Is mapping generators to generators, and then extending, a well-defined homomorphism?Is the bijection shown...

What is this white sheet behind the insulation?

Paper status "Accept with Shepherd". What does it really mean?

My Villain scrys on the party, but I forgot about the sensor!

What is the German word for: "It only works when I try to show you how it does not work"?

Is mapping generators to generators, and then extending, a well-defined homomorphism?

If the music alphabet had more than 7 letters would octaves still sound like the same note?

What does the British parliament hope to achieve by requesting a third Brexit extension?

Why does b+=(4,) work and b = b + (4,) doesn't work when b is a list?

How to give a rationality-inducing drug to an entire software company?

How can a "proper" function have a vertical slope?

What is it called when you use wrong but smart arguments?

Exists infinitely many as a numerical-quantifier

Marxist and post modernism contradiction

Do businesses save their customers' credit card information until the payment is finalized?

Novel set in the future, children cannot change the class they are born into, one class is made uneducated by associating books with pain

7 mentions of night in Gospel of John

Is "of blue" in order to mean "blue" grammatical?

How does Firefox know my ISP login page?

Dynamics m, r, s, and z. What do they mean?

MSSNG VWLS CNNCT WLL

Boot directly into another kernel from running Linux without bootloader

Using Terminal` (ASCII plots) in Wolfram 12

"A tin of biscuits" vs "A biscuit tin"

Extra battery in the gap of an HDD



Is mapping generators to generators, and then extending, a well-defined homomorphism?


Is the bijection shown by commutativity?About a well-defined homomorphismExample of non isomorphic groups with isomorphic group algebrasSubgroup of free products is torsion-freeSpecifying a homomorphism by given the images of the generators and extending “lineary”Definition of subgroup of abelian group $G$ generated by subset $A$Hatcher's definition of direct limit of a sequence of homomorphisms of abelian groupsLet $G,H$ be groups and $varphi:G times Hto G$ and $H'=ker(varphi)$. Show that $(Gtimes H)/H'cong G$Extending group homomorpisms by defining image of generators.






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{
margin-bottom:0;
}
.everyonelovesstackoverflow{position:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;}








4














$begingroup$


I was trying to define a homomorphism between some finite groups and I had the following idea.



Suppose that $G = langle a, brangle $, and $H = langle x, yrangle$. We define $varphi:G to H$ by $varphi(a)=x,$ $varphi(b)=y$, and for an arbitrary element of $G$, $g_1^{epsilon_1}g_2^{epsilon_2} cdots g_n^{epsilon_n}$ (where each $g_i$ is either $a$ or $b$, and each $epsilon_i$ is either $1$ or $-1$), then $varphi(g_1^{epsilon_1}g_2^{epsilon_2} cdots g_n^{epsilon_n}) = varphi(g_1)^{epsilon_1} varphi(g_2)^{epsilon_2} cdots varphi(g_n)^{epsilon_n}$.



If this is well-defined, then this is obviously a homomorphism. However, I do not know if this is well defined. I suspect not.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Hint: Every group is in particular generated by all of it's elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul K
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @PaulK Ah so that would yield that any map from a group to itself is a homomorphism?
    $endgroup$
    – Blue
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    It is well-defined if and only if $a$ and $b$ satisfy all the relations in $G$ that $x$ and $y$ satisfy in $H$ (in particular, you can focus on a minimal defining set of relations for $x,y$).
    $endgroup$
    – runway44
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @runway44, it's the other way around, $x,y$ need to satisfy in $H$ what $a,b$ satisfy in $G$. Look at the case when $H$ is trivial. Then $x = y = e_H$, and obviously $a$ and $b$ don't need to satisfy it.
    $endgroup$
    – Ennar
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Ennar Oops, right.
    $endgroup$
    – runway44
    6 hours ago


















4














$begingroup$


I was trying to define a homomorphism between some finite groups and I had the following idea.



