What is the intuition behind short exact sequences of groups; in particular, what is the intuition behind...












10












$begingroup$



What is the intuition behind short exact sequences of groups; in particular, what is the intuition behind group extensions?




I'm sorry that the definitions below are a bit haphazard but they're how I learnt about them, chronologically.



In Johnson's "Presentation$color{red}{s}$ of Groups," page 100, there is the following . . .




Definition 1: A diagram in a category $mathfrak{C}$, which consists of objects ${A_nmid ninBbb Z}$ and morphisms $$partial_n: A_nto A_{n+1}, nin Bbb Z,tag{6}$$ is called a sequence in $mathfrak{C}$. Such a sequence is called exact if $$operatorname{Im}partial_n=ker partial_{n+1},,text{ for all }nin Bbb Z$$ [. . .] A short exact sequence in the category $mathfrak{C}_{Bbb R}$ of right $Bbb R$-modules is an exact sequence of the form $(6)$ with all but three consecutive terms equal to zero. [. . .]






Also, ibid., page 101, is this:




It is fairly obvious that a sequence



$$0longrightarrow Astackrel{theta}{longrightarrow}Bstackrel{phi}{longrightarrow}Clongrightarrow 0$$



is a short exact sequence if and only if the following conditions hold:



$theta$ is one-to-one,



$phi$ is onto,



$thetaphi=0$,



$ker phileoperatorname{Im}theta$.




I'm reading Baumslag's "Topics in Combinatorial Group Theory". Section III.2 on semidirect products starts with




Let $$1longrightarrow Astackrel{alpha}{longrightarrow}Estackrel{beta}{longrightarrow}Qlongrightarrow 1$$ be a short exact sequence of groups. We term $E$ an extension of $A$ by $Q$.






Thoughts:



I'm aware that semidirect products can be seen as short exact sequences but this is not something I understand yet. My view of semidirect products is as if they are defined by a particular presentation and my go-to examples are the dihedral groups.



Please help :)










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you know short exact sequences from other contexts like vector spaces or modules?
    $endgroup$
    – lush
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm afraid not, @lush. I'm aware of extensions in the context of fields and how they can be seen as vector spaces though, like in Galois Theory or perhaps in Algebraic Number Theory.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    10 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    A short exact sequence $1rightarrow Arightarrow Erightarrow Qrightarrow1$ is really just a fancy way of saying "$E$ has a normal subgroup $A$ where $E/Acong Q$". [The sequence also gives the isomorphism $beta: E/Arightarrow Q$, while $alpha$ corresponds to the embedding of the abstract group $A$ as a subgroup of $E$.]
    $endgroup$
    – user1729
    9 hours ago


















10












$begingroup$



What is the intuition behind short exact sequences of groups; in particular, what is the intuition behind group extensions?




I'm sorry that the definitions below are a bit haphazard but they're how I learnt about them, chronologically.



In Johnson's "Presentation$color{red}{s}$ of Groups," page 100, there is the following . . .




Definition 1: A diagram in a category $mathfrak{C}$, which consists of objects ${A_nmid ninBbb Z}$ and morphisms $$partial_n: A_nto A_{n+1}, nin Bbb Z,tag{6}$$ is called a sequence in $mathfrak{C}$. Such a sequence is called exact if $$operatorname{Im}partial_n=ker partial_{n+1},,text{ for all }nin Bbb Z$$ [. . .] A short exact sequence in the category $mathfrak{C}_{Bbb R}$ of right $Bbb R$-modules is an exact sequence of the form $(6)$ with all but three consecutive terms equal to zero. [. . .]






Also, ibid., page 101, is this:




It is fairly obvious that a sequence



$$0longrightarrow Astackrel{theta}{longrightarrow}Bstackrel{phi}{longrightarrow}Clongrightarrow 0$$



is a short exact sequence if and only if the following conditions hold:



$theta$ is one-to-one,



$phi$ is onto,



$thetaphi=0$,



$ker phileoperatorname{Im}theta$.




I'm reading Baumslag's "Topics in Combinatorial Group Theory". Section III.2 on semidirect products starts with




Let $$1longrightarrow Astackrel{alpha}{longrightarrow}Estackrel{beta}{longrightarrow}Qlongrightarrow 1$$ be a short exact sequence of groups. We term $E$ an extension of $A$ by $Q$.






