Question: What are smaller and easier to understand groups broken down into?

Answer: subgroups, quotient groups and simple groups.

The concept of a group arose from the study of polynomial equations, starting with Évariste Galois in the 1830s. After contributions from other fields such as number theory and geometry, the group notion was generalized and firmly established around 1870. <hl> Modern group theory—an active mathematical discipline—studies groups in their own right.a[›] To explore groups, mathematicians have devised various notions to break groups into smaller, better-understandable pieces, such as subgroups, quotient groups and simple groups. In addition to their abstract properties, group theorists also study the different ways in which a group can be expressed concretely (its group representations), both from a theoretical and a computational point of view. <hl> A theory has been developed for finite groups, which culminated with the classification of finite simple groups announced in 1983.aa[›] Since the mid-1980s, geometric group theory, which studies finitely generated groups as geometric objects, has become a particularly active area in group theory.

The concept of a group arose from the study of polynomial equations, starting with Évariste Galois in the 1830s. After contributions from other fields such as number theory and geometry, the group notion was generalized and firmly established around 1870. Modern group theory—an active mathematical discipline—studies groups in their own right.a[›] To explore groups, mathematicians have devised various notions to break groups into smaller, better-understandable pieces, such as <hl> subgroups, quotient groups and simple groups. <hl> In addition to their abstract properties, group theorists also study the different ways in which a group can be expressed concretely (its group representations), both from a theoretical and a computational point of view. A theory has been developed for finite groups, which culminated with the classification of finite simple groups announced in 1983.aa[›] Since the mid-1980s, geometric group theory, which studies finitely generated groups as geometric objects, has become a particularly active area in group theory.

question: What are smaller and easier to understand groups broken down into?, context: The concept of a group arose from the study of polynomial equations, starting with Évariste Galois in the 1830s. After contributions from other fields such as number theory and geometry, the group notion was generalized and firmly established around 1870. Modern group theory—an active mathematical discipline—studies groups in their own right.a[›] To explore groups, mathematicians have devised various notions to break groups into smaller, better-understandable pieces, such as subgroups, quotient groups and simple groups. In addition to their abstract properties, group theorists also study the different ways in which a group can be expressed concretely (its group representations), both from a theoretical and a computational point of view. A theory has been developed for finite groups, which culminated with the classification of finite simple groups announced in 1983.aa[›] Since the mid-1980s, geometric group theory, which studies finitely generated groups as geometric objects, has become a particularly active area in group theory.


Question: When was announcement for the classification of finite simple groups?

Answer: 1983

The concept of a group arose from the study of polynomial equations, starting with Évariste Galois in the 1830s. After contributions from other fields such as number theory and geometry, the group notion was generalized and firmly established around 1870. Modern group theory—an active mathematical discipline—studies groups in their own right.a[›] To explore groups, mathematicians have devised various notions to break groups into smaller, better-understandable pieces, such as subgroups, quotient groups and simple groups. In addition to their abstract properties, group theorists also study the different ways in which a group can be expressed concretely (its group representations), both from a theoretical and a computational point of view. <hl> A theory has been developed for finite groups, which culminated with the classification of finite simple groups announced in 1983 .aa[›] <hl> Since the mid-1980s, geometric group theory, which studies finitely generated groups as geometric objects, has become a particularly active area in group theory.

The concept of a group arose from the study of polynomial equations, starting with Évariste Galois in the 1830s. After contributions from other fields such as number theory and geometry, the group notion was generalized and firmly established around 1870. Modern group theory—an active mathematical discipline—studies groups in their own right.a[›] To explore groups, mathematicians have devised various notions to break groups into smaller, better-understandable pieces, such as subgroups, quotient groups and simple groups. In addition to their abstract properties, group theorists also study the different ways in which a group can be expressed concretely (its group representations), both from a theoretical and a computational point of view. A theory has been developed for finite groups, which culminated with the classification of finite simple groups announced in <hl> 1983 <hl>.aa[›] Since the mid-1980s, geometric group theory, which studies finitely generated groups as geometric objects, has become a particularly active area in group theory.

A theory has been developed for finite groups, which culminated with the classification of finite simple groups announced in <hl> 1983 <hl> .aa[›]

question: When was announcement for the classification of finite simple groups?, context: The concept of a group arose from the study of polynomial equations, starting with Évariste Galois in the 1830s. After contributions from other fields such as number theory and geometry, the group notion was generalized and firmly established around 1870. Modern group theory—an active mathematical discipline—studies groups in their own right.a[›] To explore groups, mathematicians have devised various notions to break groups into smaller, better-understandable pieces, such as subgroups, quotient groups and simple groups. In addition to their abstract properties, group theorists also study the different ways in which a group can be expressed concretely (its group representations), both from a theoretical and a computational point of view. A theory has been developed for finite groups, which culminated with the classification of finite simple groups announced in 1983.aa[›] Since the mid-1980s, geometric group theory, which studies finitely generated groups as geometric objects, has become a particularly active area in group theory.


Question: What is known as underlying set of the group?

Answer: The set

<hl> The set G is called the underlying set of the group (G, •). <hl> Often the group's underlying set G is used as a short name for the group (G, •). Along the same lines, shorthand expressions such as "a subset of the group G" or "an element of group G" are used when what is actually meant is "a subset of the underlying set G of the group (G, •)" or "an element of the underlying set G of the group (G, •)". Usually, it is clear from the context whether a symbol like G refers to a group or to an underlying set.

<hl> The set <hl> G is called the underlying set of the group (G, •). Often the group's underlying set G is used as a short name for the group (G, •). Along the same lines, shorthand expressions such as "a subset of the group G" or "an element of group G" are used when what is actually meant is "a subset of the underlying set G of the group (G, •)" or "an element of the underlying set G of the group (G, •)". Usually, it is clear from the context whether a symbol like G refers to a group or to an underlying set.

question: What is known as underlying set of the group?, context: The set G is called the underlying set of the group (G, •). Often the group's underlying set G is used as a short name for the group (G, •). Along the same lines, shorthand expressions such as "a subset of the group G" or "an element of group G" are used when what is actually meant is "a subset of the underlying set G of the group (G, •)" or "an element of the underlying set G of the group (G, •)". Usually, it is clear from the context whether a symbol like G refers to a group or to an underlying set.


Question: What is often utilized as a short name for the group?

Answer: the group's underlying set

The set G is called the underlying set of the group (G, •). <hl> Often the group's underlying set G is used as a short name for the group (G, •). <hl> Along the same lines, shorthand expressions such as "a subset of the group G" or "an element of group G" are used when what is actually meant is "a subset of the underlying set G of the group (G, •)" or "an element of the underlying set G of the group (G, •)". Usually, it is clear from the context whether a symbol like G refers to a group or to an underlying set.

The set G is called the underlying set of the group (G, •). Often <hl> the group's underlying set <hl> G is used as a short name for the group (G, •). Along the same lines, shorthand expressions such as "a subset of the group G" or "an element of group G" are used when what is actually meant is "a subset of the underlying set G of the group (G, •)" or "an element of the underlying set G of the group (G, •)". Usually, it is clear from the context whether a symbol like G refers to a group or to an underlying set.

question: What is often utilized as a short name for the group?, context: The set G is called the underlying set of the group (G, •). Often the group's underlying set G is used as a short name for the group (G, •). Along the same lines, shorthand expressions such as "a subset of the group G" or "an element of group G" are used when what is actually meant is "a subset of the underlying set G of the group (G, •)" or "an element of the underlying set G of the group (G, •)". Usually, it is clear from the context whether a symbol like G refers to a group or to an underlying set.


Question: What expressions are utilized when is really implied to be a longer expression?

Answer: shorthand expressions

The set G is called the underlying set of the group (G, •). Often the group's underlying set G is used as a short name for the group (G, •). <hl> Along the same lines, shorthand expressions such as "a subset of the group G" or "an element of group G" are used when what is actually meant is "a subset of the underlying set G of the group (G, •)" or "an element of the underlying set G of the group (G, •)". <hl> Usually, it is clear from the context whether a symbol like G refers to a group or to an underlying set.

The set G is called the underlying set of the group (G, •). Often the group's underlying set G is used as a short name for the group (G, •). Along the same lines, <hl> shorthand expressions <hl> such as "a subset of the group G" or "an element of group G" are used when what is actually meant is "a subset of the underlying set G of the group (G, •)" or "an element of the underlying set G of the group (G, •)". Usually, it is clear from the context whether a symbol like G refers to a group or to an underlying set.

question: What expressions are utilized when is really implied to be a longer expression?, context: The set G is called the underlying set of the group (G, •). Often the group's underlying set G is used as a short name for the group (G, •). Along the same lines, shorthand expressions such as "a subset of the group G" or "an element of group G" are used when what is actually meant is "a subset of the underlying set G of the group (G, •)" or "an element of the underlying set G of the group (G, •)". Usually, it is clear from the context whether a symbol like G refers to a group or to an underlying set.


Question: What sends a point in the square to the relating point under the symmetry?