Suppose that $G = langle a, brangle $, and $H = langle x, yrangle$. We define $varphi:G to H$ by $varphi(a)=x,$ $varphi(b)=y$, and for an arbitrary element of $G$, $g_1^{epsilon_1}g_2^{epsilon_2} cdots g_n^{epsilon_n}$ (where each $g_i$ is either $a$ or $b$, and each $epsilon_i$ is either $1$ or $-1$), then $varphi(g_1^{epsilon_1}g_2^{epsilon_2} cdots g_n^{epsilon_n}) = varphi(g_1)^{epsilon_1} varphi(g_2)^{epsilon_2} cdots varphi(g_n)^{epsilon_n}$.



If this is well-defined, then this is obviously a homomorphism. However, I do not know if this is well defined. I suspect not.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Hint: Every group is in particular generated by all of it's elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul K
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @PaulK Ah so that would yield that any map from a group to itself is a homomorphism?
    $endgroup$
    – Blue
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    It is well-defined if and only if $a$ and $b$ satisfy all the relations in $G$ that $x$ and $y$ satisfy in $H$ (in particular, you can focus on a minimal defining set of relations for $x,y$).
    $endgroup$
    – runway44
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @runway44, it's the other way around, $x,y$ need to satisfy in $H$ what $a,b$ satisfy in $G$. Look at the case when $H$ is trivial. Then $x = y = e_H$, and obviously $a$ and $b$ don't need to satisfy it.
    $endgroup$
    – Ennar
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Ennar Oops, right.
    $endgroup$
    – runway44
    6 hours ago














4












4








4


1



$begingroup$


I was trying to define a homomorphism between some finite groups and I had the following idea.



Suppose that $G = langle a, brangle $, and $H = langle x, yrangle$. We define $varphi:G to H$ by $varphi(a)=x,$ $varphi(b)=y$, and for an arbitrary element of $G$, $g_1^{epsilon_1}g_2^{epsilon_2} cdots g_n^{epsilon_n}$ (where each $g_i$ is either $a$ or $b$, and each $epsilon_i$ is either $1$ or $-1$), then $varphi(g_1^{epsilon_1}g_2^{epsilon_2} cdots g_n^{epsilon_n}) = varphi(g_1)^{epsilon_1} varphi(g_2)^{epsilon_2} cdots varphi(g_n)^{epsilon_n}$.



If this is well-defined, then this is obviously a homomorphism. However, I do not know if this is well defined. I suspect not.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I was trying to define a homomorphism between some finite groups and I had the following idea.



Suppose that $G = langle a, brangle $, and $H = langle x, yrangle$. We define $varphi:G to H$ by $varphi(a)=x,$ $varphi(b)=y$, and for an arbitrary element of $G$, $g_1^{epsilon_1}g_2^{epsilon_2} cdots g_n^{epsilon_n}$ (where each $g_i$ is either $a$ or $b$, and each $epsilon_i$ is either $1$ or $-1$), then $varphi(g_1^{epsilon_1}g_2^{epsilon_2} cdots g_n^{epsilon_n}) = varphi(g_1)^{epsilon_1} varphi(g_2)^{epsilon_2} cdots varphi(g_n)^{epsilon_n}$.



If this is well-defined, then this is obviously a homomorphism. However, I do not know if this is well defined. I suspect not.







