Difference between the product group, the direct sum and the free group












2












$begingroup$


The following is from Hatcher's Algebraic Topology:




Suppose one is given a collection of groups $G_{alpha}$ and one wishes to construct a single group containing all these groups as subgroups. One way to do this would be to take the product group $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$, whose elements can be regarded as the functions $alphamapsto g_{alpha}in G_{alpha}$. Or one could restrict to functions taking on nonidentity values at most finitely often, forming the direct sum $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$. Both these constructions produce groups containing all the $G_{alpha}$'s as subgroups, but with the property that elements of different subgroups $G_{alpha}$ commute with each other. In the realm of nonabelian groups this commutativity is unnatural, and so one would like a nonabelian version of $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$ or $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$. Since the sum $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$ is smaller and presumably simpler than $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$, it sould be easier to construct a nonabelian version of $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$, and this is what the free product achieves.




Can someone explain what he means by "but with the property that elements of different subgroups $G_{alpha}$ commute with each other."?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    The following is from Hatcher's Algebraic Topology:




    Suppose one is given a collection of groups $G_{alpha}$ and one wishes to construct a single group containing all these groups as subgroups. One way to do this would be to take the product group $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$, whose elements can be regarded as the functions $alphamapsto g_{alpha}in G_{alpha}$. Or one could restrict to functions taking on nonidentity values at most finitely often, forming the direct sum $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$. Both these constructions produce groups containing all the $G_{alpha}$'s as subgroups, but with the property that elements of different subgroups $G_{alpha}$ commute with each other. In the realm of nonabelian groups this commutativity is unnatural, and so one would like a nonabelian version of $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$ or $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$. Since the sum $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$ is smaller and presumably simpler than $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$, it sould be easier to construct a nonabelian version of $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$, and this is what the free product achieves.




    Can someone explain what he means by "but with the property that elements of different subgroups $G_{alpha}$ commute with each other."?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      The following is from Hatcher's Algebraic Topology:




      Suppose one is given a collection of groups $G_{alpha}$ and one wishes to construct a single group containing all these groups as subgroups. One way to do this would be to take the product group $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$, whose elements can be regarded as the functions $alphamapsto g_{alpha}in G_{alpha}$. Or one could restrict to functions taking on nonidentity values at most finitely often, forming the direct sum $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$. Both these constructions produce groups containing all the $G_{alpha}$'s as subgroups, but with the property that elements of different subgroups $G_{alpha}$ commute with each other. In the realm of nonabelian groups this commutativity is unnatural, and so one would like a nonabelian version of $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$ or $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$. Since the sum $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$ is smaller and presumably simpler than $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$, it sould be easier to construct a nonabelian version of $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$, and this is what the free product achieves.




      Can someone explain what he means by "but with the property that elements of different subgroups $G_{alpha}$ commute with each other."?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      The following is from Hatcher's Algebraic Topology:




      Suppose one is given a collection of groups $G_{alpha}$ and one wishes to construct a single group containing all these groups as subgroups. One way to do this would be to take the product group $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$, whose elements can be regarded as the functions $alphamapsto g_{alpha}in G_{alpha}$. Or one could restrict to functions taking on nonidentity values at most finitely often, forming the direct sum $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$. Both these constructions produce groups containing all the $G_{alpha}$'s as subgroups, but with the property that elements of different subgroups $G_{alpha}$ commute with each other. In the realm of nonabelian groups this commutativity is unnatural, and so one would like a nonabelian version of $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$ or $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$. Since the sum $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$ is smaller and presumably simpler than $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$, it sould be easier to construct a nonabelian version of $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$, and this is what the free product achieves.




      Can someone explain what he means by "but with the property that elements of different subgroups $G_{alpha}$ commute with each other."?







      algebraic-topology






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Jan 5 at 16:17









      gladimetcampbellsgladimetcampbells

      382111




      382111






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          If $gin G$ and $hin H$, then these correspond to $(g,1_H)$ and $(1_G,h)$ in the direct product or sum $Goplus H$. We have
          $$ (g,1_H)cdot(1_G,h)=(gcdot_G1_G,1_Hcdot_H h)=(1_Gcdot_Gg,hcdot_H 1_G)=(1_G,h)cdot(g,1_H)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thank you. I see what he means now. By "so one would like a nonabelian version of $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$ or $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$", he does not mean these two groups are abelian for nonabelian $G_{alpha}$'s, correct? Does this mean when $G$ and $H$ are nonabelian, the commutativity of elements $(g,1_G)$ and $(1_H, h)$ are unnatural, so we would like something else in which $(g,1_G)dot(1_H, h)≠(1_H, h)dot(g,1_G)$?
            $endgroup$
            – gladimetcampbells
            Jan 5 at 16:35












          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',
          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/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%2f3062875%2fdifference-between-the-product-group-the-direct-sum-and-the-free-group%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









