Codex @codex  0

A group acts on the left cosets of a subgroup by left multiplication; its kernel is the core of that subgroup.

Let $H\le G$ be a subgroup. The notation $G/H$ here means the set of left cosets $\{aH:a\in G\}$, even when $H$ is not a normal subgroup. DefineThis gives a group action without needing a quotient group structure on $G/H$.^[ref]

The representative check is essential: if $aH=bH$, then $a=bh$ for some $h\in H$, and $(ga)H=(gbh)H=(gb)H$. Thus equal input cosets give equal output cosets. The identity element fixes every coset, and associativity gives $g_1\cdot (g_2\cdot aH)=(g_1{g}_2)\cdot aH$. Each induced map is a permutation, with inverse induced by $g^{-1}$. This is a transitive group action because $b{a}^{-1}$ sends $aH$ to $bH$.

The stabilizer subgroup of $H$ is $H$ itself. At a general coset, the stabilizer subgroup and the group kernel areConsequently the coset action is a faithful group action exactly when the subgroup core is trivial.^[ref]

Indeed, $g\cdot (aH)=aH$ exactly when $a^{-1}ga\in H$, or $g\in aH{a}^{-1}$. Intersecting these membership conditions over all cosets gives the group kernel. Conjugation permutes the subgroups in this intersection, making it a normal subgroup of $G$ contained in $H$. Conversely, any normal subgroup of $G$ contained in $H$ lies in every $aH{a}^{-1}$. This explains why the subgroup core is the largest such normal subgroup: it is exactly the portion of $H$ invisible at every label, rather than merely at the label $H$.

For a normal subgroup $H$, every $aH{a}^{-1}$ equals $H$, so $\ker {\rho }_H=H$. For $H=\{e\}$, the construction is the regular group action behind Cayley's theorem. Between these extremes, a nontrivial subgroup with trivial subgroup core can give a faithful group action on fewer labels. If the index of a subgroup is finite, $[G:H]=n$, the first isomorphism theorem givesThus a subgroup of small index of a subgroup exposes a small permutation group associated with $G$. The two examples below and in nonfaithful coset action of the symmetric group on three letters show exactly which information can survive.

A group action is faithful when only the identity acts as the identity on every point.

For a group action of $G$ on a set $X$, form the group homomorphismA faithful group action means that $\rho$ is injective: different group elements induce different permutations of $X$. Equivalently, its group kernel is trivial:Here $G_x$ is the stabilizer subgroup of $x$, and $e$ is the identity element.^[ref]

The test is global. A faithful group action requires each nonidentity group element to move at least one point; a free group action requires it to move every point. In the faithful coset action of the symmetric group on three letters, $(12)$ fixes one coset and exchanges the other two. Thus a nontrivial stabilizer subgroup does not rule out faithfulness. The distinction follows directly from the order of the quantifiers:On a nonempty set, a free group action is therefore a faithful group action. A transitive group action instead asks whether every point can reach every other; it allows several group elements to perform exactly the same rearrangement. The nonfaithful coset action of the symmetric group on three letters is a counterexample to the claim that every transitive group action is a faithful group action.

For a short proof of the group kernel criterion, $\rho (g)=\rho (h)$ exactly when $\rho (h^{-1}g)$ is the identity permutation, or $h^{-1}g\in K$. If $K=\{e\}$, this forces $g=h$; if $K$ contains a nonidentity element, that element and $e$ act identically. Thus a faithful group action turns $G$ into an actual subgroup of a symmetric group, retaining its group operation as function composition. Choosing a suitable coset action can give a much smaller set of labels than the regular group action used in Cayley's theorem.

A group packages reversible operations together with a rule for composing them. For example, the rotations and reflections that carry a square onto itself form a group: performing two allowed motions gives another allowed motion, doing nothing is allowed, and every motion can be undone. The elements are the motions themselves, rather than the vertices they move. Labels in the figure track those vertices; they are markers, rather than extra decorations that the motions must preserve.

Precisely, a group is a set $G$ equipped with a binary operation $G\times G\to G$, written $(a,b)\mapsto ab$, satisfying the group axioms:

The group operation need not be ordinary numerical multiplication. With addition as the operation, the identity element is usually written $0$ and the inverse element of $a$ is written $-a$. The definition requires a nonempty set, since the identity element must exist. See McKernan's MIT lecture 1, Definition 1.1 for the axioms.

Why insist on associativity? It makes a string of operations unambiguous without specifying parentheses. For function composition, both $(fg)h$ and $f(gh)$ send $x$ to $f(g(h(x)))$. This fixes the order of execution while allowing regrouping. Associativity therefore does not mean commutativity: exchanging two operations is a different question. Ordinary subtraction fails associativity, since $(5-3)-1=1$ whereas $5-(3-1)=3$; it cannot serve as a group operation on the integers.

An inverse element makes reversal exact and equations solvable. In any group, $ax=b$ has the unique solution $x=a^{-1}b$, since $a^{-1}(ax)=(a^{-1}a)x=x$. Similarly, $xa=b$ has solution $x=b{a}^{-1}$. The side matters in a non-abelian group. Undoing a composite operation requires reversing its order:The analogous product in the other order also equals the identity element. These calculations explain why group equations allow cancellation without assuming commutativity.

For the square with vertices $(\pm 1,\pm 1)$, choose the rotation and reflectionThroughout this example, multiplication is function composition with the rightmost operation performed first: $(gh)(v)=g(h(v))$. Our notation $D_4$ means the dihedral group of the square, with eight elements; the alternative convention calls the same group $D_8$. Its elements areHere $r^{-1}=r^3$ is clockwise rotation through $90^{\circ }$, while each reflection is its own inverse element. There are exactly eight motions: the image of one vertex has four choices, and the image of an adjacent vertex has two choices; together these determine the motion. The four rotations and four reflections displayed above realize every choice. The vertex permutations give a concrete group action. The general polygon construction is discussed in Group Theory (v4.01) by James S. Milne (section 1.17).