abstract-algebra group-theory group-homomorphism






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question



share|cite|improve this question








edited 9 hours ago









Shaun

13.6k12 gold badges39 silver badges127 bronze badges




13.6k12 gold badges39 silver badges127 bronze badges










asked 9 hours ago









BlueBlue

1524 bronze badges




1524 bronze badges











  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Hint: Every group is in particular generated by all of it's elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul K
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @PaulK Ah so that would yield that any map from a group to itself is a homomorphism?
    $endgroup$
    – Blue
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    It is well-defined if and only if $a$ and $b$ satisfy all the relations in $G$ that $x$ and $y$ satisfy in $H$ (in particular, you can focus on a minimal defining set of relations for $x,y$).
    $endgroup$
    – runway44
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @runway44, it's the other way around, $x,y$ need to satisfy in $H$ what $a,b$ satisfy in $G$. Look at the case when $H$ is trivial. Then $x = y = e_H$, and obviously $a$ and $b$ don't need to satisfy it.
    $endgroup$
    – Ennar
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Ennar Oops, right.
    $endgroup$
    – runway44
    6 hours ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Hint: Every group is in particular generated by all of it's elements.
    $endgroup$
    – Paul K
    9 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @PaulK Ah so that would yield that any map from a group to itself is a homomorphism?
    $endgroup$
    – Blue
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    It is well-defined if and only if $a$ and $b$ satisfy all the relations in $G$ that $x$ and $y$ satisfy in $H$ (in particular, you can focus on a minimal defining set of relations for $x,y$).
    $endgroup$
    – runway44
    8 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @runway44, it's the other way around, $x,y$ need to satisfy in $H$ what $a,b$ satisfy in $G$. Look at the case when $H$ is trivial. Then $x = y = e_H$, and obviously $a$ and $b$ don't need to satisfy it.
    $endgroup$
    – Ennar
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Ennar Oops, right.
    $endgroup$
    – runway44
    6 hours ago








1




1




$begingroup$
Hint: Every group is in particular generated by all of it's elements.
$endgroup$
– Paul K
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
Hint: Every group is in particular generated by all of it's elements.
$endgroup$
– Paul K
9 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
@PaulK Ah so that would yield that any map from a group to itself is a homomorphism?
$endgroup$
– Blue
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
@PaulK Ah so that would yield that any map from a group to itself is a homomorphism?
$endgroup$
– Blue
9 hours ago












$begingroup$
It is well-defined if and only if $a$ and $b$ satisfy all the relations in $G$ that $x$ and $y$ satisfy in $H$ (in particular, you can focus on a minimal defining set of relations for $x,y$).
$endgroup$
– runway44
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
It is well-defined if and only if $a$ and $b$ satisfy all the relations in $G$ that $x$ and $y$ satisfy in $H$ (in particular, you can focus on a minimal defining set of relations for $x,y$).
$endgroup$
– runway44
8 hours ago












$begingroup$
@runway44, it's the other way around, $x,y$ need to satisfy in $H$ what $a,b$ satisfy in $G$. Look at the case when $H$ is trivial. Then $x = y = e_H$, and obviously $a$ and $b$ don't need to satisfy it.
$endgroup$
– Ennar
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
@runway44, it's the other way around, $x,y$ need to satisfy in $H$ what $a,b$ satisfy in $G$. Look at the case when $H$ is trivial. Then $x = y = e_H$, and obviously $a$ and $b$ don't need to satisfy it.
$endgroup$
– Ennar
7 hours ago












$begingroup$
@Ennar Oops, right.
$endgroup$
– runway44
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Ennar Oops, right.
$endgroup$
– runway44
6 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3
















$begingroup$

Any arbitrary map of generators to generators need not extend to a homomorphism, even if there is only one generator. For example, there is no nontrivial homomorphism between two cyclic groups of different prime orders.



The problem is that any combination of generators that results in the identity in the original group must also evaluate to the identity when you map to the target generators. Otherwise the map would not be a homomorphism.






share|cite|improve this answer












$endgroup$















  • $begingroup$
    Or perhaps the issue is rather that the map would not be well defined. An element of the original group can be expressed in different ways using the generators (unless the group is free), and for the definition to make sense all these different expressions for the domain element must lead to the same target element.
    $endgroup$
    – Joonas Ilmavirta
    39 mins ago



















1
















$begingroup$

Look at it this way. If what you propose was well-defined in general, then your $varphi$ would always have inverse $psicolon Hto G$ just by setting $psi(x)=a$, $psi(y) = b$. But not all groups generated by two elements are isomorphic. For example look at $mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimes mathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$, $F_2$ (free group generated by two elements), and any dihedral group $D_n$.



In general, for the group $G$ to be generated by two elements, it means that there is an epimorphism $varepsiloncolon F_2to G$ and by the first isomorphism theorem $Gcong F_2/kervarepsilon$. So, to define $varphicolon Gto H$, you need to have a homomorhpism $psicolon F_2 to H$ such that $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$, by the fundamental homomorphism theorem.