Answer: functions

<hl> These symmetries are represented by functions . <hl> Each of these functions sends a point in the square to the corresponding point under the symmetry. For example, r1 sends a point to its rotation 90° clockwise around the square's center, and fh sends a point to its reflection across the square's vertical middle line. Composing two of these symmetry functions gives another symmetry function. These symmetries determine a group called the dihedral group of degree 4 and denoted D4. The underlying set of the group is the above set of symmetry functions, and the group operation is function composition. Two symmetries are combined by composing them as functions, that is, applying the first one to the square, and the second one to the result of the first application. The result of performing first a and then b is written symbolically from right to left as

These symmetries are represented by <hl> functions <hl>. Each of these functions sends a point in the square to the corresponding point under the symmetry. For example, r1 sends a point to its rotation 90° clockwise around the square's center, and fh sends a point to its reflection across the square's vertical middle line. Composing two of these symmetry functions gives another symmetry function. These symmetries determine a group called the dihedral group of degree 4 and denoted D4. The underlying set of the group is the above set of symmetry functions, and the group operation is function composition. Two symmetries are combined by composing them as functions, that is, applying the first one to the square, and the second one to the result of the first application. The result of performing first a and then b is written symbolically from right to left as

These symmetries are represented by <hl> functions <hl> .

question: What sends a point in the square to the relating point under the symmetry?, context: These symmetries are represented by functions. Each of these functions sends a point in the square to the corresponding point under the symmetry. For example, r1 sends a point to its rotation 90° clockwise around the square's center, and fh sends a point to its reflection across the square's vertical middle line. Composing two of these symmetry functions gives another symmetry function. These symmetries determine a group called the dihedral group of degree 4 and denoted D4. The underlying set of the group is the above set of symmetry functions, and the group operation is function composition. Two symmetries are combined by composing them as functions, that is, applying the first one to the square, and the second one to the result of the first application. The result of performing first a and then b is written symbolically from right to left as


Question: What gives another symmetry function?

Answer: Composing two of these symmetry functions

These symmetries are represented by functions. Each of these functions sends a point in the square to the corresponding point under the symmetry. For example, r1 sends a point to its rotation 90° clockwise around the square's center, and fh sends a point to its reflection across the square's vertical middle line. <hl> Composing two of these symmetry functions gives another symmetry function. <hl> These symmetries determine a group called the dihedral group of degree 4 and denoted D4. The underlying set of the group is the above set of symmetry functions, and the group operation is function composition. Two symmetries are combined by composing them as functions, that is, applying the first one to the square, and the second one to the result of the first application. The result of performing first a and then b is written symbolically from right to left as

These symmetries are represented by functions. Each of these functions sends a point in the square to the corresponding point under the symmetry. For example, r1 sends a point to its rotation 90° clockwise around the square's center, and fh sends a point to its reflection across the square's vertical middle line. <hl> Composing two of these symmetry functions <hl> gives another symmetry function. These symmetries determine a group called the dihedral group of degree 4 and denoted D4. The underlying set of the group is the above set of symmetry functions, and the group operation is function composition. Two symmetries are combined by composing them as functions, that is, applying the first one to the square, and the second one to the result of the first application. The result of performing first a and then b is written symbolically from right to left as

question: What gives another symmetry function?, context: These symmetries are represented by functions. Each of these functions sends a point in the square to the corresponding point under the symmetry. For example, r1 sends a point to its rotation 90° clockwise around the square's center, and fh sends a point to its reflection across the square's vertical middle line. Composing two of these symmetry functions gives another symmetry function. These symmetries determine a group called the dihedral group of degree 4 and denoted D4. The underlying set of the group is the above set of symmetry functions, and the group operation is function composition. Two symmetries are combined by composing them as functions, that is, applying the first one to the square, and the second one to the result of the first application. The result of performing first a and then b is written symbolically from right to left as


Question: What group includes the symmetries of degree 4 and denoted D4?

Answer: the dihedral group

These symmetries are represented by functions. Each of these functions sends a point in the square to the corresponding point under the symmetry. For example, r1 sends a point to its rotation 90° clockwise around the square's center, and fh sends a point to its reflection across the square's vertical middle line. Composing two of these symmetry functions gives another symmetry function. <hl> These symmetries determine a group called the dihedral group of degree 4 and denoted D4. <hl> The underlying set of the group is the above set of symmetry functions, and the group operation is function composition. Two symmetries are combined by composing them as functions, that is, applying the first one to the square, and the second one to the result of the first application. The result of performing first a and then b is written symbolically from right to left as

These symmetries are represented by functions. Each of these functions sends a point in the square to the corresponding point under the symmetry. For example, r1 sends a point to its rotation 90° clockwise around the square's center, and fh sends a point to its reflection across the square's vertical middle line. Composing two of these symmetry functions gives another symmetry function. These symmetries determine a group called <hl> the dihedral group <hl> of degree 4 and denoted D4. The underlying set of the group is the above set of symmetry functions, and the group operation is function composition. Two symmetries are combined by composing them as functions, that is, applying the first one to the square, and the second one to the result of the first application. The result of performing first a and then b is written symbolically from right to left as

question: What group includes the symmetries of degree 4 and denoted D4?, context: These symmetries are represented by functions. Each of these functions sends a point in the square to the corresponding point under the symmetry. For example, r1 sends a point to its rotation 90° clockwise around the square's center, and fh sends a point to its reflection across the square's vertical middle line. Composing two of these symmetry functions gives another symmetry function. These symmetries determine a group called the dihedral group of degree 4 and denoted D4. The underlying set of the group is the above set of symmetry functions, and the group operation is function composition. Two symmetries are combined by composing them as functions, that is, applying the first one to the square, and the second one to the result of the first application. The result of performing first a and then b is written symbolically from right to left as


Question: Which French mathematician expanded on earlier work of Paolo Ruffini and Joseph-Louis Lagrange?

Answer: Évariste Galois

The modern concept of an abstract group developed out of several fields of mathematics. The original motivation for group theory was the quest for solutions of polynomial equations of degree higher than 4. <hl> The 19th-century French mathematician Évariste Galois , extending prior work of Paolo Ruffini and Joseph-Louis Lagrange, gave a criterion for the solvability of a particular polynomial equation in terms of the symmetry group of its roots (solutions). <hl> The elements of such a Galois group correspond to certain permutations of the roots. At first, Galois' ideas were rejected by his contemporaries, and published only posthumously. More general permutation groups were investigated in particular by Augustin Louis Cauchy. Arthur Cayley's On the theory of groups, as depending on the symbolic equation θn = 1 (1854) gives the first abstract definition of a finite group.

The modern concept of an abstract group developed out of several fields of mathematics. The original motivation for group theory was the quest for solutions of polynomial equations of degree higher than 4. The 19th-century French mathematician <hl> Évariste Galois <hl>, extending prior work of Paolo Ruffini and Joseph-Louis Lagrange, gave a criterion for the solvability of a particular polynomial equation in terms of the symmetry group of its roots (solutions). The elements of such a Galois group correspond to certain permutations of the roots. At first, Galois' ideas were rejected by his contemporaries, and published only posthumously. More general permutation groups were investigated in particular by Augustin Louis Cauchy. Arthur Cayley's On the theory of groups, as depending on the symbolic equation θn = 1 (1854) gives the first abstract definition of a finite group.

The 19th-century French mathematician <hl> Évariste Galois <hl> , extending prior work of Paolo Ruffini and Joseph-Louis Lagrange, gave a criterion for the solvability of a particular polynomial equation in terms of the symmetry group of its roots (solutions).

question: Which French mathematician expanded on earlier work of Paolo Ruffini and Joseph-Louis Lagrange?, context: The modern concept of an abstract group developed out of several fields of mathematics. The original motivation for group theory was the quest for solutions of polynomial equations of degree higher than 4. The 19th-century French mathematician Évariste Galois, extending prior work of Paolo Ruffini and Joseph-Louis Lagrange, gave a criterion for the solvability of a particular polynomial equation in terms of the symmetry group of its roots (solutions). The elements of such a Galois group correspond to certain permutations of the roots. At first, Galois' ideas were rejected by his contemporaries, and published only posthumously. More general permutation groups were investigated in particular by Augustin Louis Cauchy. Arthur Cayley's On the theory of groups, as depending on the symbolic equation θn = 1 (1854) gives the first abstract definition of a finite group.


Question: The journey for answers to polynomial equations of degree higher than 4 was the original motivation for what theory?

Answer: group theory

The modern concept of an abstract group developed out of several fields of mathematics. <hl> The original motivation for group theory was the quest for solutions of polynomial equations of degree higher than 4. <hl> The 19th-century French mathematician Évariste Galois, extending prior work of Paolo Ruffini and Joseph-Louis Lagrange, gave a criterion for the solvability of a particular polynomial equation in terms of the symmetry group of its roots (solutions). The elements of such a Galois group correspond to certain permutations of the roots. At first, Galois' ideas were rejected by his contemporaries, and published only posthumously. More general permutation groups were investigated in particular by Augustin Louis Cauchy. Arthur Cayley's On the theory of groups, as depending on the symbolic equation θn = 1 (1854) gives the first abstract definition of a finite group.

The modern concept of an abstract group developed out of several fields of mathematics. The original motivation for <hl> group theory <hl> was the quest for solutions of polynomial equations of degree higher than 4. The 19th-century French mathematician Évariste Galois, extending prior work of Paolo Ruffini and Joseph-Louis Lagrange, gave a criterion for the solvability of a particular polynomial equation in terms of the symmetry group of its roots (solutions). The elements of such a Galois group correspond to certain permutations of the roots. At first, Galois' ideas were rejected by his contemporaries, and published only posthumously. More general permutation groups were investigated in particular by Augustin Louis Cauchy. Arthur Cayley's On the theory of groups, as depending on the symbolic equation θn = 1 (1854) gives the first abstract definition of a finite group.

question: The journey for answers to polynomial equations of degree higher than 4 was the original motivation for what theory?, context: The modern concept of an abstract group developed out of several fields of mathematics. The original motivation for group theory was the quest for solutions of polynomial equations of degree higher than 4. The 19th-century French mathematician Évariste Galois, extending prior work of Paolo Ruffini and Joseph-Louis Lagrange, gave a criterion for the solvability of a particular polynomial equation in terms of the symmetry group of its roots (solutions). The elements of such a Galois group correspond to certain permutations of the roots. At first, Galois' ideas were rejected by his contemporaries, and published only posthumously. More general permutation groups were investigated in particular by Augustin Louis Cauchy. Arthur Cayley's On the theory of groups, as depending on the symbolic equation θn = 1 (1854) gives the first abstract definition of a finite group.


