Misc things that are taught in class but not written in the note of MATH 210.
Functors
Functor as a Colimit
For any small category C and any functor F:Cop→Sets,
F can be written as a colimit of representable functors X^=MorC(−,x).
Proof
The trick here is to pick a diagram I.
TA said "stop thinking and just write for category problems", so let's just write down what we can do.
By Yoneda lemma, there exists a natural transformation α:X^⇒F
if and only if F(X) is not empty.
Therefore, foreach nonempty F(X) we can take an arbitrary uX∈F(X)
To satisfy the commutativity requirements we need to have uX=Ff(uY) for f:X→Y.
There is no guarentee that we can pick such elements for every F(X), so let's just focus on the part we can pick.
Define a natural transformation λX:X^⇒F as αuX in the Yoneda lemma:
λYX:X^(Y)f→↦F(Y)Ff(uX)
F is a cocone. Because for all g:X→Y, λY∘g∗=λX as:
λZY∘g∗(f)=λZY(g∘f)=Ff∘Fg(uY)=Ff(uX)=λZX(f).
Clearly, F is not a colimit:
- We did not handle every F(X).
- We only picked one special element from each F(X), which cannot represent the whole property of F.
So let's fix this.
What we do is picking all possible uX, instead of one element.
(i.e. Comma Category)
Let J be the category of all pairs (Y,x) s.t. x∈F(Y),
with morphisms (Y,x)→(Y′,x′) for f:Y′→Y in C and Ff(x)=x′ in Set.
Note that multiple objects in the diagram can be mapped to one in the category.
Therefore, we define this map M:J→Fun(Cop,Set) as
M(Y,x)=Y^.
Then, there are ∥F(X)∥ many pairs mapped to the same X^.
We need to specify a λX:X^⇒F for each of this copy.
Naturally, just assign λX=αx for (X,x)→X^→F.
Recall how we defined αX:X^⇒F in the proof of Yoneda lemma:
αYx:X^(Y)f=↦MorC(Y,X)→F(Y)Ff(x)
There is another way of thinking this.
Let Fun(Cop,Set)/F denote this category of objects
G⇒F, with morphisms G1→G2 if G1⇒G2⇒F commutes with G1⇒F.
Let J be the full subcategory of X^⇒F for all X∈C.
There are ∣F(X)∣ many of them, as a natural transformation α is uniquely decided by αX(idX),
which can be any element in F(X).
Let u:J→Fun(Cop,Set) be the forgetful functor:
u(X^⇒F)=X^.
Then, u is the map from the diagram to representable functors.
Y is a union of multiple cocones, so it is a cocone, which can be proved exactly as what we did at the beginning.
Now, we need to show that Y is a colimit.
Suppose F′:Cop→Set is another cocone, with natural transformations
λ′X:X^⇒F′ for the diagram object (X,x) in J.
By Yoneda lemma, for all X there exists an element uX′∈F′(X)
(namely uX′=λX′X(idX))
s.t. for all f:Y→X, λY′X(f)=Ff(uX′).
Now, we can define a natural transformation β:F⇒F′ as:
βX(x)=uX′, i.e. mapping the deciding element to the deciding element.
Note that uX′ depends on the pair (X,x) and there is one for each x∈F(X).
Since for any X,Y∈C and f:Y→X,
βY∘Ff(x)=uY′=F′f(uX′)=F′f∘βX(x)
β is natural. Clearly β is unique. Thus, F is a colimit.
Adjoint Functor Theorem
Given a small-complete category D with small morphism sets,
a functor R:D→C has a left joint if and only
if it preserves all small limits and satisfying the following solution set condition.
Solution Set Condition: For each X∈C there is a small set I and
gi:X→R(Yi) s.t. every h:X→R(Y) can be written as h=R(f)∘gi
for some f:Yi→Y.
Proof
If R has a left adjoint L:C→D, it must preserve all limits and
the natural transformation η:IdC⇒RL
satisfies the solution set condition, with I the one-point set.
This is because for all h:X→R(Y), we can find a unique αX,Y−1(h)=f:L(X)→Y
s.t. h=R(f)∘ηX.
Conversely, given those conditions, it suffices to construct for each X∈C
a universal arrow ηX:X→R(YX),
where universality means for each h:X→R(Y), we can find a unique f:YX→Y s.t.
h=R(f)∘ηX.
to R.
Then, R has a left adjoint L, by L(X)=YX and L(h) being the unique f.
In other words, we need to find a initial object ⟨ηX,YX⟩ in the comma category (X↓R)
for all X.
Here, given X∈C and F:D→C,
the comma category (X↓F) is defined as a category with
objects ⟨f,Y⟩ s.t. f:X→F(Y).
Morphisms h:⟨f,Y⟩→⟨f′,Y′⟩ are
h:Y→Y′ s.t. f′=F(h)∘f.
Lemma: If F:D→C preserve all small limits,
then for each X∈C, the projection:
QX:(X↓F)(X→F(Y))→↦DY
creates all small limits in the comma category.
Proof of Lemma: Suppose fi:X→F(Yi) is an I indexed family of objects in the comma category.