To explain what it means precisely, let $F_2 = langle x,yrangle$ and $G = langle a,brangle$. In this case, $varepsilon$ is just $xmapsto a$ and $ymapsto b$. To specify $psi$, it is enough to pick any two elements $h_1,h_2in H$ and let $psi(x) = h_1$, $psi(y) = h_2$. This always does define homomorphism - this is by definition of a free group, and this is essentially what you wanted to do, but for group $G$. Now, condition $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$ is equivalent to saying that for all $a^{alpha_1}b^{beta_1}ldots a^{alpha_n}b^{beta_n} = e_G$, it must be that $h_1^{alpha_1}h_2^{beta_1}ldots h_1^{alpha_n}h_2^{beta_n} = e_H.$ If that's true, you can set $varphi(a) = h_1$, $varphi(b) = h_2$, and it will be well-defined.



For more concrete example, let's take $G = mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$ and $H = mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$. Let $a = (1,0)$ and $b = (0,1)$. Note that $2a = 2b = (0,0)$ (I've switched to additive notation, as is customary). However, for any hypothetical $varphicolon Gto H$, $2varphi(a) = varphi(2a) = varphi(0,0) = (0,0)$. Since the only $hin H$ such that $2h = (0,0)$ is $h = (0,0)$, we need to have $varphi(a) = (0,0)$ and similarly $varphi(b) = (0,0)$. So, the only homomorphism is trivial.






share|cite|improve this answer










$endgroup$























    0
















    $begingroup$

    I think it is not, in general, well-defined. If it is indeed a well-defined map, then it is a surjection from $G$ onto $H$. Also, we can similarly define a surjection of $H$ onto $G$. But then we would have that any two groups generated by $2$ elements have the same cardinality, which is probably not true.






    share|cite|improve this answer










    $endgroup$

















      Your Answer








      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/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 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%2f3383268%2fis-mapping-generators-to-generators-and-then-extending-a-well-defined-homomorp%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown


























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      3
















      $begingroup$

      Any arbitrary map of generators to generators need not extend to a homomorphism, even if there is only one generator. For example, there is no nontrivial homomorphism between two cyclic groups of different prime orders.



      The problem is that any combination of generators that results in the identity in the original group must also evaluate to the identity when you map to the target generators. Otherwise the map would not be a homomorphism.






      share|cite|improve this answer












      $endgroup$















      • $begingroup$
        Or perhaps the issue is rather that the map would not be well defined. An element of the original group can be expressed in different ways using the generators (unless the group is free), and for the definition to make sense all these different expressions for the domain element must lead to the same target element.
        $endgroup$
        – Joonas Ilmavirta
        39 mins ago
















      3
















      $begingroup$

      Any arbitrary map of generators to generators need not extend to a homomorphism, even if there is only one generator. For example, there is no nontrivial homomorphism between two cyclic groups of different prime orders.



      The problem is that any combination of generators that results in the identity in the original group must also evaluate to the identity when you map to the target generators. Otherwise the map would not be a homomorphism.






      share|cite|improve this answer












      $endgroup$















      • $begingroup$
        Or perhaps the issue is rather that the map would not be well defined. An element of the original group can be expressed in different ways using the generators (unless the group is free), and for the definition to make sense all these different expressions for the domain element must lead to the same target element.
        $endgroup$
        – Joonas Ilmavirta
        39 mins ago














      3














      3










      3







      $begingroup$

      Any arbitrary map of generators to generators need not extend to a homomorphism, even if there is only one generator. For example, there is no nontrivial homomorphism between two cyclic groups of different prime orders.



      The problem is that any combination of generators that results in the identity in the original group must also evaluate to the identity when you map to the target generators. Otherwise the map would not be a homomorphism.






      share|cite|improve this answer












      $endgroup$



      Any arbitrary map of generators to generators need not extend to a homomorphism, even if there is only one generator. For example, there is no nontrivial homomorphism between two cyclic groups of different prime orders.