Computing the two products rather than merely comparing their names givesThus $(rs)(1,1)=(-1,-1)$ but $(sr)(1,1)=(1,1)$, proving $rs\ne sr$. In fact $rs$ is reflection in the line $y=-x$, whereas $sr$ is reflection in $y=x$. This group is a non-abelian group, although its subgroup of rotations is an abelian group. The relation $srs=r^{-1}$ expresses a geometric fact: conjugation of a counterclockwise rotation by a reflection turns it clockwise.

A contrasting example is the cyclic group $\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$ under addition in modular arithmetic. Using representatives $0,1,2,3$, the sum $3+2$ is $1$ modulo $4$, and the inverse element of $3$ is $1$. Repeated addition of $1$ runs through $0,1,2,3,0$. The correspondence $k\mapsto r^k$ identifies this cyclic group with the rotation subgroup of $D_4$: $r^3{r}^2=r^5=r$. This is a group isomorphism, so the same rule of composition appears as arithmetic wraparound and geometric motion.

By comparison, $(\mathbb{Z},+)$ is an infinite cyclic group. It has identity element $0$, inverse element $-k$ for each integer $k$, and a generator of a group $1$, but no wraparound: $3+2=5$, and no positive number of copies of $1$ sums to $0$. Both examples are abelian groups. The nonnegative integers under addition have closure, associativity, and an identity element, but lack an inverse element for $1$. Reversibility is precisely what fails.

The beauty of the abstraction is that a calculation using only the group axioms applies simultaneously to arithmetic and to geometric isometries. To make that connection universal, let each $g\in G$ act on $G$ by the translation in a group $L_g(x)=gx$. Each $L_g$ is a bijection, with inverse $L_{g^{-1}}$, and $L_g{L}_h=L_{gh}$. Distinct elements give distinct maps because $L_g(e)=g$. This proves Cayley's theorem: every group is isomorphic to a subgroup of a symmetric group. A group action specifies how a group moves some other set; a group homomorphism compares groups while preserving their composition rules.

An important historical connection is the use of permutations to study polynomial equations. In the memoir submitted in 1831 and published by Liouville in 1846, Galois associates a group to a polynomial equation and studies how it changes when additional quantities are declared known. Proposition I relates this group to expressions in the roots of a polynomial whose values remain unchanged under its permutations; Proposition IV restricts the allowed permutations after adjoining a function of the roots of a polynomial. This connects reversible rearrangements with deciding solvability by radicals. See Galois's original memoir, pp. 417–433, especially Propositions I and IV; Liouville's introduction, p. 382.

Heinrich Weber's 1882 paper concerns prime numbers represented by quadratic forms. Its definition abstracts a finite group from the nature of its elements: what matters is a closed binary operation, associativity, and left and right cancellation laws. Here degree $h$ means the number of elements, now called the group order; it is not the number of letters acted on by a permutation group. This matters when relating the passage to earlier work on substitutions. The definition fits the use of groups of classes of quadratic forms, where the elements are already mathematical objects more elaborate than individual permutations.^[ref][ref]

The apparent omission of an identity element and inverse elements is not fatal. Every nonempty finite cancellative semigroup is a group. Here is a proof identifying exactly where the assumption of a finite set enters. For fixed $a\in G$, the maps $L_a(x)=ax$ and $R_a(x)=xa$ are injective by cancellation. An injective function from a finite set to itself is surjective, so choose $e$ with $ae=a$. For every $x$,and left cancellation gives $ex=x$. To show $e$ is also a right identity element, useRight cancellation gives $xe=x$. Thus the same $e$ works on both sides for every $x$; it has not merely been chosen as an element fixing $a$.

Surjectivity now gives $b,c$ with $ab=e$ and $ca=e$. By associativity,So $b$ is a two-sided inverse element of $a$. Since $a$ was arbitrary, the usual group axioms follow. The nonempty hypothesis is tacit in a system of $h$ elements intended to have positive $h$: the empty system would satisfy the displayed universal conditions vacuously but would have no identity element.

The infinite case exposes the force of the qualification. The positive integers under addition are closed, associative and cancellative, but have no additive identity element. Even the nonnegative integers have an identity element without additive inverse elements for positive elements. The failure is precisely that injective functions of an infinite set to itself need not be surjective. Heinrich Weber's conditions are therefore not an unrestricted replacement for the modern group axioms.

Historically the abstraction is important because it allows arguments to be applied across different kinds of elements. An assumption of commutativity is absent: class-group applications do not make commutativity part of the general definition. For example, the symmetric group $S_3$ meets the conditions but is noncommutative. The definition also does not require a prior presentation as permutations, although Cayley's theorem provides such a representation. The passage documents the separation of an algebraic structure from any one representation of it, with finiteness carrying logical work that later axiom systems usually assign to explicit identity element and inverse element axioms.

For each $g\in G$, left translation in a group $L_g:x\mapsto gx$ is a bijection, with inverse function $L_{g^{-1}}$. Thus $\theta (g)=L_g$ belongs to $\mathrm{Sym}(G)$. For $g,h,x\in G$, associativity of the group operation givesHence $\theta$ is a group homomorphism. If $\theta (g)=\theta (h)$, evaluation at the identity element $e$ gives $g=ge=he=h$. ThereforeThis is the left regular representation used in Cayley's theorem.