Let (limIYi,λ) be a limit in D, and θ:Yj→Yk s.t. fk=F(θ)∘fj.
Since F preserves limits, F(limIYi) is a limit of
F(Yj) and F(λk)=F(λj)∘F(θ).
Then, there is a unique f:X→F(limIYi) s.t. fi=F(λi)∘f for all i∈I.
Thus, f=limIfi.
Now, (X↓R) is a small-complete category satisfying the solution set condition:
there is a small set I and gi∈(X↓R), s.t. for every h∈(X↓R)
there exists a morphism gi→h for some i∈I.
It suffices to prove (X↓R) has an initial object.
This is true because (X↓R) is small complete,
we can construct a product of all gi and then construct an equalizer of all endomorphisms of it.
Then, the equalizer is an initial object.
Actually this is what we did in the class to construct the free group functor.
Check MacLane p123.
Sylow Theorem and Finite Groups
Notations
- gh=ghg−1: conjugation — 共軛(やく)
- orbG(x)=G⋅x={g⋅x:g∈G}: orbit — 軌道
- stabG(x)={g∈G:g⋅x=x} — 固定部分群
- XG={x∈X:g⋅x=x,∀g∈G} — 不変元
- If G is a finite p-group, ∥X∥≡∥XG∥ modulo p
- Z(G)={g∈G:xg=gx,∀x∈G}: center — 中心
- If G is a finite p-group, p∥Z(G) and thus Z(G)>0.
- n=vp(∥G∥): the highest power of p that divides the order G — Gの位数に於けるpの重複度
Cauchy's Lemma
If p divides ∥G∥, then G contains an element of order p.
Sylow Theorems
- Existence: p-Sylow always exists.
- (a) Every p-subgroup is contained in a p-Sylow subgroup.
- (b) Two Sylow subgroups are conjugate in G.
- (c) The number of Sylow subgroups is congruent to 1 modulo p.
- Corollary: A p-Sylow is unique if and only if it is normal in G.
Proof
Existence:
Inductive Proof: Prove by mathematical induction on the order.
If there exists a proper subgroup H<G of index prime to p, then by induction H has a p-Sylow.
If all proper subgroups have index divisible by p, then
∣Z(G)∣=∣GG∣≡∣G∣≡0 (mod p)
Here actions are conjugations.
Thus, there exists an element x of order p.
If vp(∥G∥)=1, then ⟨x⟩ is a Sylow.
If vp(∥G∥)>1, then G/⟨x⟩ has a p-Sylow Pˉ=P/⟨x⟩,
which gives P is a Sylow.
Constructive Proof: Consider Y being the set of all subsets of size pn of G, where n=vp(∥G∥).
Consider G acts on Y via left multiplication (coset).
By Lucas theorem,
∣Y∣=(pn∣G∣)≡(1∣G∣/pn)(00)n−1=∣G∣/pn≡0 (mod p)
Since ∥Y∥=∑X∈Y[G:stabG(X)], there exists some X s.t. [G:stabG(X)] is not divided by p.
Let H=stabG(X).
Since [G:stabG(X)]=∥H∥∥G∥, H is divided by pn.
By the definition of stablizer, Hx⊆X for all x∈X.
Then, ∥H∥=∥Hx∥≤∥X∥=pn. Thus, ∥H∥=pn.
Key Remark: If H≤G is a p-group and P≤G is a p-Sylow s.t. H normalizes P, then H≤P.
Consider ⟨H∪P⟩=HP.
By second isomorphism theorem, [HP:P]=[H:H∩P] is a power of p.
Thus, HP is a p-subgroup containing P.
Since P is p-Sylow, HP=P, which gives [H:H∩P]=1 and H≤P.
(a) & (b):
Let P0 be one Sylow subgroup and X={gP0:g∈G} be the set of its conjugates.
Clearly, X is a set of p-Sylow subgroups.
Suppose H≤G is a p group and let H acts on X via conjugation.
∣XH∣≡∣X∣=[G:stabG(P0)]=[G:NG(P0)] (mod p)
Since P0≤NG(P0), [G:NG(P0)] is a factor of [G:P0], and thus prime to p.
Then, ∥XH∥ is prime to p.
Thus, there exists P∈XH which is conjugate to P0 and normalized by H.
Note that P is a p-Sylow subgroup, so by the key remark, H≤P.
(c):
Consider the action P0 on X by conjugation.
By the key remark, P0 is a subgroup of any fixed point, so the only fixed point is P0 itself.
Hence, ∥X∥≡∥XP0∥=1 (mod p).
By (b), X contains all Sylow groups.
Corollary:
X={P} iff. P is normal in G.
Remark:
∥X∥ divides ∥G∥, because it's the index of a stablizer.
Schur–Zassenhaus theorem
Suppose N→G→H is a short exact sequence (s.e.s., 短完全系列) s.t. ∥N∥ and ∥H∥ are coprime.
Then, the s.e.s. is a split; i.e. G≅N⋊H.
Moreover, any two subgroups in G of order ∥H∥ are conjugate to each other.
