G-congruence equivalence relation











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Let $G$ act on $X$. An equivalence relation ~ on $X$ is called a $G$-congruence if whenever $x,y in X$ then $x$~$y$ implies $xg$~$yg$ for all $g in G$.
Suppose ~ is a $G$-congruence on $X$. Show that $G$ acts on the set $X/$~ of equivalence classes.



I'm new to group actions (and most of the group theory in fact) and I'm just trying to make sure that I understand things correctly. So basically, we want to show that if we take an equivalence class of some $x in X$, denote it by $[x]$ and act (act on all elements of that class?) on it with $G$ we would get another (or possibly the same?) equivalence class back, is that correct? Since the equivalence relation that we are using to factor $X$ is of $G$-congruence type we know that by acting with G on $[x]$ we would get bunch of elements (as many as in $[x]$) in $X$ which are also equivalent to each other. But how do we know that they'd actually create another equivalence class from $X/$~, which I believe is what we want to show? It is probably something really simple but somehow I am struggling to see it.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • To prove that the induced action of $G$ on $X/sim$ is well-defined, you have to prove that, for all $g in G$ and $x,y in X$, we have $x sim y Rightarrow xg sim yg$, which follows immediately from the definition of a $G$-congruence.
    – Derek Holt
    Nov 20 at 11:29












  • Thank you Derek! Clearly I didn't quite understand what the question was asking me to do.
    – amator2357
    Nov 20 at 11:37















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












Let $G$ act on $X$. An equivalence relation ~ on $X$ is called a $G$-congruence if whenever $x,y in X$ then $x$~$y$ implies $xg$~$yg$ for all $g in G$.
Suppose ~ is a $G$-congruence on $X$. Show that $G$ acts on the set $X/$~ of equivalence classes.



I'm new to group actions (and most of the group theory in fact) and I'm just trying to make sure that I understand things correctly. So basically, we want to show that if we take an equivalence class of some $x in X$, denote it by $[x]$ and act (act on all elements of that class?) on it with $G$ we would get another (or possibly the same?) equivalence class back, is that correct? Since the equivalence relation that we are using to factor $X$ is of $G$-congruence type we know that by acting with G on $[x]$ we would get bunch of elements (as many as in $[x]$) in $X$ which are also equivalent to each other. But how do we know that they'd actually create another equivalence class from $X/$~, which I believe is what we want to show? It is probably something really simple but somehow I am struggling to see it.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • To prove that the induced action of $G$ on $X/sim$ is well-defined, you have to prove that, for all $g in G$ and $x,y in X$, we have $x sim y Rightarrow xg sim yg$, which follows immediately from the definition of a $G$-congruence.
    – Derek Holt
    Nov 20 at 11:29












  • Thank you Derek! Clearly I didn't quite understand what the question was asking me to do.
    – amator2357
    Nov 20 at 11:37













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











Let $G$ act on $X$. An equivalence relation ~ on $X$ is called a $G$-congruence if whenever $x,y in X$ then $x$~$y$ implies $xg$~$yg$ for all $g in G$.
Suppose ~ is a $G$-congruence on $X$. Show that $G$ acts on the set $X/$~ of equivalence classes.



I'm new to group actions (and most of the group theory in fact) and I'm just trying to make sure that I understand things correctly. So basically, we want to show that if we take an equivalence class of some $x in X$, denote it by $[x]$ and act (act on all elements of that class?) on it with $G$ we would get another (or possibly the same?) equivalence class back, is that correct? Since the equivalence relation that we are using to factor $X$ is of $G$-congruence type we know that by acting with G on $[x]$ we would get bunch of elements (as many as in $[x]$) in $X$ which are also equivalent to each other. But how do we know that they'd actually create another equivalence class from $X/$~, which I believe is what we want to show? It is probably something really simple but somehow I am struggling to see it.










share|cite|improve this question















Let $G$ act on $X$. An equivalence relation ~ on $X$ is called a $G$-congruence if whenever $x,y in X$ then $x$~$y$ implies $xg$~$yg$ for all $g in G$.
Suppose ~ is a $G$-congruence on $X$. Show that $G$ acts on the set $X/$~ of equivalence classes.