Thoughts:



I'm aware that semidirect products can be seen as short exact sequences but this is not something I understand yet. My view of semidirect products is as if they are defined by a particular presentation and my go-to examples are the dihedral groups.



Please help :)










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you know short exact sequences from other contexts like vector spaces or modules?
    $endgroup$
    – lush
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm afraid not, @lush. I'm aware of extensions in the context of fields and how they can be seen as vector spaces though, like in Galois Theory or perhaps in Algebraic Number Theory.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    10 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    A short exact sequence $1rightarrow Arightarrow Erightarrow Qrightarrow1$ is really just a fancy way of saying "$E$ has a normal subgroup $A$ where $E/Acong Q$". [The sequence also gives the isomorphism $beta: E/Arightarrow Q$, while $alpha$ corresponds to the embedding of the abstract group $A$ as a subgroup of $E$.]
    $endgroup$
    – user1729
    9 hours ago
















10












10








10


2



$begingroup$



What is the intuition behind short exact sequences of groups; in particular, what is the intuition behind group extensions?




I'm sorry that the definitions below are a bit haphazard but they're how I learnt about them, chronologically.



In Johnson's "Presentation$color{red}{s}$ of Groups," page 100, there is the following . . .




Definition 1: A diagram in a category $mathfrak{C}$, which consists of objects ${A_nmid ninBbb Z}$ and morphisms $$partial_n: A_nto A_{n+1}, nin Bbb Z,tag{6}$$ is called a sequence in $mathfrak{C}$. Such a sequence is called exact if $$operatorname{Im}partial_n=ker partial_{n+1},,text{ for all }nin Bbb Z$$ [. . .] A short exact sequence in the category $mathfrak{C}_{Bbb R}$ of right $Bbb R$-modules is an exact sequence of the form $(6)$ with all but three consecutive terms equal to zero. [. . .]






Also, ibid., page 101, is this:




It is fairly obvious that a sequence



$$0longrightarrow Astackrel{theta}{longrightarrow}Bstackrel{phi}{longrightarrow}Clongrightarrow 0$$



is a short exact sequence if and only if the following conditions hold:



$theta$ is one-to-one,



$phi$ is onto,



$thetaphi=0$,



$ker phileoperatorname{Im}theta$.




I'm reading Baumslag's "Topics in Combinatorial Group Theory". Section III.2 on semidirect products starts with




Let $$1longrightarrow Astackrel{alpha}{longrightarrow}Estackrel{beta}{longrightarrow}Qlongrightarrow 1$$ be a short exact sequence of groups. We term $E$ an extension of $A$ by $Q$.






Thoughts:



I'm aware that semidirect products can be seen as short exact sequences but this is not something I understand yet. My view of semidirect products is as if they are defined by a particular presentation and my go-to examples are the dihedral groups.



Please help :)










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$





What is the intuition behind short exact sequences of groups; in particular, what is the intuition behind group extensions?




I'm sorry that the definitions below are a bit haphazard but they're how I learnt about them, chronologically.



In Johnson's "Presentation$color{red}{s}$ of Groups," page 100, there is the following . . .




Definition 1: A diagram in a category $mathfrak{C}$, which consists of objects ${A_nmid ninBbb Z}$ and morphisms $$partial_n: A_nto A_{n+1}, nin Bbb Z,tag{6}$$ is called a sequence in $mathfrak{C}$. Such a sequence is called exact if $$operatorname{Im}partial_n=ker partial_{n+1},,text{ for all }nin Bbb Z$$ [. . .] A short exact sequence in the category $mathfrak{C}_{Bbb R}$ of right $Bbb R$-modules is an exact sequence of the form $(6)$ with all but three consecutive terms equal to zero. [. . .]






Also, ibid., page 101, is this:




It is fairly obvious that a sequence



$$0longrightarrow Astackrel{theta}{longrightarrow}Bstackrel{phi}{longrightarrow}Clongrightarrow 0$$



is a short exact sequence if and only if the following conditions hold:



$theta$ is one-to-one,



$phi$ is onto,



$thetaphi=0$,



$ker phileoperatorname{Im}theta$.




I'm reading Baumslag's "Topics in Combinatorial Group Theory". Section III.2 on semidirect products starts with




Let $$1longrightarrow Astackrel{alpha}{longrightarrow}Estackrel{beta}{longrightarrow}Qlongrightarrow 1$$ be a short exact sequence of groups. We term $E$ an extension of $A$ by $Q$.