      The problem is that any combination of generators that results in the identity in the original group must also evaluate to the identity when you map to the target generators. Otherwise the map would not be a homomorphism.







      share|cite|improve this answer















      share|cite|improve this answer




      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited 6 hours ago

























      answered 8 hours ago









      Matt SamuelMatt Samuel

      42.6k6 gold badges42 silver badges74 bronze badges




      42.6k6 gold badges42 silver badges74 bronze badges















      • $begingroup$
        Or perhaps the issue is rather that the map would not be well defined. An element of the original group can be expressed in different ways using the generators (unless the group is free), and for the definition to make sense all these different expressions for the domain element must lead to the same target element.
        $endgroup$
        – Joonas Ilmavirta
        39 mins ago


















      • $begingroup$
        Or perhaps the issue is rather that the map would not be well defined. An element of the original group can be expressed in different ways using the generators (unless the group is free), and for the definition to make sense all these different expressions for the domain element must lead to the same target element.
        $endgroup$
        – Joonas Ilmavirta
        39 mins ago
















      $begingroup$
      Or perhaps the issue is rather that the map would not be well defined. An element of the original group can be expressed in different ways using the generators (unless the group is free), and for the definition to make sense all these different expressions for the domain element must lead to the same target element.
      $endgroup$
      – Joonas Ilmavirta
      39 mins ago




      $begingroup$
      Or perhaps the issue is rather that the map would not be well defined. An element of the original group can be expressed in different ways using the generators (unless the group is free), and for the definition to make sense all these different expressions for the domain element must lead to the same target element.
      $endgroup$
      – Joonas Ilmavirta
      39 mins ago













      1
















      $begingroup$

      Look at it this way. If what you propose was well-defined in general, then your $varphi$ would always have inverse $psicolon Hto G$ just by setting $psi(x)=a$, $psi(y) = b$. But not all groups generated by two elements are isomorphic. For example look at $mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimes mathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$, $F_2$ (free group generated by two elements), and any dihedral group $D_n$.



      In general, for the group $G$ to be generated by two elements, it means that there is an epimorphism $varepsiloncolon F_2to G$ and by the first isomorphism theorem $Gcong F_2/kervarepsilon$. So, to define $varphicolon Gto H$, you need to have a homomorhpism $psicolon F_2 to H$ such that $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$, by the fundamental homomorphism theorem.



      To explain what it means precisely, let $F_2 = langle x,yrangle$ and $G = langle a,brangle$. In this case, $varepsilon$ is just $xmapsto a$ and $ymapsto b$. To specify $psi$, it is enough to pick any two elements $h_1,h_2in H$ and let $psi(x) = h_1$, $psi(y) = h_2$. This always does define homomorphism - this is by definition of a free group, and this is essentially what you wanted to do, but for group $G$. Now, condition $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$ is equivalent to saying that for all $a^{alpha_1}b^{beta_1}ldots a^{alpha_n}b^{beta_n} = e_G$, it must be that $h_1^{alpha_1}h_2^{beta_1}ldots h_1^{alpha_n}h_2^{beta_n} = e_H.$ If that's true, you can set $varphi(a) = h_1$, $varphi(b) = h_2$, and it will be well-defined.



      For more concrete example, let's take $G = mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$ and $H = mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$. Let $a = (1,0)$ and $b = (0,1)$. Note that $2a = 2b = (0,0)$ (I've switched to additive notation, as is customary). However, for any hypothetical $varphicolon Gto H$, $2varphi(a) = varphi(2a) = varphi(0,0) = (0,0)$. Since the only $hin H$ such that $2h = (0,0)$ is $h = (0,0)$, we need to have $varphi(a) = (0,0)$ and similarly $varphi(b) = (0,0)$. So, the only homomorphism is trivial.






      share|cite|improve this answer










      $endgroup$




















        1
















        $begingroup$

        Look at it this way. If what you propose was well-defined in general, then your $varphi$ would always have inverse $psicolon Hto G$ just by setting $psi(x)=a$, $psi(y) = b$. But not all groups generated by two elements are isomorphic. For example look at $mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimes mathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$, $F_2$ (free group generated by two elements), and any dihedral group $D_n$.



        In general, for the group $G$ to be generated by two elements, it means that there is an epimorphism $varepsiloncolon F_2to G$ and by the first isomorphism theorem $Gcong F_2/kervarepsilon$. So, to define $varphicolon Gto H$, you need to have a homomorhpism $psicolon F_2 to H$ such that $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$, by the fundamental homomorphism theorem.



