Thoughts and Some Abstract Algebra

This year has been a ridiculously laborious one for me: I enrolled in classes fairly beyond my comfort zone, and these seized the opportunity to savagely rip me to shreds. On top of that, I was cast into the shark-infested waters of tutoring, grading, and reciting: one thing is to be a math Jedi, and another is to successfully convey the subject. I have perennially worked arduously in my life, but let me tell you that I have never worked this hard. I used to brag about studying for twelve to fourteen hours a day every once in a while; this is now my routine. My summer exclusively boiled down to preparing for my prelims, and I still feel nervous about them. The amount of knowledge that I have had to digest in the past two months has been absurd. Paradoxically, it looks like I often spend a torrent of strenuous effort writing long and complicated blog entries, but this is actually my way of relaxing, of taking a break, of quickly letting off stream. I may sound like a  masochist, but I have simply assimilated one of Muhammad Ali's quotes: "I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.'"

Enough of my petty grievances. I will now tackle some abstract algebra questions that I found interesting from my book:

Claim: If $G$ is a finite group and $x\in G$ of odd order $n$, then there is a positive integer $k$ such that $x^{2k}=x$.

Proof: $x^n=e\implies x^nx=x^{n+1}=x^{2k}=x$. $\blacksquare$

Claim: If $G$ is a finite group, $H\leq G$, $N\trianglelefteq G$, and $\gcd\left(\left|H\right|,\left[G:N\right]\right)=1$, then $H\leq N$.

Proof: Let $\varphi:G\to G/N$ be such that $g\mapsto gN$. Then $\varphi$ is a homomorphism, which implies that $\varphi\left(H\right)\leq G/N$, which in turn implies that $\left|\varphi\left(H\right)\right|\mid\left[G:N\right]$. Moreover, $\left.\varphi\right|_H$ is a homomorphism, which implies that $H/\ker\left.\varphi\right|_H\cong\varphi\left(H\right)$, which in turn implies that $\left|\varphi\left(H\right)\right|\mid\left|H\right|$. Therefore, $\left|\varphi\left(H\right)\right|=1$, which implies that $\varphi\left(H\right)=\left\{N\right\}$, which in turn implies that $H\subseteq N$. $\blacksquare$

Theorem (Sylow's): If $G$ is a group of order $p^\alpha m$, where $p$ is prime, $\alpha$ is a positive integer, and $p\not\mid m$, then
  1. there is a subgroup of order $p^\alpha$;
  2. if $P$ is a subgroup of order $p^\alpha$ and $Q$ is a $p$-subgroup, then there is a $g\in G$ such that $Q\leq gPg^{-1}$; and
  3. $n_p\equiv1\pmod p$ and $n_p\mid m$, where $n_p$ is the number of subgroups of order $p^\alpha$.
Claim: A group of order $30=2\cdot3\cdot5$ has a normal subgroup.

Proof: Observe that $n_2\in\left\{1,3,5,15\right\}$, $n_3\in\left\{1,10\right\}$, and $n_5\in\left\{1,6\right\}$. If $n_2=1$, $n_3=1$, or $n_5=1$, then we are done. Therefore, let $n_2=3$, $n_3=10$, and $n_5=6$. However, this implies that there are $3$ non-identity elements of order $2$, $20$ non-identity elements of order $3$, and $24$ non-identity elements of order $5$ for a total of $48$ elements, which is a contradiction. Therefore, the group has a normal subgroup. $\blacksquare$

The following is a list of unique representatives of each isomorphism class of abelian groups of order $216=2^33^3$.

$$\begin{align*}\mathbb Z_{8}\times\mathbb Z_{27}&\cong\mathbb Z_{216}\\\mathbb Z_{8}\times\mathbb Z_{9}\times\mathbb Z_{3}&\cong\mathbb Z_{72}\times\mathbb Z_{3}\\\mathbb Z_{8}\times\mathbb Z_{3}\times\mathbb Z_{3}\times\mathbb Z_{3}&\cong\mathbb Z_{24}\times\mathbb Z_{3}\times\mathbb Z_{3}\\\mathbb Z_{4}\times\mathbb Z_{2}\times\mathbb Z_{27}&\cong\mathbb Z_{108}\times\mathbb Z_{2}\\\mathbb Z_{4}\times\mathbb Z_{2}\times\mathbb Z_{9}\times\mathbb Z_{3}&\cong\mathbb Z_{36}\times\mathbb Z_{6}\\\mathbb Z_{4}\times\mathbb Z_{2}\times\mathbb Z_{3}\times\mathbb Z_{3}\times\mathbb Z_{3}&\cong\mathbb Z_{12}\times\mathbb Z_{6}\times\mathbb Z_{3}\\\mathbb Z_{2}\times\mathbb Z_{2}\times\mathbb Z_{2}\times\mathbb Z_{27}&\cong\mathbb Z_{54}\times\mathbb Z_{2}\times\mathbb Z_{2}\\\mathbb Z_{2}\times\mathbb Z_{2}\times\mathbb Z_{2}\times\mathbb Z_{9}\times\mathbb Z_{3}&\cong\mathbb Z_{18}\times\mathbb Z_{6}\times\mathbb Z_{2}\\\mathbb Z_{2}\times\mathbb Z_{2}\times\mathbb Z_{2}\times\mathbb Z_{3}\times\mathbb Z_{3}\times\mathbb Z_{3}&\cong\mathbb Z_{6}\times\mathbb Z_{6}\times\mathbb Z_{6}\end{align*}$$

