A subgroup in Group theory
I am currently studying group theory, and its a quite new concept for me.
When learning about subgroups, I bumped into something.
In a problem where one wants to show that some set A is a group, is it sufficient enough to show that that set (A) satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B?
i.e.
If we know for sure that B is a group,
and we show that some set A satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B,
can we conclude that A is a group?
group-theory
asked 2 days ago
bladieblabladiebla
233
add a comment |
I am currently studying group theory, and its a quite new concept for me.
When learning about subgroups, I bumped into something.
In a problem where one wants to show that some set A is a group, is it sufficient enough to show that that set (A) satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B?
i.e.
If we know for sure that B is a group,
and we show that some set A satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B,
can we conclude that A is a group?
group-theory
asked 2 days ago
bladieblabladiebla
233
2
Suppose set B is a group and A is a subset of B. If A is a subgroup, then A is also a group. So, yes.
– Axion004
2 days ago
add a comment |
I am currently studying group theory, and its a quite new concept for me.
When learning about subgroups, I bumped into something.
In a problem where one wants to show that some set A is a group, is it sufficient enough to show that that set (A) satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B?
i.e.
If we know for sure that B is a group,
and we show that some set A satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B,
can we conclude that A is a group?
group-theory
asked 2 days ago
bladieblabladiebla
233
I am currently studying group theory, and its a quite new concept for me.
When learning about subgroups, I bumped into something.
In a problem where one wants to show that some set A is a group, is it sufficient enough to show that that set (A) satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B?
i.e.
If we know for sure that B is a group,
and we show that some set A satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B,
can we conclude that A is a group?
group-theory
group-theory
asked 2 days ago
bladieblabladiebla
233
asked 2 days ago
bladieblabladiebla
233
asked 2 days ago
bladieblabladiebla
233
asked 2 days ago
bladieblabladiebla
233
asked 2 days ago
bladieblabladiebla
233
233
2
Suppose set B is a group and A is a subset of B. If A is a subgroup, then A is also a group. So, yes.
– Axion004
2 days ago
add a comment |
2
Suppose set B is a group and A is a subset of B. If A is a subgroup, then A is also a group. So, yes.
– Axion004
2 days ago
2
2
Suppose set B is a group and A is a subset of B. If A is a subgroup, then A is also a group. So, yes.
– Axion004
2 days ago
Suppose set B is a group and A is a subset of B. If A is a subgroup, then A is also a group. So, yes.
– Axion004
2 days ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
It can be done easier. Let $G$ be a group and $U$ be a nonempty subset of $G$.
Then $U$ forms a subgroup of $G$ iff (1) for all $g,hin U$, $ghin U$, and (2) for each $gin U$, $g^{-1}in U$.
Then $U$ forms a subgroup of $G$ without checking the axioms point by point.
For instance, the unit element $ein G$ lies in $U$, since $U$ is nonempty and so $U$ has an element $g$. Then $g^{-1}in U$ by (2) and so by (1) $e= gg^{-1}in U$.
answered 2 days ago
WuestenfuxWuestenfux
3,7061411
I'm sure you know this but for the OP: We can also collapse it down to just one condition: $U$ is a subgroup of $G$ $iff$ $forall (a in U) forall (b in U) ab^{-1} in U$ (this is often said verbally as "the subset is closed under subtraction", because in additive notation $ab^{-1}$ is denoted as $a-b$. And when you will study rings, you will switch to the additive notation for groups)
– Ovi
2 days ago
Surely, the ''subgroup criterion''.
– Wuestenfux
2 days ago
Yes ${}{}{}{}{}$
– Ovi
2 days ago
add a comment |
No, as associativity may not be satisfied within the set. Consider, for instance, the structure $(S,*)$, with $S={1,a,b}$, and the following definition table for $*$:
$$
begin{matrix}
* & bf1 & bf{a} & bf{b} \
bf1 & 1 & a & b \
bf{a} & a & 1 & b \
bf{b} & b & a & 1
end{matrix}
$$
This satisfies the conditions for being a subgroup (it is closed under * and inverses, and it is nonempty), except for the fact that it is not in a group. But $(S,*)$ is not a group, because associativity fails: $1=a(ba) neq (ab)a=a$
answered 2 days ago
pendermathpendermath
16010
New contributor
pendermath is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
I don't see what this has to do with the question.
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
The question reads: "...to show that some set A is a group, is it sufficient enough to show that that set (A) satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B...". I provide a counterexample to show that it is not enough. The structure (S,*) satisfies the conditions for a subgroup, but is not a group.
– pendermath
2 days ago
But if it's already a subset of a group with the same operation, it's automatically associative. We're not talking about an arbitrary operation.
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
To quote the question, "If we know for sure that B is a group, and we show that some set A satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B, can we conclude that A is a group?"