        To explain what it means precisely, let $F_2 = langle x,yrangle$ and $G = langle a,brangle$. In this case, $varepsilon$ is just $xmapsto a$ and $ymapsto b$. To specify $psi$, it is enough to pick any two elements $h_1,h_2in H$ and let $psi(x) = h_1$, $psi(y) = h_2$. This always does define homomorphism - this is by definition of a free group, and this is essentially what you wanted to do, but for group $G$. Now, condition $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$ is equivalent to saying that for all $a^{alpha_1}b^{beta_1}ldots a^{alpha_n}b^{beta_n} = e_G$, it must be that $h_1^{alpha_1}h_2^{beta_1}ldots h_1^{alpha_n}h_2^{beta_n} = e_H.$ If that's true, you can set $varphi(a) = h_1$, $varphi(b) = h_2$, and it will be well-defined.



        For more concrete example, let's take $G = mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$ and $H = mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$. Let $a = (1,0)$ and $b = (0,1)$. Note that $2a = 2b = (0,0)$ (I've switched to additive notation, as is customary). However, for any hypothetical $varphicolon Gto H$, $2varphi(a) = varphi(2a) = varphi(0,0) = (0,0)$. Since the only $hin H$ such that $2h = (0,0)$ is $h = (0,0)$, we need to have $varphi(a) = (0,0)$ and similarly $varphi(b) = (0,0)$. So, the only homomorphism is trivial.






        share|cite|improve this answer










        $endgroup$


















          1














          1










          1







          $begingroup$

          Look at it this way. If what you propose was well-defined in general, then your $varphi$ would always have inverse $psicolon Hto G$ just by setting $psi(x)=a$, $psi(y) = b$. But not all groups generated by two elements are isomorphic. For example look at $mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimes mathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$, $F_2$ (free group generated by two elements), and any dihedral group $D_n$.



          In general, for the group $G$ to be generated by two elements, it means that there is an epimorphism $varepsiloncolon F_2to G$ and by the first isomorphism theorem $Gcong F_2/kervarepsilon$. So, to define $varphicolon Gto H$, you need to have a homomorhpism $psicolon F_2 to H$ such that $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$, by the fundamental homomorphism theorem.



          To explain what it means precisely, let $F_2 = langle x,yrangle$ and $G = langle a,brangle$. In this case, $varepsilon$ is just $xmapsto a$ and $ymapsto b$. To specify $psi$, it is enough to pick any two elements $h_1,h_2in H$ and let $psi(x) = h_1$, $psi(y) = h_2$. This always does define homomorphism - this is by definition of a free group, and this is essentially what you wanted to do, but for group $G$. Now, condition $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$ is equivalent to saying that for all $a^{alpha_1}b^{beta_1}ldots a^{alpha_n}b^{beta_n} = e_G$, it must be that $h_1^{alpha_1}h_2^{beta_1}ldots h_1^{alpha_n}h_2^{beta_n} = e_H.$ If that's true, you can set $varphi(a) = h_1$, $varphi(b) = h_2$, and it will be well-defined.



          For more concrete example, let's take $G = mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$ and $H = mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$. Let $a = (1,0)$ and $b = (0,1)$. Note that $2a = 2b = (0,0)$ (I've switched to additive notation, as is customary). However, for any hypothetical $varphicolon Gto H$, $2varphi(a) = varphi(2a) = varphi(0,0) = (0,0)$. Since the only $hin H$ such that $2h = (0,0)$ is $h = (0,0)$, we need to have $varphi(a) = (0,0)$ and similarly $varphi(b) = (0,0)$. So, the only homomorphism is trivial.






          share|cite|improve this answer










          $endgroup$



          Look at it this way. If what you propose was well-defined in general, then your $varphi$ would always have inverse $psicolon Hto G$ just by setting $psi(x)=a$, $psi(y) = b$. But not all groups generated by two elements are isomorphic. For example look at $mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimes mathbb Z_2$, $mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$, $F_2$ (free group generated by two elements), and any dihedral group $D_n$.