Question: Who developed a theory giving the first abstract definition of a finite group?

Answer: Arthur Cayley

The modern concept of an abstract group developed out of several fields of mathematics. The original motivation for group theory was the quest for solutions of polynomial equations of degree higher than 4. The 19th-century French mathematician Évariste Galois, extending prior work of Paolo Ruffini and Joseph-Louis Lagrange, gave a criterion for the solvability of a particular polynomial equation in terms of the symmetry group of its roots (solutions). The elements of such a Galois group correspond to certain permutations of the roots. At first, Galois' ideas were rejected by his contemporaries, and published only posthumously. More general permutation groups were investigated in particular by Augustin Louis Cauchy. <hl> Arthur Cayley 's On the theory of groups, as depending on the symbolic equation θn = 1 (1854) gives the first abstract definition of a finite group. <hl>

The modern concept of an abstract group developed out of several fields of mathematics. The original motivation for group theory was the quest for solutions of polynomial equations of degree higher than 4. The 19th-century French mathematician Évariste Galois, extending prior work of Paolo Ruffini and Joseph-Louis Lagrange, gave a criterion for the solvability of a particular polynomial equation in terms of the symmetry group of its roots (solutions). The elements of such a Galois group correspond to certain permutations of the roots. At first, Galois' ideas were rejected by his contemporaries, and published only posthumously. More general permutation groups were investigated in particular by Augustin Louis Cauchy. <hl> Arthur Cayley <hl>'s On the theory of groups, as depending on the symbolic equation θn = 1 (1854) gives the first abstract definition of a finite group.

<hl> Arthur Cayley <hl> 's On the theory of groups, as depending on the symbolic equation θn = 1 (1854) gives the first abstract definition of a finite group.

question: Who developed a theory giving the first abstract definition of a finite group?, context: The modern concept of an abstract group developed out of several fields of mathematics. The original motivation for group theory was the quest for solutions of polynomial equations of degree higher than 4. The 19th-century French mathematician Évariste Galois, extending prior work of Paolo Ruffini and Joseph-Louis Lagrange, gave a criterion for the solvability of a particular polynomial equation in terms of the symmetry group of its roots (solutions). The elements of such a Galois group correspond to certain permutations of the roots. At first, Galois' ideas were rejected by his contemporaries, and published only posthumously. More general permutation groups were investigated in particular by Augustin Louis Cauchy. Arthur Cayley's On the theory of groups, as depending on the symbolic equation θn = 1 (1854) gives the first abstract definition of a finite group.


Question: What modern concept was created from many fields of mathematics?

Answer: abstract group

<hl> The modern concept of an abstract group developed out of several fields of mathematics. <hl> The original motivation for group theory was the quest for solutions of polynomial equations of degree higher than 4. The 19th-century French mathematician Évariste Galois, extending prior work of Paolo Ruffini and Joseph-Louis Lagrange, gave a criterion for the solvability of a particular polynomial equation in terms of the symmetry group of its roots (solutions). The elements of such a Galois group correspond to certain permutations of the roots. At first, Galois' ideas were rejected by his contemporaries, and published only posthumously. More general permutation groups were investigated in particular by Augustin Louis Cauchy. Arthur Cayley's On the theory of groups, as depending on the symbolic equation θn = 1 (1854) gives the first abstract definition of a finite group.

The modern concept of an <hl> abstract group <hl> developed out of several fields of mathematics. The original motivation for group theory was the quest for solutions of polynomial equations of degree higher than 4. The 19th-century French mathematician Évariste Galois, extending prior work of Paolo Ruffini and Joseph-Louis Lagrange, gave a criterion for the solvability of a particular polynomial equation in terms of the symmetry group of its roots (solutions). The elements of such a Galois group correspond to certain permutations of the roots. At first, Galois' ideas were rejected by his contemporaries, and published only posthumously. More general permutation groups were investigated in particular by Augustin Louis Cauchy. Arthur Cayley's On the theory of groups, as depending on the symbolic equation θn = 1 (1854) gives the first abstract definition of a finite group.

question: What modern concept was created from many fields of mathematics?, context: The modern concept of an abstract group developed out of several fields of mathematics. The original motivation for group theory was the quest for solutions of polynomial equations of degree higher than 4. The 19th-century French mathematician Évariste Galois, extending prior work of Paolo Ruffini and Joseph-Louis Lagrange, gave a criterion for the solvability of a particular polynomial equation in terms of the symmetry group of its roots (solutions). The elements of such a Galois group correspond to certain permutations of the roots. At first, Galois' ideas were rejected by his contemporaries, and published only posthumously. More general permutation groups were investigated in particular by Augustin Louis Cauchy. Arthur Cayley's On the theory of groups, as depending on the symbolic equation θn = 1 (1854) gives the first abstract definition of a finite group.


Question: When did the uniform theory of groups develop from different sources?

Answer: 1870

<hl> The convergence of these various sources into a uniform theory of groups started with Camille Jordan's Traité des substitutions et des équations algébriques ( 1870 ). <hl> Walther von Dyck (1882) introduced the idea of specifying a group by means of generators and relations, and was also the first to give an axiomatic definition of an "abstract group", in the terminology of the time. As of the 20th century, groups gained wide recognition by the pioneering work of Ferdinand Georg Frobenius and William Burnside, who worked on representation theory of finite groups, Richard Brauer's modular representation theory and Issai Schur's papers. The theory of Lie groups, and more generally locally compact groups was studied by Hermann Weyl, Élie Cartan and many others. Its algebraic counterpart, the theory of algebraic groups, was first shaped by Claude Chevalley (from the late 1930s) and later by the work of Armand Borel and Jacques Tits.

The convergence of these various sources into a uniform theory of groups started with Camille Jordan's Traité des substitutions et des équations algébriques (<hl> 1870 <hl>). Walther von Dyck (1882) introduced the idea of specifying a group by means of generators and relations, and was also the first to give an axiomatic definition of an "abstract group", in the terminology of the time. As of the 20th century, groups gained wide recognition by the pioneering work of Ferdinand Georg Frobenius and William Burnside, who worked on representation theory of finite groups, Richard Brauer's modular representation theory and Issai Schur's papers. The theory of Lie groups, and more generally locally compact groups was studied by Hermann Weyl, Élie Cartan and many others. Its algebraic counterpart, the theory of algebraic groups, was first shaped by Claude Chevalley (from the late 1930s) and later by the work of Armand Borel and Jacques Tits.

The convergence of these various sources into a uniform theory of groups started with Camille Jordan's Traité des substitutions et des équations algébriques ( <hl> 1870 <hl> ).

question: When did the uniform theory of groups develop from different sources?, context: The convergence of these various sources into a uniform theory of groups started with Camille Jordan's Traité des substitutions et des équations algébriques (1870). Walther von Dyck (1882) introduced the idea of specifying a group by means of generators and relations, and was also the first to give an axiomatic definition of an "abstract group", in the terminology of the time. As of the 20th century, groups gained wide recognition by the pioneering work of Ferdinand Georg Frobenius and William Burnside, who worked on representation theory of finite groups, Richard Brauer's modular representation theory and Issai Schur's papers. The theory of Lie groups, and more generally locally compact groups was studied by Hermann Weyl, Élie Cartan and many others. Its algebraic counterpart, the theory of algebraic groups, was first shaped by Claude Chevalley (from the late 1930s) and later by the work of Armand Borel and Jacques Tits.


Question: Who presented a method for specifying a group by means of generators and relations?

Answer: Walther von Dyck

The convergence of these various sources into a uniform theory of groups started with Camille Jordan's Traité des substitutions et des équations algébriques (1870). <hl> Walther von Dyck (1882) introduced the idea of specifying a group by means of generators and relations, and was also the first to give an axiomatic definition of an "abstract group", in the terminology of the time. <hl> As of the 20th century, groups gained wide recognition by the pioneering work of Ferdinand Georg Frobenius and William Burnside, who worked on representation theory of finite groups, Richard Brauer's modular representation theory and Issai Schur's papers. The theory of Lie groups, and more generally locally compact groups was studied by Hermann Weyl, Élie Cartan and many others. Its algebraic counterpart, the theory of algebraic groups, was first shaped by Claude Chevalley (from the late 1930s) and later by the work of Armand Borel and Jacques Tits.

The convergence of these various sources into a uniform theory of groups started with Camille Jordan's Traité des substitutions et des équations algébriques (1870). <hl> Walther von Dyck <hl> (1882) introduced the idea of specifying a group by means of generators and relations, and was also the first to give an axiomatic definition of an "abstract group", in the terminology of the time. As of the 20th century, groups gained wide recognition by the pioneering work of Ferdinand Georg Frobenius and William Burnside, who worked on representation theory of finite groups, Richard Brauer's modular representation theory and Issai Schur's papers. The theory of Lie groups, and more generally locally compact groups was studied by Hermann Weyl, Élie Cartan and many others. Its algebraic counterpart, the theory of algebraic groups, was first shaped by Claude Chevalley (from the late 1930s) and later by the work of Armand Borel and Jacques Tits.

question: Who presented a method for specifying a group by means of generators and relations?, context: The convergence of these various sources into a uniform theory of groups started with Camille Jordan's Traité des substitutions et des équations algébriques (1870). Walther von Dyck (1882) introduced the idea of specifying a group by means of generators and relations, and was also the first to give an axiomatic definition of an "abstract group", in the terminology of the time. As of the 20th century, groups gained wide recognition by the pioneering work of Ferdinand Georg Frobenius and William Burnside, who worked on representation theory of finite groups, Richard Brauer's modular representation theory and Issai Schur's papers. The theory of Lie groups, and more generally locally compact groups was studied by Hermann Weyl, Élie Cartan and many others. Its algebraic counterpart, the theory of algebraic groups, was first shaped by Claude Chevalley (from the late 1930s) and later by the work of Armand Borel and Jacques Tits.