I'm new to group actions (and most of the group theory in fact) and I'm just trying to make sure that I understand things correctly. So basically, we want to show that if we take an equivalence class of some $x in X$, denote it by $[x]$ and act (act on all elements of that class?) on it with $G$ we would get another (or possibly the same?) equivalence class back, is that correct? Since the equivalence relation that we are using to factor $X$ is of $G$-congruence type we know that by acting with G on $[x]$ we would get bunch of elements (as many as in $[x]$) in $X$ which are also equivalent to each other. But how do we know that they'd actually create another equivalence class from $X/$~, which I believe is what we want to show? It is probably something really simple but somehow I am struggling to see it.







group-theory group-actions






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 20 at 11:20

























asked Nov 20 at 10:44









amator2357

76




76












  • To prove that the induced action of $G$ on $X/sim$ is well-defined, you have to prove that, for all $g in G$ and $x,y in X$, we have $x sim y Rightarrow xg sim yg$, which follows immediately from the definition of a $G$-congruence.
    – Derek Holt
    Nov 20 at 11:29












  • Thank you Derek! Clearly I didn't quite understand what the question was asking me to do.
    – amator2357
    Nov 20 at 11:37


















  • To prove that the induced action of $G$ on $X/sim$ is well-defined, you have to prove that, for all $g in G$ and $x,y in X$, we have $x sim y Rightarrow xg sim yg$, which follows immediately from the definition of a $G$-congruence.
    – Derek Holt
    Nov 20 at 11:29












  • Thank you Derek! Clearly I didn't quite understand what the question was asking me to do.
    – amator2357
    Nov 20 at 11:37
















To prove that the induced action of $G$ on $X/sim$ is well-defined, you have to prove that, for all $g in G$ and $x,y in X$, we have $x sim y Rightarrow xg sim yg$, which follows immediately from the definition of a $G$-congruence.
– Derek Holt
Nov 20 at 11:29






To prove that the induced action of $G$ on $X/sim$ is well-defined, you have to prove that, for all $g in G$ and $x,y in X$, we have $x sim y Rightarrow xg sim yg$, which follows immediately from the definition of a $G$-congruence.
– Derek Holt
Nov 20 at 11:29














Thank you Derek! Clearly I didn't quite understand what the question was asking me to do.
– amator2357
Nov 20 at 11:37




Thank you Derek! Clearly I didn't quite understand what the question was asking me to do.
– amator2357
Nov 20 at 11:37










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










First of all I'm going to use left action $gx$ instead of right $xg$ because it is more common. And these are (sort of) equivalent anyway.




Show that $G$ acts on the set $X/$~ of equivalence classes.




Well, this statement is a bit trivial. Because if $Y$ is any set then $G$ acts on $Y$ via $gx:=x$. There are many different ways that $G$ can act on $Y$.



But I assume that the author meant something more interesting, i.e. that there's an induced action of $G$ on $X/sim$. Induced from the action of $G$ on $X$.




So basically, we want to show that if we take an equivalence class of some $x in X$, denote it by $[x]$ and act (act on all elements of that class?) on it with $G$ we would get another (or possibly the same?) equivalence class back, is that correct?




Yes, this is correct. I mean except for act on all elements of that class. No, you don't act on elements of the class, you act on the class itself.



What you want to show is that you have some function $Gtimes Ato A$ that satisfies group action properties. In this case $A=X/sim$.



So as I've mentioned earlier there are multiple ways to define such a group action. But I assume that what the author really wanted is the action induced from the action on $X$. In other words this is what we are looking for:



$$Gtimes X/simto X/sim$$
$$(g,[x])mapsto [gx]$$



or for short $g[x]:=[gx]$. So first of all you have to show that this is a well defined function. In other words you have to show that if $[x]=[y]$ then $[gx]=[gy]$. But this follows precisley from the fact that $sim$ is a $G$-congruence.