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
I am not assuming that is a subset of a group. Maybe I missed the question.
– pendermath
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
If $G$ is a group and $Hsubseteq G$, then $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ iff it is nonvoid and closed under multiplication and inversion. You do not need to verify all of the axioms in this case because much is inherited from $G$.
answered 2 days ago
ncmathsadistncmathsadist
42.4k259102
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062766%2fa-subgroup-in-group-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
It can be done easier. Let $G$ be a group and $U$ be a nonempty subset of $G$.
Then $U$ forms a subgroup of $G$ iff (1) for all $g,hin U$, $ghin U$, and (2) for each $gin U$, $g^{-1}in U$.
Then $U$ forms a subgroup of $G$ without checking the axioms point by point.
For instance, the unit element $ein G$ lies in $U$, since $U$ is nonempty and so $U$ has an element $g$. Then $g^{-1}in U$ by (2) and so by (1) $e= gg^{-1}in U$.
answered 2 days ago
WuestenfuxWuestenfux
3,7061411
I'm sure you know this but for the OP: We can also collapse it down to just one condition: $U$ is a subgroup of $G$ $iff$ $forall (a in U) forall (b in U) ab^{-1} in U$ (this is often said verbally as "the subset is closed under subtraction", because in additive notation $ab^{-1}$ is denoted as $a-b$. And when you will study rings, you will switch to the additive notation for groups)
– Ovi
2 days ago
Surely, the ''subgroup criterion''.
– Wuestenfux
2 days ago
Yes ${}{}{}{}{}$
– Ovi
2 days ago
add a comment |
It can be done easier. Let $G$ be a group and $U$ be a nonempty subset of $G$.
Then $U$ forms a subgroup of $G$ iff (1) for all $g,hin U$, $ghin U$, and (2) for each $gin U$, $g^{-1}in U$.
Then $U$ forms a subgroup of $G$ without checking the axioms point by point.
For instance, the unit element $ein G$ lies in $U$, since $U$ is nonempty and so $U$ has an element $g$. Then $g^{-1}in U$ by (2) and so by (1) $e= gg^{-1}in U$.
answered 2 days ago
WuestenfuxWuestenfux
3,7061411
I'm sure you know this but for the OP: We can also collapse it down to just one condition: $U$ is a subgroup of $G$ $iff$ $forall (a in U) forall (b in U) ab^{-1} in U$ (this is often said verbally as "the subset is closed under subtraction", because in additive notation $ab^{-1}$ is denoted as $a-b$. And when you will study rings, you will switch to the additive notation for groups)
– Ovi
2 days ago
Surely, the ''subgroup criterion''.
– Wuestenfux
2 days ago
Yes ${}{}{}{}{}$
– Ovi
2 days ago
add a comment |
It can be done easier. Let $G$ be a group and $U$ be a nonempty subset of $G$.
Then $U$ forms a subgroup of $G$ iff (1) for all $g,hin U$, $ghin U$, and (2) for each $gin U$, $g^{-1}in U$.
Then $U$ forms a subgroup of $G$ without checking the axioms point by point.
For instance, the unit element $ein G$ lies in $U$, since $U$ is nonempty and so $U$ has an element $g$. Then $g^{-1}in U$ by (2) and so by (1) $e= gg^{-1}in U$.
answered 2 days ago
WuestenfuxWuestenfux
3,7061411
It can be done easier. Let $G$ be a group and $U$ be a nonempty subset of $G$.
Then $U$ forms a subgroup of $G$ iff (1) for all $g,hin U$, $ghin U$, and (2) for each $gin U$, $g^{-1}in U$.
Then $U$ forms a subgroup of $G$ without checking the axioms point by point.
For instance, the unit element $ein G$ lies in $U$, since $U$ is nonempty and so $U$ has an element $g$. Then $g^{-1}in U$ by (2) and so by (1) $e= gg^{-1}in U$.
answered 2 days ago
WuestenfuxWuestenfux
3,7061411
answered 2 days ago
WuestenfuxWuestenfux
3,7061411
answered 2 days ago
WuestenfuxWuestenfux
3,7061411
answered 2 days ago
WuestenfuxWuestenfux
3,7061411
3,7061411
I'm sure you know this but for the OP: We can also collapse it down to just one condition: $U$ is a subgroup of $G$ $iff$ $forall (a in U) forall (b in U) ab^{-1} in U$ (this is often said verbally as "the subset is closed under subtraction", because in additive notation $ab^{-1}$ is denoted as $a-b$. And when you will study rings, you will switch to the additive notation for groups)
– Ovi
2 days ago
Surely, the ''subgroup criterion''.
