDs, we need to prove relationships between primes and irreducibles.
Lemma 2.2.11.
is prime if and only if is a domain.
Proof.
Note that . Thus, prime if and only if one of the terms is zero, the defining property of a domain. ∎
Lemma 2.2.12.
In PID, and is irreducible, then is a field (and domain).
Proof.
If , then , a field.
Otherwise, consider any non-zero element , i.e. . Now, let , since we are in a PID. Since , then , so write . Moreover, is not a unit, since (i.e. ideals are not the same), so is a unit. Thus, , with . ∎
Theorem 2.2.13.
In a PID, then irreducibles are equivalent to primes.
Proof.
If irreducible, then is a domain, so prime.
If prime, and if , then suppose . Then, , and , i.e. is a unit. ∎
Theorem 2.2.14.
PIDs are UFDs.
Proof.
First, we show existence of a factorization, via the algorithm
- 1.
If irreducible, stop.
- 2.
Otherwise, , both not units, and recurse.
For any path we get an ascending chain of ideals . Considering is an ideal, then , i.e. the stopping point. Thus, the algorithm terminates.
Arguing uniqueness, we induct on . Since , then , say . Then, and are associates (since both irreducible), so inducting on , we win. ∎
We conclude this section with two examples of Euclidean domains, which we proved are also UFDs.
Example 2.2.15.
Let , and define . Note that . For any , with , we need to show that , with .
For any , we can find where , by choosing the closest lattice point. Thus, choosing the closest point to , and , we win.
Example 2.2.16.
Consider , the (finite degree) polynomials over a field , and the function (with ). Note that . For any with , we need to show with .
Inducting on , if , then wins. Otherwise, write , and inducting, . Now, wins.
2.3 Chinese Remainder Theorem
First, we prove the first isomorphism theorem for rings.
Definition 2.3.1.
is a ring homomorphism if it is a group homomorphism with
Theorem 2.3.2.
If is a surjective ring homomorphism, then
Proof.
We know that they are isomorphic as groups, with the group isomorphism. Moreover, it is also a ring isomorphism: . ∎
Now, we are ready for the Chinese Remainder Theorem.
Theorem 2.3.3.
Let be ideals s.t. for all pairs . Then,
Lemma 2.3.4.
If , then .
Proof.
We know . Moreover, letting , then for any , then . ∎
CRT.
If , then the statement is trivial. For , consider the homomorphism
Let , for . For any , consider , so
and is surjective. Moreover, , so we win.
Finally, for , let . Consider , for and , for . Then, we can invoke the induction hypothesis, since , so . Now,
∎
We study the implications on PIDs.
Lemma 2.3.5.
For distinct (not associates) irreducibles in a PID, then , for .
Proof.
Let . Then, so . Similarly, .
By UFD properties, then , for and , and units. But, since and are not associates, then , and is a unit and . ∎
For example,
so that given and , we can find uniquely. In general, we can factor into distinct irreducibles.
Chapter 3 Module Theory
3.1 Modules
Definition 3.1.1.
A -module is an abelian group with an operation where
Definition 3.1.2.
is a submodule if .
We can think of modules as groups that are acted on by rings. Or, we can think of modules as vector spaces on rings.
Example 3.1.3.
is an -module, with the normal multiplication. Submodules are ideals.
Definition 3.1.4.
is a module homomorphism if it is a group homorphism where .
Definition 3.1.5.
quotient group is a quotient module with operation .
Theorem 3.1.6.
surjective, then .
Proof.
They are isomorphic as groups, with . Moreover, it is a module homomorphism,
∎
Moreover, we have all our familiar linear algebra concepts.
Definition 3.1.7.
, then the span of ,
Definition 3.1.8.
generates if .
Definition 3.1.9.
is linearly independent if .
Definition 3.1.10.
is a basis if it is a linearly independent generator.
With this, we note some basic properties of modules.
Lemma 3.1.11.
, for some .
Proof.
Let be generated by . Consider by , surjective homomorphism. Then, is an submodule, and so we win. ∎
In particular, if is cyclic, i.e. generated by one element, then and we can think of it as a ring.