Claim: If $p$ is an odd prime and $G$ is a group of order $2p$, then $G$ is a semi-direct product of the form $\mathbb Z_p\rtimes\mathbb Z_2$.

Proof: Let $h\in G$ of order $p$, let $k\in G$ of order $2$, let $H=\langle h\rangle$, and let $K=\langle k\rangle$. Then $H\cap K=\left\{e\right\}$, $G=HK$, and $\left[G:H\right]=2$, which implies that $H$ is normal. Therefore, $G=H\rtimes K\cong\mathbb Z_p\rtimes\mathbb Z_2$. $\blacksquare$

Claim: If $H$ and $K$ are groups and $\varphi:K\to\text{Aut}\left(H\right)$ is a homomorphism, then the identity map between $H\rtimes_{\varphi}K$ and $H\times K$ is an isomorphism if and only if $\varphi$ is the constant homomorphism.

Proof: Let $\left(h_1,k_1\right),\left(h_2,k_2\right)\in H\rtimes_{\varphi}K$ and suppose that the identity map between $H\rtimes_{\varphi}K$ and $H\times K$ is an isomorphism. Then

$$\left(h_1\varphi\left(k_1\right)\left(h_2\right),k_1k_2\right)=\left(h_1,k_1\right)\left(h_2,k_2\right)=\left(h_1h_2,k_1k_2\right),\tag*{$\left(\star\right)$}$$

which implies that $\varphi$ is the constant homomorphism.

Conversely, suppose that $\varphi$ is the constant homomorphism. Then $\left(\star\right)$ holds, which implies that the identity map between $H\rtimes_{\varphi}K$ and $H\times K$ is an isomorphism. $\blacksquare$

Claim: Boolean rings are commutative.

Proof: Let $x$ and $y$ be two elements of a Boolean ring. Then

$$x+y=\left(x+y\right)^2=x+xy+yx+y\implies0=xy+yx\implies xy=yx.\tag*{$\blacksquare$}$$

A Bit of Pre-Forensic Science

I've been sharing fairly serious math, so I'll tone it down in this blog entry by going over an intriguing problem my differential equations students had to tackle on Friday.

The Problem

The FBI hired you as a forensics scientist. Not long after, at midnight, a body with a temperature of 31°C was found in the woods. One hour after that, the temperature of the body had dropped to 29°C. It was noted that the ambient temperature remained at 21°C.

If the temperature of the body is modeled by Newton's law of cooling and if the normal temperature of a live body is 36.7°C, then when was the person killed?

The Solution

Let $x\left(t\right)$ be the temperature (in °C) of the body as a function of time (in hours). Then

$$x'\left(t\right)=k\left(x\left(t\right)-21\right),$$

where $k$ is a constant of proportionality. Let's solve this differential equation:

$$\begin{align*}x'\left(t\right)=kx\left(t\right)-21k&\implies\left[e^{-kt}x\left(t\right)\right]'=-21ke^{-kt}\\&\implies e^{-kt}x\left(t\right)=21e^{-kt}+C\\&\implies x\left(t\right)=21+Ce^{kt}.\end{align*}$$

Let $t=0$ represent midnight. Then $31=x\left(0\right)=21+C$, which implies $C=10$. Moreover, $29=x\left(1\right)=21+10e^{k}$, which implies $e^{k}=4/5$. Therefore,

$$x\left(t\right)=21+10\left(\frac{4}{5}\right)^t.$$

Setting this equal to $36.7$ and solving for $t$ yields $t\approx-2.02$, which implies the person was killed at around 10:00 PM.

Remarks
  • I skipped a gazillion steps.
  • In the real world:
    • the temperature of a dead body may not be modeled by Newton's law of cooling (what if the victim wore several layers of clothing?),
    • the ambient temperature may not be constant (think Texas), and
    • not everyone's normal body temperature is 36.7°C (what if the person ran a lot before dying?).
  • Nevertheless, educated guesses like these prove useful more often than not.

Metrizable + Lindelöf = Second Countable

Studying for my prelims has been a revealing experience: half a year ago, I proved this claim in an extraordinarily naïve way thinking that it was clever. Although the proof below is my most recent attempt, which is significantly conciser, history may repeat itself. This discipline has humbled me tremendously.

Claim: If $X$ is a metrizable, Lindelöf, topological space, then $X$ is second countable.