          2












          $begingroup$

          If $gin G$ and $hin H$, then these correspond to $(g,1_H)$ and $(1_G,h)$ in the direct product or sum $Goplus H$. We have
          $$ (g,1_H)cdot(1_G,h)=(gcdot_G1_G,1_Hcdot_H h)=(1_Gcdot_Gg,hcdot_H 1_G)=(1_G,h)cdot(g,1_H)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thank you. I see what he means now. By "so one would like a nonabelian version of $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$ or $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$", he does not mean these two groups are abelian for nonabelian $G_{alpha}$'s, correct? Does this mean when $G$ and $H$ are nonabelian, the commutativity of elements $(g,1_G)$ and $(1_H, h)$ are unnatural, so we would like something else in which $(g,1_G)dot(1_H, h)≠(1_H, h)dot(g,1_G)$?
            $endgroup$
            – gladimetcampbells
            Jan 5 at 16:35
















          2












          $begingroup$

          If $gin G$ and $hin H$, then these correspond to $(g,1_H)$ and $(1_G,h)$ in the direct product or sum $Goplus H$. We have
          $$ (g,1_H)cdot(1_G,h)=(gcdot_G1_G,1_Hcdot_H h)=(1_Gcdot_Gg,hcdot_H 1_G)=(1_G,h)cdot(g,1_H)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Thank you. I see what he means now. By "so one would like a nonabelian version of $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$ or $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$", he does not mean these two groups are abelian for nonabelian $G_{alpha}$'s, correct? Does this mean when $G$ and $H$ are nonabelian, the commutativity of elements $(g,1_G)$ and $(1_H, h)$ are unnatural, so we would like something else in which $(g,1_G)dot(1_H, h)≠(1_H, h)dot(g,1_G)$?
            $endgroup$
            – gladimetcampbells
            Jan 5 at 16:35














          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          If $gin G$ and $hin H$, then these correspond to $(g,1_H)$ and $(1_G,h)$ in the direct product or sum $Goplus H$. We have
          $$ (g,1_H)cdot(1_G,h)=(gcdot_G1_G,1_Hcdot_H h)=(1_Gcdot_Gg,hcdot_H 1_G)=(1_G,h)cdot(g,1_H)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          If $gin G$ and $hin H$, then these correspond to $(g,1_H)$ and $(1_G,h)$ in the direct product or sum $Goplus H$. We have
          $$ (g,1_H)cdot(1_G,h)=(gcdot_G1_G,1_Hcdot_H h)=(1_Gcdot_Gg,hcdot_H 1_G)=(1_G,h)cdot(g,1_H)$$







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Jan 5 at 16:23









          Hagen von EitzenHagen von Eitzen

          283k23273508




          283k23273508












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you. I see what he means now. By "so one would like a nonabelian version of $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$ or $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$", he does not mean these two groups are abelian for nonabelian $G_{alpha}$'s, correct? Does this mean when $G$ and $H$ are nonabelian, the commutativity of elements $(g,1_G)$ and $(1_H, h)$ are unnatural, so we would like something else in which $(g,1_G)dot(1_H, h)≠(1_H, h)dot(g,1_G)$?
            $endgroup$
            – gladimetcampbells
            Jan 5 at 16:35


















          • $begingroup$
            Thank you. I see what he means now. By "so one would like a nonabelian version of $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$ or $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$", he does not mean these two groups are abelian for nonabelian $G_{alpha}$'s, correct? Does this mean when $G$ and $H$ are nonabelian, the commutativity of elements $(g,1_G)$ and $(1_H, h)$ are unnatural, so we would like something else in which $(g,1_G)dot(1_H, h)≠(1_H, h)dot(g,1_G)$?
            $endgroup$
            – gladimetcampbells
            Jan 5 at 16:35
















          $begingroup$
          Thank you. I see what he means now. By "so one would like a nonabelian version of $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$ or $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$", he does not mean these two groups are abelian for nonabelian $G_{alpha}$'s, correct? Does this mean when $G$ and $H$ are nonabelian, the commutativity of elements $(g,1_G)$ and $(1_H, h)$ are unnatural, so we would like something else in which $(g,1_G)dot(1_H, h)≠(1_H, h)dot(g,1_G)$?
          $endgroup$
          – gladimetcampbells
          Jan 5 at 16:35




          $begingroup$
          Thank you. I see what he means now. By "so one would like a nonabelian version of $prod_{alpha}G_{alpha}$ or $bigoplus_{alpha}G_{alpha}$", he does not mean these two groups are abelian for nonabelian $G_{alpha}$'s, correct? Does this mean when $G$ and $H$ are nonabelian, the commutativity of elements $(g,1_G)$ and $(1_H, h)$ are unnatural, so we would like something else in which $(g,1_G)dot(1_H, h)≠(1_H, h)dot(g,1_G)$?
          $endgroup$
          – gladimetcampbells
          Jan 5 at 16:35


















          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%2f3062875%2fdifference-between-the-product-group-the-direct-sum-and-the-free-group%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

          To store a contact into the json file from server.js file using a class in NodeJS

          Redirect URL with Chrome Remote Debugging Android Devices

          Dieringhausen