Question: What theory did Hermann Weyl study in addition to locally compact groups?

Answer: The theory of Lie groups

The convergence of these various sources into a uniform theory of groups started with Camille Jordan's Traité des substitutions et des équations algébriques (1870). Walther von Dyck (1882) introduced the idea of specifying a group by means of generators and relations, and was also the first to give an axiomatic definition of an "abstract group", in the terminology of the time. As of the 20th century, groups gained wide recognition by the pioneering work of Ferdinand Georg Frobenius and William Burnside, who worked on representation theory of finite groups, Richard Brauer's modular representation theory and Issai Schur's papers. <hl> The theory of Lie groups , and more generally locally compact groups was studied by Hermann Weyl, Élie Cartan and many others. <hl> Its algebraic counterpart, the theory of algebraic groups, was first shaped by Claude Chevalley (from the late 1930s) and later by the work of Armand Borel and Jacques Tits.

The convergence of these various sources into a uniform theory of groups started with Camille Jordan's Traité des substitutions et des équations algébriques (1870). Walther von Dyck (1882) introduced the idea of specifying a group by means of generators and relations, and was also the first to give an axiomatic definition of an "abstract group", in the terminology of the time. As of the 20th century, groups gained wide recognition by the pioneering work of Ferdinand Georg Frobenius and William Burnside, who worked on representation theory of finite groups, Richard Brauer's modular representation theory and Issai Schur's papers. <hl> The theory of Lie groups <hl>, and more generally locally compact groups was studied by Hermann Weyl, Élie Cartan and many others. Its algebraic counterpart, the theory of algebraic groups, was first shaped by Claude Chevalley (from the late 1930s) and later by the work of Armand Borel and Jacques Tits.

<hl> The theory of Lie groups <hl> , and more generally locally compact groups was studied by Hermann Weyl, Élie Cartan and many others.

question: What theory did Hermann Weyl study in addition to locally compact groups?, context: The convergence of these various sources into a uniform theory of groups started with Camille Jordan's Traité des substitutions et des équations algébriques (1870). Walther von Dyck (1882) introduced the idea of specifying a group by means of generators and relations, and was also the first to give an axiomatic definition of an "abstract group", in the terminology of the time. As of the 20th century, groups gained wide recognition by the pioneering work of Ferdinand Georg Frobenius and William Burnside, who worked on representation theory of finite groups, Richard Brauer's modular representation theory and Issai Schur's papers. The theory of Lie groups, and more generally locally compact groups was studied by Hermann Weyl, Élie Cartan and many others. Its algebraic counterpart, the theory of algebraic groups, was first shaped by Claude Chevalley (from the late 1930s) and later by the work of Armand Borel and Jacques Tits.


Question: Who initially molded the theory of algebraic groups?

Answer: Claude Chevalley

The convergence of these various sources into a uniform theory of groups started with Camille Jordan's Traité des substitutions et des équations algébriques (1870). Walther von Dyck (1882) introduced the idea of specifying a group by means of generators and relations, and was also the first to give an axiomatic definition of an "abstract group", in the terminology of the time. As of the 20th century, groups gained wide recognition by the pioneering work of Ferdinand Georg Frobenius and William Burnside, who worked on representation theory of finite groups, Richard Brauer's modular representation theory and Issai Schur's papers. The theory of Lie groups, and more generally locally compact groups was studied by Hermann Weyl, Élie Cartan and many others. <hl> Its algebraic counterpart, the theory of algebraic groups, was first shaped by Claude Chevalley (from the late 1930s) and later by the work of Armand Borel and Jacques Tits. <hl>

The convergence of these various sources into a uniform theory of groups started with Camille Jordan's Traité des substitutions et des équations algébriques (1870). Walther von Dyck (1882) introduced the idea of specifying a group by means of generators and relations, and was also the first to give an axiomatic definition of an "abstract group", in the terminology of the time. As of the 20th century, groups gained wide recognition by the pioneering work of Ferdinand Georg Frobenius and William Burnside, who worked on representation theory of finite groups, Richard Brauer's modular representation theory and Issai Schur's papers. The theory of Lie groups, and more generally locally compact groups was studied by Hermann Weyl, Élie Cartan and many others. Its algebraic counterpart, the theory of algebraic groups, was first shaped by <hl> Claude Chevalley <hl> (from the late 1930s) and later by the work of Armand Borel and Jacques Tits.

question: Who initially molded the theory of algebraic groups?, context: The convergence of these various sources into a uniform theory of groups started with Camille Jordan's Traité des substitutions et des équations algébriques (1870). Walther von Dyck (1882) introduced the idea of specifying a group by means of generators and relations, and was also the first to give an axiomatic definition of an "abstract group", in the terminology of the time. As of the 20th century, groups gained wide recognition by the pioneering work of Ferdinand Georg Frobenius and William Burnside, who worked on representation theory of finite groups, Richard Brauer's modular representation theory and Issai Schur's papers. The theory of Lie groups, and more generally locally compact groups was studied by Hermann Weyl, Élie Cartan and many others. Its algebraic counterpart, the theory of algebraic groups, was first shaped by Claude Chevalley (from the late 1930s) and later by the work of Armand Borel and Jacques Tits.


Question: Where did the group of theorists first meet?

Answer: The University of Chicago

The University of Chicago 's

<hl> The University of Chicago 's <hl> 1960–61 Group Theory Year brought together group theorists such as Daniel Gorenstein, John G. Thompson and Walter Feit, laying the foundation of a collaboration that, with input from numerous other mathematicians, classified all finite simple groups in 1982. This project exceeded previous mathematical endeavours by its sheer size, in both length of proof and number of researchers. Research is ongoing to simplify the proof of this classification. These days, group theory is still a highly active mathematical branch, impacting many other fields.a[›]

<hl> The University of Chicago <hl>'s 1960–61 Group Theory Year brought together group theorists such as Daniel Gorenstein, John G. Thompson and Walter Feit, laying the foundation of a collaboration that, with input from numerous other mathematicians, classified all finite simple groups in 1982. This project exceeded previous mathematical endeavours by its sheer size, in both length of proof and number of researchers. Research is ongoing to simplify the proof of this classification. These days, group theory is still a highly active mathematical branch, impacting many other fields.a[›]

question: Where did the group of theorists first meet?, context: The University of Chicago's 1960–61 Group Theory Year brought together group theorists such as Daniel Gorenstein, John G. Thompson and Walter Feit, laying the foundation of a collaboration that, with input from numerous other mathematicians, classified all finite simple groups in 1982. This project exceeded previous mathematical endeavours by its sheer size, in both length of proof and number of researchers. Research is ongoing to simplify the proof of this classification. These days, group theory is still a highly active mathematical branch, impacting many other fields.a[›]


Question: What university class year belonged to the group of theorists?

Answer: 1960–61

<hl> The University of Chicago's 1960–61 Group Theory Year brought together group theorists such as Daniel Gorenstein, John G. Thompson and Walter Feit, laying the foundation of a collaboration that, with input from numerous other mathematicians, classified all finite simple groups in 1982. <hl> This project exceeded previous mathematical endeavours by its sheer size, in both length of proof and number of researchers. Research is ongoing to simplify the proof of this classification. These days, group theory is still a highly active mathematical branch, impacting many other fields.a[›]

The University of Chicago's <hl> 1960–61 <hl> Group Theory Year brought together group theorists such as Daniel Gorenstein, John G. Thompson and Walter Feit, laying the foundation of a collaboration that, with input from numerous other mathematicians, classified all finite simple groups in 1982. This project exceeded previous mathematical endeavours by its sheer size, in both length of proof and number of researchers. Research is ongoing to simplify the proof of this classification. These days, group theory is still a highly active mathematical branch, impacting many other fields.a[›]

question: What university class year belonged to the group of theorists?, context: The University of Chicago's 1960–61 Group Theory Year brought together group theorists such as Daniel Gorenstein, John G. Thompson and Walter Feit, laying the foundation of a collaboration that, with input from numerous other mathematicians, classified all finite simple groups in 1982. This project exceeded previous mathematical endeavours by its sheer size, in both length of proof and number of researchers. Research is ongoing to simplify the proof of this classification. These days, group theory is still a highly active mathematical branch, impacting many other fields.a[›]


Question: What did the group of theorists classify in 1982?