Thoughts:



I'm aware that semidirect products can be seen as short exact sequences but this is not something I understand yet. My view of semidirect products is as if they are defined by a particular presentation and my go-to examples are the dihedral groups.



Please help :)







group-theory soft-question category-theory intuition exact-sequence






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 10 hours ago









ShaunShaun

10.3k113686




10.3k113686








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you know short exact sequences from other contexts like vector spaces or modules?
    $endgroup$
    – lush
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm afraid not, @lush. I'm aware of extensions in the context of fields and how they can be seen as vector spaces though, like in Galois Theory or perhaps in Algebraic Number Theory.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    10 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    A short exact sequence $1rightarrow Arightarrow Erightarrow Qrightarrow1$ is really just a fancy way of saying "$E$ has a normal subgroup $A$ where $E/Acong Q$". [The sequence also gives the isomorphism $beta: E/Arightarrow Q$, while $alpha$ corresponds to the embedding of the abstract group $A$ as a subgroup of $E$.]
    $endgroup$
    – user1729
    9 hours ago
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Do you know short exact sequences from other contexts like vector spaces or modules?
    $endgroup$
    – lush
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I'm afraid not, @lush. I'm aware of extensions in the context of fields and how they can be seen as vector spaces though, like in Galois Theory or perhaps in Algebraic Number Theory.
    $endgroup$
    – Shaun
    10 hours ago






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    A short exact sequence $1rightarrow Arightarrow Erightarrow Qrightarrow1$ is really just a fancy way of saying "$E$ has a normal subgroup $A$ where $E/Acong Q$". [The sequence also gives the isomorphism $beta: E/Arightarrow Q$, while $alpha$ corresponds to the embedding of the abstract group $A$ as a subgroup of $E$.]
    $endgroup$
    – user1729
    9 hours ago










1




1




$begingroup$
Do you know short exact sequences from other contexts like vector spaces or modules?
$endgroup$
– lush
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
Do you know short exact sequences from other contexts like vector spaces or modules?
$endgroup$
– lush
10 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
I'm afraid not, @lush. I'm aware of extensions in the context of fields and how they can be seen as vector spaces though, like in Galois Theory or perhaps in Algebraic Number Theory.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
I'm afraid not, @lush. I'm aware of extensions in the context of fields and how they can be seen as vector spaces though, like in Galois Theory or perhaps in Algebraic Number Theory.
$endgroup$
– Shaun
10 hours ago




4




4




$begingroup$
A short exact sequence $1rightarrow Arightarrow Erightarrow Qrightarrow1$ is really just a fancy way of saying "$E$ has a normal subgroup $A$ where $E/Acong Q$". [The sequence also gives the isomorphism $beta: E/Arightarrow Q$, while $alpha$ corresponds to the embedding of the abstract group $A$ as a subgroup of $E$.]
$endgroup$
– user1729
9 hours ago






$begingroup$
A short exact sequence $1rightarrow Arightarrow Erightarrow Qrightarrow1$ is really just a fancy way of saying "$E$ has a normal subgroup $A$ where $E/Acong Q$". [The sequence also gives the isomorphism $beta: E/Arightarrow Q$, while $alpha$ corresponds to the embedding of the abstract group $A$ as a subgroup of $E$.]
$endgroup$
– user1729
9 hours ago












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















12












$begingroup$

A short exact sequence $1rightarrow Arightarrow Erightarrow Qrightarrow1$ is really just a fancy way of saying "$E$ has a normal subgroup $A$ where $E/Acong Q$". [The sequence also gives the isomorphism $beta: E/Arightarrow Q$, while $alpha$ corresponds to the embedding of the abstract group $A$ as a subgroup of $E$.]



Because you care about presentations: if $A$ has presentation $langle mathbf{x}midmathbf{r}rangle$ and $Q$ has presentation $langle mathbf{y}midmathbf{s}rangle$ then the group $E$ given by the above short exact sequence has presentation of the form:
$$
langle mathbf{x, y}mid SW_S^{-1} (Sinmathbf{s}), mathbf{r}, mathbf{t}rangle
$$

where $W_{S}in F(mathbf{x})$ for all $Sinmathbf{s}$, and $mathbf{t}$ consists of words of the form $y^{-epsilon}xy^{epsilon}X^{-1}$ with $xinmathbf{x}$, $yinmathbf{y}$ and $Xin F(mathbf{x})$. The intuition here is that relators in $mathbf{t}$ ensure normality of $A$, and so removing all the $x$-terms makes sense. When they are removed you get the presentation $langle mathbf{y}midmathbf{s}rangle$, because of the relators $SW_S^{-1}$. I will leave you to work out where the maps $alpha$ and $beta$ fold in to this description.