All that is left is to show that $g[x]$ is a group action, i.e. that $g(h[x])=(gh)[x]$ and $e[x]=[x]$. But this follows from the fact that $gx$ is a group action on $X$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I see, thank you so much!
    – amator2357
    Nov 20 at 11:38











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',
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%2f3006172%2fg-congruence-equivalence-relation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
1
down vote



accepted










First of all I'm going to use left action $gx$ instead of right $xg$ because it is more common. And these are (sort of) equivalent anyway.




Show that $G$ acts on the set $X/$~ of equivalence classes.




Well, this statement is a bit trivial. Because if $Y$ is any set then $G$ acts on $Y$ via $gx:=x$. There are many different ways that $G$ can act on $Y$.



But I assume that the author meant something more interesting, i.e. that there's an induced action of $G$ on $X/sim$. Induced from the action of $G$ on $X$.




So basically, we want to show that if we take an equivalence class of some $x in X$, denote it by $[x]$ and act (act on all elements of that class?) on it with $G$ we would get another (or possibly the same?) equivalence class back, is that correct?




Yes, this is correct. I mean except for act on all elements of that class. No, you don't act on elements of the class, you act on the class itself.



What you want to show is that you have some function $Gtimes Ato A$ that satisfies group action properties. In this case $A=X/sim$.



So as I've mentioned earlier there are multiple ways to define such a group action. But I assume that what the author really wanted is the action induced from the action on $X$. In other words this is what we are looking for:



$$Gtimes X/simto X/sim$$
$$(g,[x])mapsto [gx]$$



or for short $g[x]:=[gx]$. So first of all you have to show that this is a well defined function. In other words you have to show that if $[x]=[y]$ then $[gx]=[gy]$. But this follows precisley from the fact that $sim$ is a $G$-congruence.



All that is left is to show that $g[x]$ is a group action, i.e. that $g(h[x])=(gh)[x]$ and $e[x]=[x]$. But this follows from the fact that $gx$ is a group action on $X$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I see, thank you so much!
    – amator2357
    Nov 20 at 11:38















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










First of all I'm going to use left action $gx$ instead of right $xg$ because it is more common. And these are (sort of) equivalent anyway.




Show that $G$ acts on the set $X/$~ of equivalence classes.




Well, this statement is a bit trivial. Because if $Y$ is any set then $G$ acts on $Y$ via $gx:=x$. There are many different ways that $G$ can act on $Y$.



But I assume that the author meant something more interesting, i.e. that there's an induced action of $G$ on $X/sim$. Induced from the action of $G$ on $X$.




So basically, we want to show that if we take an equivalence class of some $x in X$, denote it by $[x]$ and act (act on all elements of that class?) on it with $G$ we would get another (or possibly the same?) equivalence class back, is that correct?




Yes, this is correct. I mean except for act on all elements of that class. No, you don't act on elements of the class, you act on the class itself.



What you want to show is that you have some function $Gtimes Ato A$ that satisfies group action properties. In this case $A=X/sim$.



So as I've mentioned earlier there are multiple ways to define such a group action. But I assume that what the author really wanted is the action induced from the action on $X$. In other words this is what we are looking for:



$$Gtimes X/simto X/sim$$
$$(g,[x])mapsto [gx]$$



or for short $g[x]:=[gx]$. So first of all you have to show that this is a well defined function. In other words you have to show that if $[x]=[y]$ then $[gx]=[gy]$. But this follows precisley from the fact that $sim$ is a $G$-congruence.