          In general, for the group $G$ to be generated by two elements, it means that there is an epimorphism $varepsiloncolon F_2to G$ and by the first isomorphism theorem $Gcong F_2/kervarepsilon$. So, to define $varphicolon Gto H$, you need to have a homomorhpism $psicolon F_2 to H$ such that $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$, by the fundamental homomorphism theorem.



          To explain what it means precisely, let $F_2 = langle x,yrangle$ and $G = langle a,brangle$. In this case, $varepsilon$ is just $xmapsto a$ and $ymapsto b$. To specify $psi$, it is enough to pick any two elements $h_1,h_2in H$ and let $psi(x) = h_1$, $psi(y) = h_2$. This always does define homomorphism - this is by definition of a free group, and this is essentially what you wanted to do, but for group $G$. Now, condition $kervarepsilonsubseteq kerpsi$ is equivalent to saying that for all $a^{alpha_1}b^{beta_1}ldots a^{alpha_n}b^{beta_n} = e_G$, it must be that $h_1^{alpha_1}h_2^{beta_1}ldots h_1^{alpha_n}h_2^{beta_n} = e_H.$ If that's true, you can set $varphi(a) = h_1$, $varphi(b) = h_2$, and it will be well-defined.



          For more concrete example, let's take $G = mathbb Z_2timesmathbb Z_2$ and $H = mathbb Ztimesmathbb Z$. Let $a = (1,0)$ and $b = (0,1)$. Note that $2a = 2b = (0,0)$ (I've switched to additive notation, as is customary). However, for any hypothetical $varphicolon Gto H$, $2varphi(a) = varphi(2a) = varphi(0,0) = (0,0)$. Since the only $hin H$ such that $2h = (0,0)$ is $h = (0,0)$, we need to have $varphi(a) = (0,0)$ and similarly $varphi(b) = (0,0)$. So, the only homomorphism is trivial.







          share|cite|improve this answer













          share|cite|improve this answer




          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 7 hours ago









          EnnarEnnar

          15.4k3 gold badges24 silver badges45 bronze badges




          15.4k3 gold badges24 silver badges45 bronze badges


























              0
















              $begingroup$

              I think it is not, in general, well-defined. If it is indeed a well-defined map, then it is a surjection from $G$ onto $H$. Also, we can similarly define a surjection of $H$ onto $G$. But then we would have that any two groups generated by $2$ elements have the same cardinality, which is probably not true.






              share|cite|improve this answer










              $endgroup$




















                0
















                $begingroup$

                I think it is not, in general, well-defined. If it is indeed a well-defined map, then it is a surjection from $G$ onto $H$. Also, we can similarly define a surjection of $H$ onto $G$. But then we would have that any two groups generated by $2$ elements have the same cardinality, which is probably not true.






                share|cite|improve this answer










                $endgroup$


















                  0














                  0










                  0







                  $begingroup$

                  I think it is not, in general, well-defined. If it is indeed a well-defined map, then it is a surjection from $G$ onto $H$. Also, we can similarly define a surjection of $H$ onto $G$. But then we would have that any two groups generated by $2$ elements have the same cardinality, which is probably not true.






                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  $endgroup$



                  I think it is not, in general, well-defined. If it is indeed a well-defined map, then it is a surjection from $G$ onto $H$. Also, we can similarly define a surjection of $H$ onto $G$. But then we would have that any two groups generated by $2$ elements have the same cardinality, which is probably not true.







                  share|cite|improve this answer













                  share|cite|improve this answer




                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 9 hours ago









                  OviOvi

                  13.5k10 gold badges48 silver badges127 bronze badges




                  13.5k10 gold badges48 silver badges127 bronze badges


































                      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%2f3383268%2fis-mapping-generators-to-generators-and-then-extending-a-well-defined-homomorp%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

                      Taj Mahal Inhaltsverzeichnis Aufbau | Geschichte | 350-Jahr-Feier | Heutige Bedeutung | Siehe auch |...

                      Baia Sprie Cuprins Etimologie | Istorie | Demografie | Politică și administrație | Arii naturale...

                      Nicolae Petrescu-Găină Cuprins Biografie | Opera | In memoriam | Varia | Controverse, incertitudini...