– Wuestenfux
2 days ago
Yes ${}{}{}{}{}$
– Ovi
2 days ago
add a comment |
I'm sure you know this but for the OP: We can also collapse it down to just one condition: $U$ is a subgroup of $G$ $iff$ $forall (a in U) forall (b in U) ab^{-1} in U$ (this is often said verbally as "the subset is closed under subtraction", because in additive notation $ab^{-1}$ is denoted as $a-b$. And when you will study rings, you will switch to the additive notation for groups)
– Ovi
2 days ago
Surely, the ''subgroup criterion''.
– Wuestenfux
2 days ago
Yes ${}{}{}{}{}$
– Ovi
2 days ago
I'm sure you know this but for the OP: We can also collapse it down to just one condition: $U$ is a subgroup of $G$ $iff$ $forall (a in U) forall (b in U) ab^{-1} in U$ (this is often said verbally as "the subset is closed under subtraction", because in additive notation $ab^{-1}$ is denoted as $a-b$. And when you will study rings, you will switch to the additive notation for groups)
– Ovi
2 days ago
I'm sure you know this but for the OP: We can also collapse it down to just one condition: $U$ is a subgroup of $G$ $iff$ $forall (a in U) forall (b in U) ab^{-1} in U$ (this is often said verbally as "the subset is closed under subtraction", because in additive notation $ab^{-1}$ is denoted as $a-b$. And when you will study rings, you will switch to the additive notation for groups)
– Ovi
2 days ago
Surely, the ''subgroup criterion''.
– Wuestenfux
2 days ago
Surely, the ''subgroup criterion''.
– Wuestenfux
2 days ago
Yes ${}{}{}{}{}$
– Ovi
2 days ago
Yes ${}{}{}{}{}$
– Ovi
2 days ago
add a comment |
No, as associativity may not be satisfied within the set. Consider, for instance, the structure $(S,*)$, with $S={1,a,b}$, and the following definition table for $*$:
$$
begin{matrix}
* & bf1 & bf{a} & bf{b} \
bf1 & 1 & a & b \
bf{a} & a & 1 & b \
bf{b} & b & a & 1
end{matrix}
$$
This satisfies the conditions for being a subgroup (it is closed under * and inverses, and it is nonempty), except for the fact that it is not in a group. But $(S,*)$ is not a group, because associativity fails: $1=a(ba) neq (ab)a=a$
answered 2 days ago
pendermathpendermath
16010
New contributor
pendermath is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
I don't see what this has to do with the question.
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
The question reads: "...to show that some set A is a group, is it sufficient enough to show that that set (A) satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B...". I provide a counterexample to show that it is not enough. The structure (S,*) satisfies the conditions for a subgroup, but is not a group.
– pendermath
2 days ago
But if it's already a subset of a group with the same operation, it's automatically associative. We're not talking about an arbitrary operation.
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
To quote the question, "If we know for sure that B is a group, and we show that some set A satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B, can we conclude that A is a group?"
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
I am not assuming that is a subset of a group. Maybe I missed the question.
– pendermath
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
No, as associativity may not be satisfied within the set. Consider, for instance, the structure $(S,*)$, with $S={1,a,b}$, and the following definition table for $*$:
$$
begin{matrix}
* & bf1 & bf{a} & bf{b} \
bf1 & 1 & a & b \
bf{a} & a & 1 & b \
bf{b} & b & a & 1
end{matrix}
$$
This satisfies the conditions for being a subgroup (it is closed under * and inverses, and it is nonempty), except for the fact that it is not in a group. But $(S,*)$ is not a group, because associativity fails: $1=a(ba) neq (ab)a=a$
answered 2 days ago
pendermathpendermath
16010
New contributor
pendermath is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
I don't see what this has to do with the question.
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
The question reads: "...to show that some set A is a group, is it sufficient enough to show that that set (A) satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B...". I provide a counterexample to show that it is not enough. The structure (S,*) satisfies the conditions for a subgroup, but is not a group.
– pendermath
2 days ago
But if it's already a subset of a group with the same operation, it's automatically associative. We're not talking about an arbitrary operation.
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
To quote the question, "If we know for sure that B is a group, and we show that some set A satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B, can we conclude that A is a group?"
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
I am not assuming that is a subset of a group. Maybe I missed the question.