All that is left is to show that $g[x]$ is a group action, i.e. that $g(h[x])=(gh)[x]$ and $e[x]=[x]$. But this follows from the fact that $gx$ is a group action on $X$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • I see, thank you so much!
    – amator2357
    Nov 20 at 11:38













up vote
1
down vote



accepted







up vote
1
down vote



accepted






First of all I'm going to use left action $gx$ instead of right $xg$ because it is more common. And these are (sort of) equivalent anyway.




Show that $G$ acts on the set $X/$~ of equivalence classes.




Well, this statement is a bit trivial. Because if $Y$ is any set then $G$ acts on $Y$ via $gx:=x$. There are many different ways that $G$ can act on $Y$.



But I assume that the author meant something more interesting, i.e. that there's an induced action of $G$ on $X/sim$. Induced from the action of $G$ on $X$.




So basically, we want to show that if we take an equivalence class of some $x in X$, denote it by $[x]$ and act (act on all elements of that class?) on it with $G$ we would get another (or possibly the same?) equivalence class back, is that correct?




Yes, this is correct. I mean except for act on all elements of that class. No, you don't act on elements of the class, you act on the class itself.



What you want to show is that you have some function $Gtimes Ato A$ that satisfies group action properties. In this case $A=X/sim$.



So as I've mentioned earlier there are multiple ways to define such a group action. But I assume that what the author really wanted is the action induced from the action on $X$. In other words this is what we are looking for:



$$Gtimes X/simto X/sim$$
$$(g,[x])mapsto [gx]$$



or for short $g[x]:=[gx]$. So first of all you have to show that this is a well defined function. In other words you have to show that if $[x]=[y]$ then $[gx]=[gy]$. But this follows precisley from the fact that $sim$ is a $G$-congruence.



All that is left is to show that $g[x]$ is a group action, i.e. that $g(h[x])=(gh)[x]$ and $e[x]=[x]$. But this follows from the fact that $gx$ is a group action on $X$.






share|cite|improve this answer












First of all I'm going to use left action $gx$ instead of right $xg$ because it is more common. And these are (sort of) equivalent anyway.




Show that $G$ acts on the set $X/$~ of equivalence classes.




Well, this statement is a bit trivial. Because if $Y$ is any set then $G$ acts on $Y$ via $gx:=x$. There are many different ways that $G$ can act on $Y$.



But I assume that the author meant something more interesting, i.e. that there's an induced action of $G$ on $X/sim$. Induced from the action of $G$ on $X$.




So basically, we want to show that if we take an equivalence class of some $x in X$, denote it by $[x]$ and act (act on all elements of that class?) on it with $G$ we would get another (or possibly the same?) equivalence class back, is that correct?




Yes, this is correct. I mean except for act on all elements of that class. No, you don't act on elements of the class, you act on the class itself.



What you want to show is that you have some function $Gtimes Ato A$ that satisfies group action properties. In this case $A=X/sim$.



So as I've mentioned earlier there are multiple ways to define such a group action. But I assume that what the author really wanted is the action induced from the action on $X$. In other words this is what we are looking for:



$$Gtimes X/simto X/sim$$
$$(g,[x])mapsto [gx]$$



or for short $g[x]:=[gx]$. So first of all you have to show that this is a well defined function. In other words you have to show that if $[x]=[y]$ then $[gx]=[gy]$. But this follows precisley from the fact that $sim$ is a $G$-congruence.



All that is left is to show that $g[x]$ is a group action, i.e. that $g(h[x])=(gh)[x]$ and $e[x]=[x]$. But this follows from the fact that $gx$ is a group action on $X$.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Nov 20 at 11:29









freakish

10.4k1526




10.4k1526












  • I see, thank you so much!
    – amator2357
    Nov 20 at 11:38


















  • I see, thank you so much!
    – amator2357
    Nov 20 at 11:38
















I see, thank you so much!
– amator2357
Nov 20 at 11:38




I see, thank you so much!
– amator2357
Nov 20 at 11:38


















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006172%2fg-congruence-equivalence-relation%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

Wiesbaden

Marschland

Dieringhausen