A general case is N⊴G and H=G/N s.t. ∥N∥ and ∥G/N∥ are coprime.
The general proof (especially part 2) is difficult and thus omitted here.
For a special case, refer to Prop. 2.7.20 in Math210 Notes, case (ii).
Application: Groups of Order 30
Any group of prime order is cyclic
By the fact that any subgroup generated by a non-trivial element is the whole group.
The only group of order 15 is cyclic
Since 15=3×5 and 5, 3 is not congruent to 1 modulo each other,
G15 contains exactly one 5 subgroup and one 3 subgroup, which are all normal in G15.
Thus, G15≅C3×C5=C15.
The number of automorphisms of a cyclic group is its order's Euler function
Since Cn={1,c,…,cn−1} is gnerated by c,
an automorphism φ on it should be decided by φ(c).
Given that every ck where k is coprime to n is a generator,
there are ϕ(n) automorphisms.
Actually, Aut(Cn)≅Cn×, with the latter one denotes the reduced residue system group of n.
(i.e. unit group of ring Z/n)
When n is prime, by the existence of primitive root, Aut(Cn)≅Cn−1.
There are 4 isomorphic types for 30
Let np denote the number of p-Sylow subgroups.
By Sylow, n2∈{1,3,5,15}, n3∈{1,10}, n5∈{1,6}.
It is impossible for n3=10∧n5=6, because otherwise there will be
(3−1)×10 elements of order 3 and (5−1)×6 elements of order 5.
Then, at least one of the Sylow subgroup P3 and P5 will be normal in G.
Thus, by Second Isomorphism Theorem, N=P3P5≤G.
By gcd(3,5)=1, P3∩P5={1} and thus ∥N∥=15, N≅C15.
[G:N]=2, so N is normal.
Thus, by S-Z theorem, G≅C15⋊C2.
Now consider the group action α of C2 on C15.
We have Aut(C15)≅C3××C5×≅C2×C4.
Since 1 in C2 has order 2, its image's order should divide 2.
There are only 4 elements: {(0,0),(1,0),(0,2),(1,2)} or equivalently {[1],[11],[4],[14]}
Thus, there are 4 isomorphic types.
By the definition of ⋊, for a,b∈C15 and h∈C2, we have
- (a,0)⋅(b,h)=(a+b,h);
- (a,1)⋅(b,h)=(a+α(b),h)=(a+α(1)b,h).
Now let's inspect these four types:
- For α(1)=[1], we have C15⋊C2≅C15×C2≅C30.
- If n,m coprime, then (1,1)∈Cn×Cm is of order nm and thus Cn×Cm≅Cnm.
- For α(1)=[14]=[−1], C15⋊C2≅D15.
- Dn≅Cn⋊−1C2, with (p,q) mapping to rpsq.
- For α(1)=[4], the element (1,1) has order 6 ((1,1)→(5,0)→(6,1)→(10,0)→(11,1)→(0,0)).
Thus, we have C15⋊C2≅C3×D5.
- With (0,0)↦(0,e), (0,1)↦(0,s), (1,0)↦(1,r), (6,0)↦(0,r),(10,0)↦(1,e).
- For α(1)=[11]=[−4], the element (1,1) has order 10.
We have C15⋊C2≅C5×S3.
- With (0,0)↦(0,()), (6,0)↦(1,()), (0,1)↦(0,(12)), (0,1)↦(0,(23)),
(5,1)↦(0,(23)), (10,0)↦(0,(123)), (5,0)↦(0,(123)).
Misc on Group
Five Lemma (5項補題)
It's hard to show without figure (>_<)
Let G1→G2→G3→G4→G5 and H1→H2→H3→H4→H5 be exact (完全) at 2,3,4.
Let homomorphisms fi:Gi→Hi be commutative in the square diagram.
Then, if f1,f2,f4,f5 are isomorphisms, so is f3.
Proof
Prove by chasing on two 4-squares.
Let αi:Gi→Gi+1 and βi:Hi→Hi+1 denote those exact homomorphisms.
Claim: f3 is onto:
- Arbitrarily pick h3∈H3.
- Since f4 is surjective, there exists g4∈G4 s.t. f4(g4)=β3(h3).
- By exactness at H4, β5∘β4(h3)=1.
- By commutativity, f5∘α4(g4)=β4∘f4(g4)=β5∘β4(h3)=1.
- Since f5 is injective, α4(g4)=1; thus, g4∈Im(α3).
- Pick g3∈G3 s.t. α3(g3)=g4.
- Let z=f3(g3)−1h3.
- Then, β3(z)=f4(g4)−1β3(h3)=1.
- By the exactness at H3, z∈Im(β2).
- Since f2 is surjective, there exists g2∈G2 s.t. β2∘f2(g2)=z=f3∘α3(g2).
- Thus, f3(g3⋅α3(g2))=h3.
Similarly, f3 is one to one.
Thus, f3 is an isomorphism.
References
- Saunders Mac Lane, Categories for the working mathematician, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
- Paul Balmer, UCLA MATH210A, Fall 2020.