– pendermath
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
No, as associativity may not be satisfied within the set. Consider, for instance, the structure $(S,*)$, with $S={1,a,b}$, and the following definition table for $*$:
$$
begin{matrix}
* & bf1 & bf{a} & bf{b} \
bf1 & 1 & a & b \
bf{a} & a & 1 & b \
bf{b} & b & a & 1
end{matrix}
$$
This satisfies the conditions for being a subgroup (it is closed under * and inverses, and it is nonempty), except for the fact that it is not in a group. But $(S,*)$ is not a group, because associativity fails: $1=a(ba) neq (ab)a=a$
answered 2 days ago
pendermathpendermath
16010
New contributor
pendermath is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
No, as associativity may not be satisfied within the set. Consider, for instance, the structure $(S,*)$, with $S={1,a,b}$, and the following definition table for $*$:
$$
begin{matrix}
* & bf1 & bf{a} & bf{b} \
bf1 & 1 & a & b \
bf{a} & a & 1 & b \
bf{b} & b & a & 1
end{matrix}
$$
This satisfies the conditions for being a subgroup (it is closed under * and inverses, and it is nonempty), except for the fact that it is not in a group. But $(S,*)$ is not a group, because associativity fails: $1=a(ba) neq (ab)a=a$
answered 2 days ago
pendermathpendermath
16010
New contributor
pendermath is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
pendermathpendermath
16010
New contributor
pendermath is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 days ago
pendermathpendermath
16010
answered 2 days ago
pendermathpendermath
16010
16010
New contributor
pendermath is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
pendermath is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
pendermath is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
I don't see what this has to do with the question.
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
The question reads: "...to show that some set A is a group, is it sufficient enough to show that that set (A) satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B...". I provide a counterexample to show that it is not enough. The structure (S,*) satisfies the conditions for a subgroup, but is not a group.
– pendermath
2 days ago
But if it's already a subset of a group with the same operation, it's automatically associative. We're not talking about an arbitrary operation.
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
To quote the question, "If we know for sure that B is a group, and we show that some set A satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B, can we conclude that A is a group?"
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
I am not assuming that is a subset of a group. Maybe I missed the question.
– pendermath
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
1
I don't see what this has to do with the question.
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
The question reads: "...to show that some set A is a group, is it sufficient enough to show that that set (A) satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B...". I provide a counterexample to show that it is not enough. The structure (S,*) satisfies the conditions for a subgroup, but is not a group.
– pendermath
2 days ago
But if it's already a subset of a group with the same operation, it's automatically associative. We're not talking about an arbitrary operation.
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
To quote the question, "If we know for sure that B is a group, and we show that some set A satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B, can we conclude that A is a group?"
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
I am not assuming that is a subset of a group. Maybe I missed the question.
– pendermath
2 days ago
1
1
I don't see what this has to do with the question.
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
I don't see what this has to do with the question.
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
The question reads: "...to show that some set A is a group, is it sufficient enough to show that that set (A) satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B...". I provide a counterexample to show that it is not enough. The structure (S,*) satisfies the conditions for a subgroup, but is not a group.
– pendermath
2 days ago
The question reads: "...to show that some set A is a group, is it sufficient enough to show that that set (A) satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B...". I provide a counterexample to show that it is not enough. The structure (S,*) satisfies the conditions for a subgroup, but is not a group.
– pendermath
2 days ago
But if it's already a subset of a group with the same operation, it's automatically associative. We're not talking about an arbitrary operation.
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
But if it's already a subset of a group with the same operation, it's automatically associative. We're not talking about an arbitrary operation.
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
To quote the question, "If we know for sure that B is a group, and we show that some set A satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B, can we conclude that A is a group?"
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
To quote the question, "If we know for sure that B is a group, and we show that some set A satisfies all axioms of being a subgroup of a group B, can we conclude that A is a group?"
– Matt Samuel
2 days ago
I am not assuming that is a subset of a group. Maybe I missed the question.
– pendermath
2 days ago
I am not assuming that is a subset of a group. Maybe I missed the question.
– pendermath
2 days ago
|
show 3 more comments
If $G$ is a group and $Hsubseteq G$, then $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ iff it is nonvoid and closed under multiplication and inversion. You do not need to verify all of the axioms in this case because much is inherited from $G$.
answered 2 days ago
ncmathsadistncmathsadist
42.4k259102
add a comment |
If $G$ is a group and $Hsubseteq G$, then $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ iff it is nonvoid and closed under multiplication and inversion. You do not need to verify all of the axioms in this case because much is inherited from $G$.
answered 2 days ago
ncmathsadistncmathsadist
42.4k259102
add a comment |
If $G$ is a group and $Hsubseteq G$, then $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ iff it is nonvoid and closed under multiplication and inversion. You do not need to verify all of the axioms in this case because much is inherited from $G$.
answered 2 days ago
ncmathsadistncmathsadist
42.4k259102
If $G$ is a group and $Hsubseteq G$, then $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ iff it is nonvoid and closed under multiplication and inversion. You do not need to verify all of the axioms in this case because much is inherited from $G$.
answered 2 days ago
ncmathsadistncmathsadist
42.4k259102
answered 2 days ago
ncmathsadistncmathsadist
42.4k259102
answered 2 days ago
ncmathsadistncmathsadist
42.4k259102
answered 2 days ago
ncmathsadistncmathsadist
42.4k259102
42.4k259102
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062766%2fa-subgroup-in-group-theory%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
2
Suppose set B is a group and A is a subset of B. If A is a subgroup, then A is also a group. So, yes.
– Axion004
2 days ago