0
$\begingroup$

I would just like verification that the following implications are correct:

If $H$ and $K$ are normal subgroups of an arbitrary group $G$, then $H \cap K$ is a normal subgroup of $G$. But the fact that $H$ and $K$ are normal implies that $[H,K] \subset H \cap K$ (assume this was already proven - not a difficult proof). Then, (this is the key implication that I am questioning) this implies that $[H,K]$ is normal in G.

2 Answers 2

1

Yes, it seems so. $[H,K]$ (as the subgroup generated by all $[h,k]:=hkh^{-1}k^{-1}$ commutators) is indeed normal in $G$, because: $g[h,k]g^{-1} = [ghg^{-1},gkg^{-1}] \in [H,K] $

  • 0
    but are my implications correct - that is my question...I already know that the end result is true2012-10-17
1

Maybe the transitively helps $[H,K]$ here to be normal in the group; but this is very well-known result that:

If $G$ is not an abelian group, it is not necessarily true that: $K\vartriangleleft H, H\vartriangleleft G\Longrightarrow K\vartriangleleft G $

You can find through web some conditions which allow you keep transitively via normality and can find some counter examples as well.

  • 0
    @afedder: The way of Berci is enough for the conclusion. It is simple and so formal. I vote for him (+1). But for other problems, except this problem here, you should be cautious. :)2012-10-17