The above presentation justifies the term extension of $A$ by $Q$: we've started with a presentation for $A$, and then added in the presentation for $Q$ in a specific way to obtain a presentation for $E$.



For a worked example of the above (with some genuinely amazing applications, both in the paper and in subsequent research), look at the paper Rips, E. (1982), Subgroups of small Cancellation Groups. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 14: 45-47. doi:10.1112/blms/14.1.45



It is an interesting question when a presentation of the above form does actually define a group extension. This was studied in the paper Pride, S., Harlander, J. & Baik, Y. (1998). The geometry of group extensions. J. Group Theory, 1(4), pp. 395-416. doi:10.1515/jgth.1998.028






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    It's probably worth saying something about how this interacts with the principle that we generally only care about things "up to isomorphism".
    $endgroup$
    – Hurkyl
    4 hours ago



















8












$begingroup$

Let's say you want to classify all the finite groups (up to isomorphism). You know that there are simple groups, the groups which have no non-trivial normal subgroups. You can think of these as the "atoms." Now you want to classify all the finite groups, not just the simple ones. You might hope that an arbitrary finite group is a product of the simple ones, but unfortunately it's not that... simple.



For example, the dihedral group of order 6 is "built out of" $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$ and $mathbb{Z}/3mathbb{Z}$ in the sense that it has a normal subgroup isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}/3mathbb{Z}$ and the quotient is isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$, but it's definitely not their product. So to finish the classification problem, you need some set of rules for forming "molecules" from the atoms.



The "molecule" rule is equivalent to this: given two groups $G$ and $Q$, classify all groups $E$ such $G$ is a normal subgroup of $E$ with the quotient isomorphic to $Q$. This is exactly the extension problem. If we have an effective way to calculate this for every pair of groups, and we also know all the simple groups, then we have solved the classificaiton problem.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is $G$ here the same as $A$ in the OP?
    $endgroup$
    – Mitch
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Very nice and enlightening answer!
    $endgroup$
    – lush
    4 hours ago












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%2f3174538%2fwhat-is-the-intuition-behind-short-exact-sequences-of-groups-in-particular-wha%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









12












$begingroup$

A short exact sequence $1rightarrow Arightarrow Erightarrow Qrightarrow1$ is really just a fancy way of saying "$E$ has a normal subgroup $A$ where $E/Acong Q$". [The sequence also gives the isomorphism $beta: E/Arightarrow Q$, while $alpha$ corresponds to the embedding of the abstract group $A$ as a subgroup of $E$.]



Because you care about presentations: if $A$ has presentation $langle mathbf{x}midmathbf{r}rangle$ and $Q$ has presentation $langle mathbf{y}midmathbf{s}rangle$ then the group $E$ given by the above short exact sequence has presentation of the form:
$$
langle mathbf{x, y}mid SW_S^{-1} (Sinmathbf{s}), mathbf{r}, mathbf{t}rangle
$$

where $W_{S}in F(mathbf{x})$ for all $Sinmathbf{s}$, and $mathbf{t}$ consists of words of the form $y^{-epsilon}xy^{epsilon}X^{-1}$ with $xinmathbf{x}$, $yinmathbf{y}$ and $Xin F(mathbf{x})$. The intuition here is that relators in $mathbf{t}$ ensure normality of $A$, and so removing all the $x$-terms makes sense. When they are removed you get the presentation $langle mathbf{y}midmathbf{s}rangle$, because of the relators $SW_S^{-1}$. I will leave you to work out where the maps $alpha$ and $beta$ fold in to this description.



The above presentation justifies the term extension of $A$ by $Q$: we've started with a presentation for $A$, and then added in the presentation for $Q$ in a specific way to obtain a presentation for $E$.