Answer: all finite simple groups

<hl> The University of Chicago's 1960–61 Group Theory Year brought together group theorists such as Daniel Gorenstein, John G. Thompson and Walter Feit, laying the foundation of a collaboration that, with input from numerous other mathematicians, classified all finite simple groups in 1982. <hl> This project exceeded previous mathematical endeavours by its sheer size, in both length of proof and number of researchers. Research is ongoing to simplify the proof of this classification. These days, group theory is still a highly active mathematical branch, impacting many other fields.a[›]

The University of Chicago's 1960–61 Group Theory Year brought together group theorists such as Daniel Gorenstein, John G. Thompson and Walter Feit, laying the foundation of a collaboration that, with input from numerous other mathematicians, classified <hl> all finite simple groups <hl> in 1982. This project exceeded previous mathematical endeavours by its sheer size, in both length of proof and number of researchers. Research is ongoing to simplify the proof of this classification. These days, group theory is still a highly active mathematical branch, impacting many other fields.a[›]

question: What did the group of theorists classify in 1982?, context: The University of Chicago's 1960–61 Group Theory Year brought together group theorists such as Daniel Gorenstein, John G. Thompson and Walter Feit, laying the foundation of a collaboration that, with input from numerous other mathematicians, classified all finite simple groups in 1982. This project exceeded previous mathematical endeavours by its sheer size, in both length of proof and number of researchers. Research is ongoing to simplify the proof of this classification. These days, group theory is still a highly active mathematical branch, impacting many other fields.a[›]


Question: What two factors describe the large size of the project?

Answer: length of proof and number of researchers.

The University of Chicago's 1960–61 Group Theory Year brought together group theorists such as Daniel Gorenstein, John G. Thompson and Walter Feit, laying the foundation of a collaboration that, with input from numerous other mathematicians, classified all finite simple groups in 1982. <hl> This project exceeded previous mathematical endeavours by its sheer size, in both length of proof and number of researchers. Research is ongoing to simplify the proof of this classification. <hl> These days, group theory is still a highly active mathematical branch, impacting many other fields.a[›]

The University of Chicago's 1960–61 Group Theory Year brought together group theorists such as Daniel Gorenstein, John G. Thompson and Walter Feit, laying the foundation of a collaboration that, with input from numerous other mathematicians, classified all finite simple groups in 1982. This project exceeded previous mathematical endeavours by its sheer size, in both <hl> length of proof and number of researchers. <hl> Research is ongoing to simplify the proof of this classification. These days, group theory is still a highly active mathematical branch, impacting many other fields.a[›]

question: What two factors describe the large size of the project?, context: The University of Chicago's 1960–61 Group Theory Year brought together group theorists such as Daniel Gorenstein, John G. Thompson and Walter Feit, laying the foundation of a collaboration that, with input from numerous other mathematicians, classified all finite simple groups in 1982. This project exceeded previous mathematical endeavours by its sheer size, in both length of proof and number of researchers. Research is ongoing to simplify the proof of this classification. These days, group theory is still a highly active mathematical branch, impacting many other fields.a[›]


Question: What ideas are used to understand groups beyond symbols?

Answer: structural concepts

<hl> To understand groups beyond the level of mere symbolic manipulations as above, more structural concepts have to be employed.c[›] <hl> There is a conceptual principle underlying all of the following notions: to take advantage of the structure offered by groups (which sets, being "structureless", do not have), constructions related to groups have to be compatible with the group operation. This compatibility manifests itself in the following notions in various ways. For example, groups can be related to each other via functions called group homomorphisms. By the mentioned principle, they are required to respect the group structures in a precise sense. The structure of groups can also be understood by breaking them into pieces called subgroups and quotient groups. The principle of "preserving structures"—a recurring topic in mathematics throughout—is an instance of working in a category, in this case the category of groups.

To understand groups beyond the level of mere symbolic manipulations as above, more <hl> structural concepts <hl> have to be employed.c[›] There is a conceptual principle underlying all of the following notions: to take advantage of the structure offered by groups (which sets, being "structureless", do not have), constructions related to groups have to be compatible with the group operation. This compatibility manifests itself in the following notions in various ways. For example, groups can be related to each other via functions called group homomorphisms. By the mentioned principle, they are required to respect the group structures in a precise sense. The structure of groups can also be understood by breaking them into pieces called subgroups and quotient groups. The principle of "preserving structures"—a recurring topic in mathematics throughout—is an instance of working in a category, in this case the category of groups.

question: What ideas are used to understand groups beyond symbols?, context: To understand groups beyond the level of mere symbolic manipulations as above, more structural concepts have to be employed.c[›] There is a conceptual principle underlying all of the following notions: to take advantage of the structure offered by groups (which sets, being "structureless", do not have), constructions related to groups have to be compatible with the group operation. This compatibility manifests itself in the following notions in various ways. For example, groups can be related to each other via functions called group homomorphisms. By the mentioned principle, they are required to respect the group structures in a precise sense. The structure of groups can also be understood by breaking them into pieces called subgroups and quotient groups. The principle of "preserving structures"—a recurring topic in mathematics throughout—is an instance of working in a category, in this case the category of groups.


Question: What has to be compatible with the group operation?

Answer: constructions related to groups

To understand groups beyond the level of mere symbolic manipulations as above, more structural concepts have to be employed.c[›] <hl> There is a conceptual principle underlying all of the following notions: to take advantage of the structure offered by groups (which sets, being "structureless", do not have), constructions related to groups have to be compatible with the group operation. <hl> This compatibility manifests itself in the following notions in various ways. For example, groups can be related to each other via functions called group homomorphisms. By the mentioned principle, they are required to respect the group structures in a precise sense. The structure of groups can also be understood by breaking them into pieces called subgroups and quotient groups. The principle of "preserving structures"—a recurring topic in mathematics throughout—is an instance of working in a category, in this case the category of groups.

To understand groups beyond the level of mere symbolic manipulations as above, more structural concepts have to be employed.c[›] There is a conceptual principle underlying all of the following notions: to take advantage of the structure offered by groups (which sets, being "structureless", do not have), <hl> constructions related to groups <hl> have to be compatible with the group operation. This compatibility manifests itself in the following notions in various ways. For example, groups can be related to each other via functions called group homomorphisms. By the mentioned principle, they are required to respect the group structures in a precise sense. The structure of groups can also be understood by breaking them into pieces called subgroups and quotient groups. The principle of "preserving structures"—a recurring topic in mathematics throughout—is an instance of working in a category, in this case the category of groups.

question: What has to be compatible with the group operation?, context: To understand groups beyond the level of mere symbolic manipulations as above, more structural concepts have to be employed.c[›] There is a conceptual principle underlying all of the following notions: to take advantage of the structure offered by groups (which sets, being "structureless", do not have), constructions related to groups have to be compatible with the group operation. This compatibility manifests itself in the following notions in various ways. For example, groups can be related to each other via functions called group homomorphisms. By the mentioned principle, they are required to respect the group structures in a precise sense. The structure of groups can also be understood by breaking them into pieces called subgroups and quotient groups. The principle of "preserving structures"—a recurring topic in mathematics throughout—is an instance of working in a category, in this case the category of groups.


Question: What concept describes groups that can be related to each other via functions?

Answer: group homomorphisms

To understand groups beyond the level of mere symbolic manipulations as above, more structural concepts have to be employed.c[›] There is a conceptual principle underlying all of the following notions: to take advantage of the structure offered by groups (which sets, being "structureless", do not have), constructions related to groups have to be compatible with the group operation. This compatibility manifests itself in the following notions in various ways. <hl> For example, groups can be related to each other via functions called group homomorphisms . <hl> By the mentioned principle, they are required to respect the group structures in a precise sense. The structure of groups can also be understood by breaking them into pieces called subgroups and quotient groups. The principle of "preserving structures"—a recurring topic in mathematics throughout—is an instance of working in a category, in this case the category of groups.

To understand groups beyond the level of mere symbolic manipulations as above, more structural concepts have to be employed.c[›] There is a conceptual principle underlying all of the following notions: to take advantage of the structure offered by groups (which sets, being "structureless", do not have), constructions related to groups have to be compatible with the group operation. This compatibility manifests itself in the following notions in various ways. For example, groups can be related to each other via functions called <hl> group homomorphisms <hl>. By the mentioned principle, they are required to respect the group structures in a precise sense. The structure of groups can also be understood by breaking them into pieces called subgroups and quotient groups. The principle of "preserving structures"—a recurring topic in mathematics throughout—is an instance of working in a category, in this case the category of groups.

For example, groups can be related to each other via functions called <hl> group homomorphisms <hl> .

question: What concept describes groups that can be related to each other via functions?, context: To understand groups beyond the level of mere symbolic manipulations as above, more structural concepts have to be employed.c[›] There is a conceptual principle underlying all of the following notions: to take advantage of the structure offered by groups (which sets, being "structureless", do not have), constructions related to groups have to be compatible with the group operation. This compatibility manifests itself in the following notions in various ways. For example, groups can be related to each other via functions called group homomorphisms. By the mentioned principle, they are required to respect the group structures in a precise sense. The structure of groups can also be understood by breaking them into pieces called subgroups and quotient groups. The principle of "preserving structures"—a recurring topic in mathematics throughout—is an instance of working in a category, in this case the category of groups.


Question: What are two groups called if they include homomorphisms?

Answer: isomorphic

<hl> Two groups G and H are called isomorphic if there exist group homomorphisms a: G → H and b: H → G, such that applying the two functions one after another in each of the two possible orders gives the identity functions of G and H. That is, a(b(h)) <hl> = h and b(a(g)) = g for any g in G and h in H. From an abstract point of view, isomorphic groups carry the same information. For example, proving that g • g = 1 G for some element g of G is equivalent to proving that a(g) ∗ a(g) = 1H, because applying a to the first equality yields the second, and applying b to the second gives back the first.