Finally, we reintroduce the direct sum.
Definition 3.1.12.
Then, is a module over the group ,
Lemma 3.1.13.
Let , where , and . Then, .
Proof.
Consider the map . Then, it is surjective, since . Moreover, it is injective, since if , then . ∎
3.2 Bases and Dimension
Modules without bases are easy to construct. For example, consider as a -module, where since , then there are no linearly independent sets.
Definition 3.2.1.
is free if it has a basis.
Definition 3.2.2.
is torsion if for . , and say is torsion if .
Definition 3.2.3.
If is free, then is the size of a basis.
Lemma 3.2.4.
In a domain,
Proof.
It is a subgroup, since for torsion with , then where . Moreover, for any , , so also torison. ∎
If , then is not free. Similarly, if is free, then . Later, we will show that every module is uniquely decomposed into a torsion and free part, but now we focus on studying the free component, in particular proving that dimension is well-defined.
We reduce the question to vector spaces.
Definition 3.2.5.
ideal, then .
Definition 3.2.6.
is an module, with .
Theorem 3.2.7.
free, then is free, with same sized bases.
Proof.
Let be a basis of , and consider . First, note that .
Now, for any , writing , then , so is generating. Moreover, if , where , then , and because are independent, . ∎
In a PID, we can choose an irreducible and let , so that is a field. In general, we can always choose an ideal (say, “maximal”) where is a field, but proof omitted here (requires axiom of choice).
Theorem 3.2.8.
free -module, then is well-defined.
Proof.
Consider any two bases and of . Then, and are bases of , which is a vector space. But, in a vector space, is well-defined, so the size of the two bases are the same. ∎
Proving that dimension is well-defined in a vector space is easy by considering the change of basis matrix. It is clearly invertible, and thus applying Gaussian elimination, its reduced row-echelon form is , i.e. is square.
Theorem 3.2.9.
In a PID, free, then is also free, with . Moreover, there exists a basis and of and respectively.
Proof.
It is sufficient to prove for . Since , then , since is a PID. Thus, and are our basis for and (ignoring ). ∎
This is a weaker than incomplete basis for vector spaces, which states that any -basis extends to a -basis.
3.3 Structure Theorem
Theorem 3.3.1.
In a PID, s.t. , where torsion and free.
Proof.
We prove existence and uniqueness separately.
Existence: Let , and , with torsion. Then, , since for any torsion, then , so torsion, and so torsion and . Now, write . With , generating , and since , but torsion-free, then and free.
Thus, are the slots of where and are the slots where , and .
Uniqueness: Suppose . Then, . Moreover, for any torsion with , , then , so and . Thus, , and similarly .
Now, consider surjective homomorphism, sending . Then, , so . ∎
Note that in general, , for example , since only the former is cyclic.
We can refine this theorem further.
Theorem 3.3.2.
In a PID, (not necessarily distinct) irreducibles and where
Proof.
The free part is fixed. Moreover, the torsion part is isomorphic to some . Now, we may write each , and applying the Chinese remainder theorem, we get existence.
Arguing uniqueness, we know the irreducibles are unique, since these are the terms in the ring for which there are zero vector-divisors (i.e. for some ). Moreover, if , and ordering and in ascending order, let be the isomorphism. Considering , then , so and we win via induction. ∎
3.3.1 Classification of Finite Abelian Groups
Theorem 3.3.3.
Let be a finite abelian group, and the prime factorization of . Then, for some ,
Proof.
Consider as a -module, with . Then, we win via the structure theorem. ∎
For example, there are six abelian groups of order , since .
3.3.2 Jordan Normal Form
Theorem 3.3.4.
Let be a -module and a linear transformation. Then, is a direct sum of generalized eigenspaces for , i.e. or .
Proof.
Consider as a -module, where , i.e. . Write .
Because is algebraically closed, . Considering the module , we have a basis (for ), . Consider the basis of . Then, is our generalized eigenbasis, since
∎