For a worked example of the above (with some genuinely amazing applications, both in the paper and in subsequent research), look at the paper Rips, E. (1982), Subgroups of small Cancellation Groups. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 14: 45-47. doi:10.1112/blms/14.1.45



It is an interesting question when a presentation of the above form does actually define a group extension. This was studied in the paper Pride, S., Harlander, J. & Baik, Y. (1998). The geometry of group extensions. J. Group Theory, 1(4), pp. 395-416. doi:10.1515/jgth.1998.028






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    It's probably worth saying something about how this interacts with the principle that we generally only care about things "up to isomorphism".
    $endgroup$
    – Hurkyl
    4 hours ago
















12












$begingroup$

A short exact sequence $1rightarrow Arightarrow Erightarrow Qrightarrow1$ is really just a fancy way of saying "$E$ has a normal subgroup $A$ where $E/Acong Q$". [The sequence also gives the isomorphism $beta: E/Arightarrow Q$, while $alpha$ corresponds to the embedding of the abstract group $A$ as a subgroup of $E$.]



Because you care about presentations: if $A$ has presentation $langle mathbf{x}midmathbf{r}rangle$ and $Q$ has presentation $langle mathbf{y}midmathbf{s}rangle$ then the group $E$ given by the above short exact sequence has presentation of the form:
$$
langle mathbf{x, y}mid SW_S^{-1} (Sinmathbf{s}), mathbf{r}, mathbf{t}rangle
$$

where $W_{S}in F(mathbf{x})$ for all $Sinmathbf{s}$, and $mathbf{t}$ consists of words of the form $y^{-epsilon}xy^{epsilon}X^{-1}$ with $xinmathbf{x}$, $yinmathbf{y}$ and $Xin F(mathbf{x})$. The intuition here is that relators in $mathbf{t}$ ensure normality of $A$, and so removing all the $x$-terms makes sense. When they are removed you get the presentation $langle mathbf{y}midmathbf{s}rangle$, because of the relators $SW_S^{-1}$. I will leave you to work out where the maps $alpha$ and $beta$ fold in to this description.



The above presentation justifies the term extension of $A$ by $Q$: we've started with a presentation for $A$, and then added in the presentation for $Q$ in a specific way to obtain a presentation for $E$.



For a worked example of the above (with some genuinely amazing applications, both in the paper and in subsequent research), look at the paper Rips, E. (1982), Subgroups of small Cancellation Groups. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 14: 45-47. doi:10.1112/blms/14.1.45



It is an interesting question when a presentation of the above form does actually define a group extension. This was studied in the paper Pride, S., Harlander, J. & Baik, Y. (1998). The geometry of group extensions. J. Group Theory, 1(4), pp. 395-416. doi:10.1515/jgth.1998.028






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    It's probably worth saying something about how this interacts with the principle that we generally only care about things "up to isomorphism".
    $endgroup$
    – Hurkyl
    4 hours ago














12












12








12





$begingroup$

A short exact sequence $1rightarrow Arightarrow Erightarrow Qrightarrow1$ is really just a fancy way of saying "$E$ has a normal subgroup $A$ where $E/Acong Q$". [The sequence also gives the isomorphism $beta: E/Arightarrow Q$, while $alpha$ corresponds to the embedding of the abstract group $A$ as a subgroup of $E$.]



Because you care about presentations: if $A$ has presentation $langle mathbf{x}midmathbf{r}rangle$ and $Q$ has presentation $langle mathbf{y}midmathbf{s}rangle$ then the group $E$ given by the above short exact sequence has presentation of the form:
$$
langle mathbf{x, y}mid SW_S^{-1} (Sinmathbf{s}), mathbf{r}, mathbf{t}rangle
$$

where $W_{S}in F(mathbf{x})$ for all $Sinmathbf{s}$, and $mathbf{t}$ consists of words of the form $y^{-epsilon}xy^{epsilon}X^{-1}$ with $xinmathbf{x}$, $yinmathbf{y}$ and $Xin F(mathbf{x})$. The intuition here is that relators in $mathbf{t}$ ensure normality of $A$, and so removing all the $x$-terms makes sense. When they are removed you get the presentation $langle mathbf{y}midmathbf{s}rangle$, because of the relators $SW_S^{-1}$. I will leave you to work out where the maps $alpha$ and $beta$ fold in to this description.



The above presentation justifies the term extension of $A$ by $Q$: we've started with a presentation for $A$, and then added in the presentation for $Q$ in a specific way to obtain a presentation for $E$.