Two groups G and H are called <hl> isomorphic <hl> if there exist group homomorphisms a: G → H and b: H → G, such that applying the two functions one after another in each of the two possible orders gives the identity functions of G and H. That is, a(b(h)) = h and b(a(g)) = g for any g in G and h in H. From an abstract point of view, isomorphic groups carry the same information. For example, proving that g • g = 1G for some element g of G is equivalent to proving that a(g) ∗ a(g) = 1H, because applying a to the first equality yields the second, and applying b to the second gives back the first.

question: What are two groups called if they include homomorphisms?, context: Two groups G and H are called isomorphic if there exist group homomorphisms a: G → H and b: H → G, such that applying the two functions one after another in each of the two possible orders gives the identity functions of G and H. That is, a(b(h)) = h and b(a(g)) = g for any g in G and h in H. From an abstract point of view, isomorphic groups carry the same information. For example, proving that g • g = 1G for some element g of G is equivalent to proving that a(g) ∗ a(g) = 1H, because applying a to the first equality yields the second, and applying b to the second gives back the first.


Question: What similar element do isomorphic groups carry?

Answer: isomorphic groups

Two groups G and H are called isomorphic if there exist group homomorphisms a: G → H and b: H → G, such that applying the two functions one after another in each of the two possible orders gives the identity functions of G and H. That is, a(b(h)) = h and b(a(g)) = <hl> g for any g in G and h in H. From an abstract point of view, isomorphic groups carry the same information. <hl> For example, proving that g • g = 1 G for some element g of G is equivalent to proving that a(g) ∗ a(g) = 1H, because applying a to the first equality yields the second, and applying b to the second gives back the first.

Two groups G and H are called isomorphic if there exist group homomorphisms a: G → H and b: H → G, such that applying the two functions one after another in each of the two possible orders gives the identity functions of G and H. That is, a(b(h)) = h and b(a(g)) = g for any g in G and h in H. From an abstract point of view, <hl> isomorphic groups <hl> carry the same information. For example, proving that g • g = 1G for some element g of G is equivalent to proving that a(g) ∗ a(g) = 1H, because applying a to the first equality yields the second, and applying b to the second gives back the first.

question: What similar element do isomorphic groups carry?, context: Two groups G and H are called isomorphic if there exist group homomorphisms a: G → H and b: H → G, such that applying the two functions one after another in each of the two possible orders gives the identity functions of G and H. That is, a(b(h)) = h and b(a(g)) = g for any g in G and h in H. From an abstract point of view, isomorphic groups carry the same information. For example, proving that g • g = 1G for some element g of G is equivalent to proving that a(g) ∗ a(g) = 1H, because applying a to the first equality yields the second, and applying b to the second gives back the first.


Question: How can showing the second equality yields the first prove the concept of isomorphic groups?

Answer: applying a to the first equality yields the second

Two groups G and H are called isomorphic if there exist group homomorphisms a: G → H and b: H → G, such that applying the two functions one after another in each of the two possible orders gives the identity functions of G and H. That is, a(b(h)) = h and b(a(g)) = g for any g in G and h in H. From an abstract point of view, isomorphic groups carry the same information. For example, proving that g • g = 1 G for some element g of G is equivalent to proving that a(g) ∗ a(g) = <hl> 1H, because applying a to the first equality yields the second , and applying b to the second gives back the first. <hl>

Two groups G and H are called isomorphic if there exist group homomorphisms a: G → H and b: H → G, such that applying the two functions one after another in each of the two possible orders gives the identity functions of G and H. That is, a(b(h)) = h and b(a(g)) = g for any g in G and h in H. From an abstract point of view, isomorphic groups carry the same information. For example, proving that g • g = 1G for some element g of G is equivalent to proving that a(g) ∗ a(g) = 1H, because <hl> applying a to the first equality yields the second <hl>, and applying b to the second gives back the first.

1H, because <hl> applying a to the first equality yields the second <hl> , and applying b to the second gives back the first.

question: How can showing the second equality yields the first prove the concept of isomorphic groups?, context: Two groups G and H are called isomorphic if there exist group homomorphisms a: G → H and b: H → G, such that applying the two functions one after another in each of the two possible orders gives the identity functions of G and H. That is, a(b(h)) = h and b(a(g)) = g for any g in G and h in H. From an abstract point of view, isomorphic groups carry the same information. For example, proving that g • g = 1G for some element g of G is equivalent to proving that a(g) ∗ a(g) = 1H, because applying a to the first equality yields the second, and applying b to the second gives back the first.


Question: What is composed of two rotations?

Answer: a rotation

<hl> In the example above, the identity and the rotations constitute a subgroup R = {id, r1, r2, r3}, highlighted in red in the group table above: any two rotations composed are still a rotation , and a rotation can be undone by (i.e. is inverse to) the complementary rotations 270° for 90°, 180° for 180°, and 90° for 270° (note that rotation in the opposite direction is not defined). <hl> The subgroup test is a necessary and sufficient condition for a subset H of a group G to be a subgroup: it is sufficient to check that g−1h ∈ H for all elements g, h ∈ H. Knowing the subgroups is important in understanding the group as a whole.d[›]

In the example above, the identity and the rotations constitute a subgroup R = {id, r1, r2, r3}, highlighted in red in the group table above: any two rotations composed are still <hl> a rotation <hl>, and a rotation can be undone by (i.e. is inverse to) the complementary rotations 270° for 90°, 180° for 180°, and 90° for 270° (note that rotation in the opposite direction is not defined). The subgroup test is a necessary and sufficient condition for a subset H of a group G to be a subgroup: it is sufficient to check that g−1h ∈ H for all elements g, h ∈ H. Knowing the subgroups is important in understanding the group as a whole.d[›]

In the example above, the identity and the rotations constitute a subgroup R = {id, r1, r2, r3}, highlighted in red in the group table above: any two rotations composed are still <hl> a rotation <hl> , and a rotation can be undone by (i.e. is inverse to) the complementary rotations 270° for 90°, 180° for 180°, and 90° for 270° (note that rotation in the opposite direction is not defined).

question: What is composed of two rotations?, context: In the example above, the identity and the rotations constitute a subgroup R = {id, r1, r2, r3}, highlighted in red in the group table above: any two rotations composed are still a rotation, and a rotation can be undone by (i.e. is inverse to) the complementary rotations 270° for 90°, 180° for 180°, and 90° for 270° (note that rotation in the opposite direction is not defined). The subgroup test is a necessary and sufficient condition for a subset H of a group G to be a subgroup: it is sufficient to check that g−1h ∈ H for all elements g, h ∈ H. Knowing the subgroups is important in understanding the group as a whole.d[›]


Question: What rotation can a rotation be reversed by?

Answer: inverse

<hl> In the example above, the identity and the rotations constitute a subgroup R = {id, r1, r2, r3}, highlighted in red in the group table above: any two rotations composed are still a rotation, and a rotation can be undone by (i.e. is inverse to) the complementary rotations 270° for 90°, 180° for 180°, and 90° for 270° (note that rotation in the opposite direction is not defined). <hl> The subgroup test is a necessary and sufficient condition for a subset H of a group G to be a subgroup: it is sufficient to check that g−1h ∈ H for all elements g, h ∈ H. Knowing the subgroups is important in understanding the group as a whole.d[›]

In the example above, the identity and the rotations constitute a subgroup R = {id, r1, r2, r3}, highlighted in red in the group table above: any two rotations composed are still a rotation, and a rotation can be undone by (i.e. is <hl> inverse <hl> to) the complementary rotations 270° for 90°, 180° for 180°, and 90° for 270° (note that rotation in the opposite direction is not defined). The subgroup test is a necessary and sufficient condition for a subset H of a group G to be a subgroup: it is sufficient to check that g−1h ∈ H for all elements g, h ∈ H. Knowing the subgroups is important in understanding the group as a whole.d[›]

question: What rotation can a rotation be reversed by?, context: In the example above, the identity and the rotations constitute a subgroup R = {id, r1, r2, r3}, highlighted in red in the group table above: any two rotations composed are still a rotation, and a rotation can be undone by (i.e. is inverse to) the complementary rotations 270° for 90°, 180° for 180°, and 90° for 270° (note that rotation in the opposite direction is not defined). The subgroup test is a necessary and sufficient condition for a subset H of a group G to be a subgroup: it is sufficient to check that g−1h ∈ H for all elements g, h ∈ H. Knowing the subgroups is important in understanding the group as a whole.d[›]


Question: What essential condition must be met for a subset of a group to be a subgroup?

Answer: The subgroup test

In the example above, the identity and the rotations constitute a subgroup R = {id, r1, r2, r3}, highlighted in red in the group table above: any two rotations composed are still a rotation, and a rotation can be undone by (i.e. is inverse to) the complementary rotations 270° for 90°, 180° for 180°, and 90° for 270° (note that rotation in the opposite direction is not defined). <hl> The subgroup test is a necessary and sufficient condition for a subset H of a group G to be a subgroup: it is sufficient to check that g−1h ∈ H for all elements g, h ∈ H. Knowing the subgroups is important in understanding the group as a whole.d[›] <hl>

In the example above, the identity and the rotations constitute a subgroup R = {id, r1, r2, r3}, highlighted in red in the group table above: any two rotations composed are still a rotation, and a rotation can be undone by (i.e. is inverse to) the complementary rotations 270° for 90°, 180° for 180°, and 90° for 270° (note that rotation in the opposite direction is not defined). <hl> The subgroup test <hl> is a necessary and sufficient condition for a subset H of a group G to be a subgroup: it is sufficient to check that g−1h ∈ H for all elements g, h ∈ H. Knowing the subgroups is important in understanding the group as a whole.d[›]

question: What essential condition must be met for a subset of a group to be a subgroup?, context: In the example above, the identity and the rotations constitute a subgroup R = {id, r1, r2, r3}, highlighted in red in the group table above: any two rotations composed are still a rotation, and a rotation can be undone by (i.e. is inverse to) the complementary rotations 270° for 90°, 180° for 180°, and 90° for 270° (note that rotation in the opposite direction is not defined). The subgroup test is a necessary and sufficient condition for a subset H of a group G to be a subgroup: it is sufficient to check that g−1h ∈ H for all elements g, h ∈ H. Knowing the subgroups is important in understanding the group as a whole.d[›]


Question: When is it preferable to consider two group elements to be the same?