Proof: Let $d$ be a metric that induces the topology of $X$, and let $\mathcal B_n=\left\{B_d\left(x,1/n\right):x\in X\right\}$, where $n\in\mathbb N$. Then $\mathcal B_n$ is an open cover of $X$ and thus has a countable sub-cover $\mathcal V_n$. Let $\mathcal B=\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty\mathcal V_n$, let $x\in B_d\left(y_1,1/m_1\right)\cap B_d\left(y_2,1/m_2\right)$ for some $B_d\left(y_1,1/m_1\right),B_d\left(y_2,1/m_2\right)\in\mathcal B$, and let $m_3\in\mathbb N$ such that$$\frac1m_3\leqslant\frac12\min\left\{\frac1{m_1}-d\left(x,y_1\right),\frac1{m_2}-d\left(x,y_2\right)\right\}.$$ Then there is a $B_d\left(y_3,1/m_3\right)\in\mathcal B$ containing $x$. Let $z\in B_d\left(y_3,1/m_3\right)$. Then$$\begin{align*}d\left(z,y_1\right)&\leqslant d\left(z,y_3\right)+d\left(y_3,y_1\right)\\&\leqslant d\left(z,y_3\right)+d\left(y_3,x\right)+d\left(x,y_1\right)\\&<\frac1{m_3}+\frac1{m_3}+d\left(x,y_1\right)=\frac2{m_3}+d\left(x,y_1\right)\\&\leqslant\frac1{m_1}-d\left(x,y_1\right)+d\left(x,y_1\right)=\frac1{m_1},\end{align*}$$which implies that $z\in B_d\left(y_1,1/m_1\right)$, which in turn implies that $B_d\left(y_3,1/m_3\right)\subseteq B_d\left(y_1,1/m_1\right)$. A similar argument shows that $B_d\left(y_3,1/m_3\right)\subseteq B_d\left(y_2,1/m_2\right)$. $\blacksquare$

Heartbeat

I have not written in a while, but this blog is still alive, so I will quickly prove two of my favorite (among many) results of topology. These stem straight from my preparation for the coming preliminary examinations.

School all of a sudden snatched most of my time.

Let $X$ be a topological space.

Claim: $X$ is Hausdorff if and only if $\Delta:=\left\{\left(x,x\right):x\in X\right\}$ is closed.

Proof: Suppose that $X$ is Hausdorff, and let $\left(x_1,x_2\right)\in X\times X\setminus\Delta$. Then $x_1\neq x_2$, which implies that there exist disjoint neighborhoods $U$ and $V$ of $x_1$ and $x_2$, respectively, which implies that $U\times V\subseteq X\times X\setminus\Delta$, which implies that $X\times X\setminus\Delta$ is open, which implies that $\Delta$ is closed.

Suppose that $\Delta$ is closed, and let $x_1,x_2\in X$ such that $x_1\neq x_2$. Then $\left(x_1,x_2\right)\in X\times X\setminus\Delta$, which is open, which implies that there exists a neighborhood $U\times V$ of $\left(x_1,x_2\right)$ contained in $X\times X\setminus\Delta$, which implies that there exist disjoint neighborhoods $U$ and $V$ of $x_1$ and $x_2$, respectively, which implies that $X$ is Hausdorff. $\blacksquare$

Let $X$ and $Y$ be topological spaces, let $Y$ be Hausdorff, let $A\subseteq X$, let $f,g:\overline A\to Y$ be continuous, and let $f\left(x\right)=g\left(x\right)$ for every $x\in A$.

Claim: $f\left(x\right)=g\left(x\right)$ for every $x\in\overline A$.

Proof: Define $h:\overline A\to Y\times Y$ by $x\mapsto\left(f\left(x\right),g\left(x\right)\right)$. Then $h$ is continuous and $h\left(A\right)\subseteq\Delta$, which implies that $h(\overline A)\subseteq\overline{h\left(A\right)}\subseteq\overline\Delta$. Since $Y$ is Hausdorff, $\Delta$ is closed, which implies that $h(\overline A)\subseteq\Delta$, which implies that $f\left(x\right)=g\left(x\right)$ for every $x\in\overline A$. $\blacksquare$

I like these results because the first characterizes Hausdorff spaces in simple terms, and the second shows that no shenanigans happen at the continuous images in Hausdorff spaces of limit points.

Remark: It is implicit in the first claim that the topology on $X\times X$ is the product one, which is generated by the set of products of open subsets of $X$. Let $\left(x_1,x_2\right)\in X\times X$, and let $N$ be a neighborhood of $\left(x_1,x_2\right)$. Then
$$N=\bigcup_{\alpha\in I}U_\alpha\times V_\alpha,$$
where $U_\alpha$ and $V_\alpha$ are open, and $I$ is some index set. Therefore, there exists a $\beta\in I$ such that $\left(x_1,x_2\right)\in U_\beta\times V_\beta$.