For a worked example of the above (with some genuinely amazing applications, both in the paper and in subsequent research), look at the paper Rips, E. (1982), Subgroups of small Cancellation Groups. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 14: 45-47. doi:10.1112/blms/14.1.45



It is an interesting question when a presentation of the above form does actually define a group extension. This was studied in the paper Pride, S., Harlander, J. & Baik, Y. (1998). The geometry of group extensions. J. Group Theory, 1(4), pp. 395-416. doi:10.1515/jgth.1998.028






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



A short exact sequence $1rightarrow Arightarrow Erightarrow Qrightarrow1$ is really just a fancy way of saying "$E$ has a normal subgroup $A$ where $E/Acong Q$". [The sequence also gives the isomorphism $beta: E/Arightarrow Q$, while $alpha$ corresponds to the embedding of the abstract group $A$ as a subgroup of $E$.]



Because you care about presentations: if $A$ has presentation $langle mathbf{x}midmathbf{r}rangle$ and $Q$ has presentation $langle mathbf{y}midmathbf{s}rangle$ then the group $E$ given by the above short exact sequence has presentation of the form:
$$
langle mathbf{x, y}mid SW_S^{-1} (Sinmathbf{s}), mathbf{r}, mathbf{t}rangle
$$

where $W_{S}in F(mathbf{x})$ for all $Sinmathbf{s}$, and $mathbf{t}$ consists of words of the form $y^{-epsilon}xy^{epsilon}X^{-1}$ with $xinmathbf{x}$, $yinmathbf{y}$ and $Xin F(mathbf{x})$. The intuition here is that relators in $mathbf{t}$ ensure normality of $A$, and so removing all the $x$-terms makes sense. When they are removed you get the presentation $langle mathbf{y}midmathbf{s}rangle$, because of the relators $SW_S^{-1}$. I will leave you to work out where the maps $alpha$ and $beta$ fold in to this description.



The above presentation justifies the term extension of $A$ by $Q$: we've started with a presentation for $A$, and then added in the presentation for $Q$ in a specific way to obtain a presentation for $E$.



For a worked example of the above (with some genuinely amazing applications, both in the paper and in subsequent research), look at the paper Rips, E. (1982), Subgroups of small Cancellation Groups. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 14: 45-47. doi:10.1112/blms/14.1.45



It is an interesting question when a presentation of the above form does actually define a group extension. This was studied in the paper Pride, S., Harlander, J. & Baik, Y. (1998). The geometry of group extensions. J. Group Theory, 1(4), pp. 395-416. doi:10.1515/jgth.1998.028







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited 8 hours ago

























answered 8 hours ago









user1729user1729

17.6k64294




17.6k64294












  • $begingroup$
    It's probably worth saying something about how this interacts with the principle that we generally only care about things "up to isomorphism".
    $endgroup$
    – Hurkyl
    4 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    It's probably worth saying something about how this interacts with the principle that we generally only care about things "up to isomorphism".
    $endgroup$
    – Hurkyl
    4 hours ago
















$begingroup$
It's probably worth saying something about how this interacts with the principle that we generally only care about things "up to isomorphism".
$endgroup$
– Hurkyl
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
It's probably worth saying something about how this interacts with the principle that we generally only care about things "up to isomorphism".
$endgroup$
– Hurkyl
4 hours ago











8












$begingroup$

Let's say you want to classify all the finite groups (up to isomorphism). You know that there are simple groups, the groups which have no non-trivial normal subgroups. You can think of these as the "atoms." Now you want to classify all the finite groups, not just the simple ones. You might hope that an arbitrary finite group is a product of the simple ones, but unfortunately it's not that... simple.



For example, the dihedral group of order 6 is "built out of" $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$ and $mathbb{Z}/3mathbb{Z}$ in the sense that it has a normal subgroup isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}/3mathbb{Z}$ and the quotient is isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$, but it's definitely not their product. So to finish the classification problem, you need some set of rules for forming "molecules" from the atoms.