Answer: irrelevant to the question whether a reflection has been performed

In many situations it is desirable to consider two group elements the same if they differ by an element of a given subgroup. <hl> For example, in D4 above, once a reflection is performed, the square never gets back to the r2 configuration by just applying the rotation operations (and no further reflections), i.e. the rotation operations are irrelevant to the question whether a reflection has been performed . <hl> Cosets are used to formalize this insight: a subgroup H defines left and right cosets, which can be thought of as translations of H by arbitrary group elements g. In symbolic terms, the left and right cosets of H containing g are

In many situations it is desirable to consider two group elements the same if they differ by an element of a given subgroup. For example, in D4 above, once a reflection is performed, the square never gets back to the r2 configuration by just applying the rotation operations (and no further reflections), i.e. the rotation operations are <hl> irrelevant to the question whether a reflection has been performed <hl>. Cosets are used to formalize this insight: a subgroup H defines left and right cosets, which can be thought of as translations of H by arbitrary group elements g. In symbolic terms, the left and right cosets of H containing g are

For example, in D4 above, once a reflection is performed, the square never gets back to the r2 configuration by just applying the rotation operations (and no further reflections), i.e. the rotation operations are <hl> irrelevant to the question whether a reflection has been performed <hl> .

question: When is it preferable to consider two group elements to be the same?, context: In many situations it is desirable to consider two group elements the same if they differ by an element of a given subgroup. For example, in D4 above, once a reflection is performed, the square never gets back to the r2 configuration by just applying the rotation operations (and no further reflections), i.e. the rotation operations are irrelevant to the question whether a reflection has been performed. Cosets are used to formalize this insight: a subgroup H defines left and right cosets, which can be thought of as translations of H by arbitrary group elements g. In symbolic terms, the left and right cosets of H containing g are


Question: What should not be considered when asking if a reflection has been performed?

Answer: rotation operations

In many situations it is desirable to consider two group elements the same if they differ by an element of a given subgroup. <hl> For example, in D4 above, once a reflection is performed, the square never gets back to the r2 configuration by just applying the rotation operations (and no further reflections), i.e. the rotation operations are irrelevant to the question whether a reflection has been performed. <hl> Cosets are used to formalize this insight: a subgroup H defines left and right cosets, which can be thought of as translations of H by arbitrary group elements g. In symbolic terms, the left and right cosets of H containing g are

In many situations it is desirable to consider two group elements the same if they differ by an element of a given subgroup. For example, in D4 above, once a reflection is performed, the square never gets back to the r2 configuration by just applying the <hl> rotation operations <hl> (and no further reflections), i.e. the rotation operations are irrelevant to the question whether a reflection has been performed. Cosets are used to formalize this insight: a subgroup H defines left and right cosets, which can be thought of as translations of H by arbitrary group elements g. In symbolic terms, the left and right cosets of H containing g are

question: What should not be considered when asking if a reflection has been performed?, context: In many situations it is desirable to consider two group elements the same if they differ by an element of a given subgroup. For example, in D4 above, once a reflection is performed, the square never gets back to the r2 configuration by just applying the rotation operations (and no further reflections), i.e. the rotation operations are irrelevant to the question whether a reflection has been performed. Cosets are used to formalize this insight: a subgroup H defines left and right cosets, which can be thought of as translations of H by arbitrary group elements g. In symbolic terms, the left and right cosets of H containing g are


Question: What number sets are used to show how subgroups can be seen as translations of the larger group?

Answer: Cosets

In many situations it is desirable to consider two group elements the same if they differ by an element of a given subgroup. For example, in D4 above, once a reflection is performed, the square never gets back to the r2 configuration by just applying the rotation operations (and no further reflections), i.e. the rotation operations are irrelevant to the question whether a reflection has been performed. <hl> Cosets are used to formalize this insight: a subgroup H defines left and right cosets, which can be thought of as translations of H by arbitrary group elements g. <hl> In symbolic terms, the left and right cosets of H containing g are

In many situations it is desirable to consider two group elements the same if they differ by an element of a given subgroup. For example, in D4 above, once a reflection is performed, the square never gets back to the r2 configuration by just applying the rotation operations (and no further reflections), i.e. the rotation operations are irrelevant to the question whether a reflection has been performed. <hl> Cosets <hl> are used to formalize this insight: a subgroup H defines left and right cosets, which can be thought of as translations of H by arbitrary group elements g. In symbolic terms, the left and right cosets of H containing g are

question: What number sets are used to show how subgroups can be seen as translations of the larger group?, context: In many situations it is desirable to consider two group elements the same if they differ by an element of a given subgroup. For example, in D4 above, once a reflection is performed, the square never gets back to the r2 configuration by just applying the rotation operations (and no further reflections), i.e. the rotation operations are irrelevant to the question whether a reflection has been performed. Cosets are used to formalize this insight: a subgroup H defines left and right cosets, which can be thought of as translations of H by arbitrary group elements g. In symbolic terms, the left and right cosets of H containing g are


Question: What is another term for coset multiplication?

Answer: coset addition

<hl> This set inherits a group operation (sometimes called coset multiplication, or coset addition ) from the original group G: (gN) • <hl> (hN) = (gh)N for all g and h in G. This definition is motivated by the idea (itself an instance of general structural considerations outlined above) that the map G → G / N that associates to any element g its coset gN be a group homomorphism, or by general abstract considerations called universal properties. The coset eN = N serves as the identity in this group, and the inverse of gN in the quotient group is (gN)−1 = (g−1)N.e[›]

This set inherits a group operation (sometimes called coset multiplication, or <hl> coset addition <hl>) from the original group G: (gN) • (hN) = (gh)N for all g and h in G. This definition is motivated by the idea (itself an instance of general structural considerations outlined above) that the map G → G / N that associates to any element g its coset gN be a group homomorphism, or by general abstract considerations called universal properties. The coset eN = N serves as the identity in this group, and the inverse of gN in the quotient group is (gN)−1 = (g−1)N.e[›]

This set inherits a group operation (sometimes called coset multiplication, or <hl> coset addition <hl> ) from the original group G: (gN) •

question: What is another term for coset multiplication?, context: This set inherits a group operation (sometimes called coset multiplication, or coset addition) from the original group G: (gN) • (hN) = (gh)N for all g and h in G. This definition is motivated by the idea (itself an instance of general structural considerations outlined above) that the map G → G / N that associates to any element g its coset gN be a group homomorphism, or by general abstract considerations called universal properties. The coset eN = N serves as the identity in this group, and the inverse of gN in the quotient group is (gN)−1 = (g−1)N.e[›]


Question: What group operation is taken by the set from the original group?

Answer: coset multiplication

<hl> This set inherits a group operation (sometimes called coset multiplication , or coset addition) from the original group G: (gN) • <hl> (hN) = (gh)N for all g and h in G. This definition is motivated by the idea (itself an instance of general structural considerations outlined above) that the map G → G / N that associates to any element g its coset gN be a group homomorphism, or by general abstract considerations called universal properties. The coset eN = N serves as the identity in this group, and the inverse of gN in the quotient group is (gN)−1 = (g−1)N.e[›]

This set inherits a group operation (sometimes called <hl> coset multiplication <hl>, or coset addition) from the original group G: (gN) • (hN) = (gh)N for all g and h in G. This definition is motivated by the idea (itself an instance of general structural considerations outlined above) that the map G → G / N that associates to any element g its coset gN be a group homomorphism, or by general abstract considerations called universal properties. The coset eN = N serves as the identity in this group, and the inverse of gN in the quotient group is (gN)−1 = (g−1)N.e[›]

This set inherits a group operation (sometimes called <hl> coset multiplication <hl> , or coset addition) from the original group G: (gN) •

question: What group operation is taken by the set from the original group?, context: This set inherits a group operation (sometimes called coset multiplication, or coset addition) from the original group G: (gN) • (hN) = (gh)N for all g and h in G. This definition is motivated by the idea (itself an instance of general structural considerations outlined above) that the map G → G / N that associates to any element g its coset gN be a group homomorphism, or by general abstract considerations called universal properties. The coset eN = N serves as the identity in this group, and the inverse of gN in the quotient group is (gN)−1 = (g−1)N.e[›]


Question: What group does the inverse of gN include?

Answer: quotient group

This set inherits a group operation (sometimes called coset multiplication, or coset addition) from the original group G: (gN) • (hN) = (gh)N for all g and h in G. This definition is motivated by the idea (itself an instance of general structural considerations outlined above) that the map G → G / N that associates to any element g its coset gN be a group homomorphism, or by general abstract considerations called universal properties. The coset eN = <hl> N serves as the identity in this group, and the inverse of gN in the quotient group is (gN)−1 = (g−1)N.e[›] <hl>

This set inherits a group operation (sometimes called coset multiplication, or coset addition) from the original group G: (gN) • (hN) = (gh)N for all g and h in G. This definition is motivated by the idea (itself an instance of general structural considerations outlined above) that the map G → G / N that associates to any element g its coset gN be a group homomorphism, or by general abstract considerations called universal properties. The coset eN = N serves as the identity in this group, and the inverse of gN in the <hl> quotient group <hl> is (gN)−1 = (g−1)N.e[›]

question: What group does the inverse of gN include?, context: This set inherits a group operation (sometimes called coset multiplication, or coset addition) from the original group G: (gN) • (hN) = (gh)N for all g and h in G. This definition is motivated by the idea (itself an instance of general structural considerations outlined above) that the map G → G / N that associates to any element g its coset gN be a group homomorphism, or by general abstract considerations called universal properties. The coset eN = N serves as the identity in this group, and the inverse of gN in the quotient group is (gN)−1 = (g−1)N.e[›]


Question: What groups can be combined to describe every group?