The "molecule" rule is equivalent to this: given two groups $G$ and $Q$, classify all groups $E$ such $G$ is a normal subgroup of $E$ with the quotient isomorphic to $Q$. This is exactly the extension problem. If we have an effective way to calculate this for every pair of groups, and we also know all the simple groups, then we have solved the classificaiton problem.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is $G$ here the same as $A$ in the OP?
    $endgroup$
    – Mitch
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Very nice and enlightening answer!
    $endgroup$
    – lush
    4 hours ago
















8












$begingroup$

Let's say you want to classify all the finite groups (up to isomorphism). You know that there are simple groups, the groups which have no non-trivial normal subgroups. You can think of these as the "atoms." Now you want to classify all the finite groups, not just the simple ones. You might hope that an arbitrary finite group is a product of the simple ones, but unfortunately it's not that... simple.



For example, the dihedral group of order 6 is "built out of" $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$ and $mathbb{Z}/3mathbb{Z}$ in the sense that it has a normal subgroup isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}/3mathbb{Z}$ and the quotient is isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$, but it's definitely not their product. So to finish the classification problem, you need some set of rules for forming "molecules" from the atoms.



The "molecule" rule is equivalent to this: given two groups $G$ and $Q$, classify all groups $E$ such $G$ is a normal subgroup of $E$ with the quotient isomorphic to $Q$. This is exactly the extension problem. If we have an effective way to calculate this for every pair of groups, and we also know all the simple groups, then we have solved the classificaiton problem.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is $G$ here the same as $A$ in the OP?
    $endgroup$
    – Mitch
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Very nice and enlightening answer!
    $endgroup$
    – lush
    4 hours ago














8












8








8





$begingroup$

Let's say you want to classify all the finite groups (up to isomorphism). You know that there are simple groups, the groups which have no non-trivial normal subgroups. You can think of these as the "atoms." Now you want to classify all the finite groups, not just the simple ones. You might hope that an arbitrary finite group is a product of the simple ones, but unfortunately it's not that... simple.



For example, the dihedral group of order 6 is "built out of" $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$ and $mathbb{Z}/3mathbb{Z}$ in the sense that it has a normal subgroup isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}/3mathbb{Z}$ and the quotient is isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$, but it's definitely not their product. So to finish the classification problem, you need some set of rules for forming "molecules" from the atoms.



The "molecule" rule is equivalent to this: given two groups $G$ and $Q$, classify all groups $E$ such $G$ is a normal subgroup of $E$ with the quotient isomorphic to $Q$. This is exactly the extension problem. If we have an effective way to calculate this for every pair of groups, and we also know all the simple groups, then we have solved the classificaiton problem.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Let's say you want to classify all the finite groups (up to isomorphism). You know that there are simple groups, the groups which have no non-trivial normal subgroups. You can think of these as the "atoms." Now you want to classify all the finite groups, not just the simple ones. You might hope that an arbitrary finite group is a product of the simple ones, but unfortunately it's not that... simple.



For example, the dihedral group of order 6 is "built out of" $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$ and $mathbb{Z}/3mathbb{Z}$ in the sense that it has a normal subgroup isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}/3mathbb{Z}$ and the quotient is isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}/2mathbb{Z}$, but it's definitely not their product. So to finish the classification problem, you need some set of rules for forming "molecules" from the atoms.



The "molecule" rule is equivalent to this: given two groups $G$ and $Q$, classify all groups $E$ such $G$ is a normal subgroup of $E$ with the quotient isomorphic to $Q$. This is exactly the extension problem. If we have an effective way to calculate this for every pair of groups, and we also know all the simple groups, then we have solved the classificaiton problem.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 8 hours ago









hunterhunter

15.6k32640




15.6k32640








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is $G$ here the same as $A$ in the OP?
    $endgroup$
    – Mitch
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Very nice and enlightening answer!
    $endgroup$
    – lush
    4 hours ago














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Is $G$ here the same as $A$ in the OP?
    $endgroup$
    – Mitch
    5 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Very nice and enlightening answer!
    $endgroup$
    – lush
    4 hours ago








1




1




$begingroup$
Is $G$ here the same as $A$ in the OP?
$endgroup$
– Mitch
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
Is $G$ here the same as $A$ in the OP?
$endgroup$
– Mitch
5 hours ago












$begingroup$
Very nice and enlightening answer!
$endgroup$
– lush
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
Very nice and enlightening answer!
$endgroup$
– lush
4 hours ago


















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%2f3174538%2fwhat-is-the-intuition-behind-short-exact-sequences-of-groups-in-particular-wha%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

Callistus I

Tabula Rosettana

How to label and detect the document text images