Answer: is the quotient of the free group over the generators of the group

<hl> Quotient groups and subgroups together form a way of describing every group by its presentation: any group is the quotient of the free group over the generators of the group , quotiented by the subgroup of relations. <hl> The dihedral group D4, for example, can be generated by two elements r and f (for example, r = r1, the right rotation and f = fv the vertical (or any other) reflection), which means that every symmetry of the square is a finite composition of these two symmetries or their inverses. Together with the relations

Quotient groups and subgroups together form a way of describing every group by its presentation: any group <hl> is the quotient of the free group over the generators of the group <hl>, quotiented by the subgroup of relations. The dihedral group D4, for example, can be generated by two elements r and f (for example, r = r1, the right rotation and f = fv the vertical (or any other) reflection), which means that every symmetry of the square is a finite composition of these two symmetries or their inverses. Together with the relations

Quotient groups and subgroups together form a way of describing every group by its presentation: any group <hl> is the quotient of the free group over the generators of the group <hl> , quotiented by the subgroup of relations.

question: What groups can be combined to describe every group?, context: Quotient groups and subgroups together form a way of describing every group by its presentation: any group is the quotient of the free group over the generators of the group, quotiented by the subgroup of relations. The dihedral group D4, for example, can be generated by two elements r and f (for example, r = r1, the right rotation and f = fv the vertical (or any other) reflection), which means that every symmetry of the square is a finite composition of these two symmetries or their inverses. Together with the relations


Question: What group can be the quotient of the free group over the generators of the group?

Answer: any group

<hl> Quotient groups and subgroups together form a way of describing every group by its presentation: any group is the quotient of the free group over the generators of the group, quotiented by the subgroup of relations. <hl> The dihedral group D4, for example, can be generated by two elements r and f (for example, r = r1, the right rotation and f = fv the vertical (or any other) reflection), which means that every symmetry of the square is a finite composition of these two symmetries or their inverses. Together with the relations

Quotient groups and subgroups together form a way of describing every group by its presentation: <hl> any group <hl> is the quotient of the free group over the generators of the group, quotiented by the subgroup of relations. The dihedral group D4, for example, can be generated by two elements r and f (for example, r = r1, the right rotation and f = fv the vertical (or any other) reflection), which means that every symmetry of the square is a finite composition of these two symmetries or their inverses. Together with the relations

question: What group can be the quotient of the free group over the generators of the group?, context: Quotient groups and subgroups together form a way of describing every group by its presentation: any group is the quotient of the free group over the generators of the group, quotiented by the subgroup of relations. The dihedral group D4, for example, can be generated by two elements r and f (for example, r = r1, the right rotation and f = fv the vertical (or any other) reflection), which means that every symmetry of the square is a finite composition of these two symmetries or their inverses. Together with the relations


Question: What is a finite composition of two symmetries or their inverses?

Answer: every symmetry of the square

Quotient groups and subgroups together form a way of describing every group by its presentation: any group is the quotient of the free group over the generators of the group, quotiented by the subgroup of relations. <hl> The dihedral group D4, for example, can be generated by two elements r and f (for example, r = r1, the right rotation and f = fv the vertical (or any other) reflection), which means that every symmetry of the square is a finite composition of these two symmetries or their inverses. <hl> Together with the relations

Quotient groups and subgroups together form a way of describing every group by its presentation: any group is the quotient of the free group over the generators of the group, quotiented by the subgroup of relations. The dihedral group D4, for example, can be generated by two elements r and f (for example, r = r1, the right rotation and f = fv the vertical (or any other) reflection), which means that <hl> every symmetry of the square <hl> is a finite composition of these two symmetries or their inverses. Together with the relations

question: What is a finite composition of two symmetries or their inverses?, context: Quotient groups and subgroups together form a way of describing every group by its presentation: any group is the quotient of the free group over the generators of the group, quotiented by the subgroup of relations. The dihedral group D4, for example, can be generated by two elements r and f (for example, r = r1, the right rotation and f = fv the vertical (or any other) reflection), which means that every symmetry of the square is a finite composition of these two symmetries or their inverses. Together with the relations


Question: What map shows the relation between sub and quotient groups?

Answer: injective map

<hl> Sub- and quotient groups are related in the following way: a subset H of G can be seen as an injective map H → G, i.e. any element of the target has at most one element that maps to it. <hl> The counterpart to injective maps are surjective maps (every element of the target is mapped onto), such as the canonical map G → G / N.y[›] Interpreting subgroup and quotients in light of these homomorphisms emphasizes the structural concept inherent to these definitions alluded to in the introduction. In general, homomorphisms are neither injective nor surjective. Kernel and image of group homomorphisms and the first isomorphism theorem address this phenomenon.

Sub- and quotient groups are related in the following way: a subset H of G can be seen as an <hl> injective map <hl> H → G, i.e. any element of the target has at most one element that maps to it. The counterpart to injective maps are surjective maps (every element of the target is mapped onto), such as the canonical map G → G / N.y[›] Interpreting subgroup and quotients in light of these homomorphisms emphasizes the structural concept inherent to these definitions alluded to in the introduction. In general, homomorphisms are neither injective nor surjective. Kernel and image of group homomorphisms and the first isomorphism theorem address this phenomenon.

question: What map shows the relation between sub and quotient groups?, context: Sub- and quotient groups are related in the following way: a subset H of G can be seen as an injective map H → G, i.e. any element of the target has at most one element that maps to it. The counterpart to injective maps are surjective maps (every element of the target is mapped onto), such as the canonical map G → G / N.y[›] Interpreting subgroup and quotients in light of these homomorphisms emphasizes the structural concept inherent to these definitions alluded to in the introduction. In general, homomorphisms are neither injective nor surjective. Kernel and image of group homomorphisms and the first isomorphism theorem address this phenomenon.


Question: What are the opposites of injective maps?

Answer: surjective maps

Sub- and quotient groups are related in the following way: a subset H of G can be seen as an injective map H → G, i.e. any element of the target has at most one element that maps to it. <hl> The counterpart to injective maps are surjective maps (every element of the target is mapped onto), such as the canonical map G → G / N.y[›] Interpreting subgroup and quotients in light of these homomorphisms emphasizes the structural concept inherent to these definitions alluded to in the introduction. <hl> In general, homomorphisms are neither injective nor surjective. Kernel and image of group homomorphisms and the first isomorphism theorem address this phenomenon.

Sub- and quotient groups are related in the following way: a subset H of G can be seen as an injective map H → G, i.e. any element of the target has at most one element that maps to it. The counterpart to injective maps are <hl> surjective maps <hl> (every element of the target is mapped onto), such as the canonical map G → G / N.y[›] Interpreting subgroup and quotients in light of these homomorphisms emphasizes the structural concept inherent to these definitions alluded to in the introduction. In general, homomorphisms are neither injective nor surjective. Kernel and image of group homomorphisms and the first isomorphism theorem address this phenomenon.

question: What are the opposites of injective maps?, context: Sub- and quotient groups are related in the following way: a subset H of G can be seen as an injective map H → G, i.e. any element of the target has at most one element that maps to it. The counterpart to injective maps are surjective maps (every element of the target is mapped onto), such as the canonical map G → G / N.y[›] Interpreting subgroup and quotients in light of these homomorphisms emphasizes the structural concept inherent to these definitions alluded to in the introduction. In general, homomorphisms are neither injective nor surjective. Kernel and image of group homomorphisms and the first isomorphism theorem address this phenomenon.


Question: What is an example of a surjective map?

Answer: canonical map

Sub- and quotient groups are related in the following way: a subset H of G can be seen as an injective map H → G, i.e. any element of the target has at most one element that maps to it. <hl> The counterpart to injective maps are surjective maps (every element of the target is mapped onto), such as the canonical map G → G / N.y[›] Interpreting subgroup and quotients in light of these homomorphisms emphasizes the structural concept inherent to these definitions alluded to in the introduction. <hl> In general, homomorphisms are neither injective nor surjective. Kernel and image of group homomorphisms and the first isomorphism theorem address this phenomenon.

Sub- and quotient groups are related in the following way: a subset H of G can be seen as an injective map H → G, i.e. any element of the target has at most one element that maps to it. The counterpart to injective maps are surjective maps (every element of the target is mapped onto), such as the <hl> canonical map <hl> G → G / N.y[›] Interpreting subgroup and quotients in light of these homomorphisms emphasizes the structural concept inherent to these definitions alluded to in the introduction. In general, homomorphisms are neither injective nor surjective. Kernel and image of group homomorphisms and the first isomorphism theorem address this phenomenon.

question: What is an example of a surjective map?, context: Sub- and quotient groups are related in the following way: a subset H of G can be seen as an injective map H → G, i.e. any element of the target has at most one element that maps to it. The counterpart to injective maps are surjective maps (every element of the target is mapped onto), such as the canonical map G → G / N.y[›] Interpreting subgroup and quotients in light of these homomorphisms emphasizes the structural concept inherent to these definitions alluded to in the introduction. In general, homomorphisms are neither injective nor surjective. Kernel and image of group homomorphisms and the first isomorphism theorem address this phenomenon.