41
$\begingroup$

Well, this is an exercise problem from Herstein which sounds difficult:

  • How does one prove that if $|G|>2$, then $G$ has non-trivial automorphism?

The only thing I know which connects a group with its automorphism is the theorem, $$G/Z(G) \cong \mathcal{I}(G)$$ where $\mathcal{I}(G)$ denotes the Inner- Automorphism group of $G$. So for a group with $Z(G)=(e)$, we can conclude that it has a non-trivial automorphism, but what about groups with center?

  • 9
    You've got it switched. The group of inner automorphisms is isomorphic to G/Z(G). This essentially solves the problem.2010-10-30
  • 0
    @Qiaochu Yuan: Sorry2010-10-30
  • 0
    @Qiaochu Yuan: I don't know the solution though :x)!2010-10-30
  • 2
    So figure it out. Inner automorphisms are automorphisms, so if G/Z(G) is nontrivial there is an inner automorphism. Otherwise...2010-10-30
  • 1
    @Chandru1: So now you have reduced to the case when $G$ is abelian. Can you think of an automorphism that works for abelian groups, but not for nonabelian groups?2010-10-30
  • 0
    @Jonas: Where have i reduced it to the abelian case. $x \mapsto x^{-1}$ is what you want i think!2010-10-30
  • 1
    @Chandru1: Please think more about where it is reduced to the abelian case. Yes, that is the map I had in mind.2010-10-30
  • 0
    @Jonas: See, it was a misunderstanding.2010-10-30

3 Answers 3

48

As you note in the question, the group of inner automorphisms Inn($G$) is isomorphic to $G/Z(G)$. In particular, it's trivial if and only if $Z(G)=G$. So there is a non-trivial (inner) automorphism unless $G=Z(G)$.

Now, notice that, by definition, $Z(G)=G$ if and only if $G$ is abelian; so we have reduced to the abelian case.

If $G$ is abelian then $g\mapsto -g$ is an automorphism, and it is non-trivial unless $g=-g$ for all $g\in G$. But $g=-g$ if and only if the order of $g$ divdes two. So we have now reduced to the case in which $2g=0$ for all $g\in G$.

In this case, $G$ is a vector space over the field $\mathbb{Z}/2$. As $|G|$ is equal to 2 raised to the power of the $\mathbb{Z}/2$-dimension of $G$, the hypothesis that $|G|>2$ implies that $\mathrm{dim}_{\mathbb{Z/2}} G>1$. But now we can write down lots of linear automorphisms of $G$. For instance, you could fix any basis $g_1,g_2,\ldots$ and take the automorphism $g_1\mapsto g_2$, $g_2\mapsto g_1$ and $g_i\mapsto g_i$ for every $i>2$.

  • 1
    HJRW, I'm sorry, but I couldn't grasp the details of your reasoning when $G$ is abelian and $g^2 = e$ for all $g\in G$. I've never encountered this vector space business getting into group theory. So can you please explain your reasoning to me in more elementary terms?2014-06-14
  • 1
    @SaaqibMahmuud; well, suppose that $G$ is abelian and $2g=0$ for all $g$. Then you can check very easily that your group $G$ satisfies the axioms of a vector space over the field with two elements (which I denoted by $\mathbb{Z}/2$ in my answer). Then you argue exactly as I described above. If there are any further steps you have difficulty with, it would help if you said which ones they are!2014-06-15
  • 0
    Much easier to use the fundamental theorem of abelian groups for exponent 2. Then you obviously have permutation isomorphisms for order greater than 2. Same idea in a sense, but you don't have to leave group theory.2014-08-25
  • 1
    What is this fundamental theorem of abelian groups? I know a fundamental theorem of finitely generated abelian groups. In the infinitely generated case I think you just want to point out that any two distinct elements generate a Klein 4-group, which has automorphisms and is a term in a direct product decomposition. Actually, I'm not sure the direct product decomposition is clear here.2014-10-17
  • 0
    @HJRW I think your 'automorphism' is actually a permutation, or trivial. Let $T$ denote your 'automorphism.' There exists $g_i$ such that $g_1g_i \neq g_2$. Then if $T$ is an automorphism, $T(g_1g_i) = T(g_1)T(g_i)$. But $T(g_1g_i)= g_1g_i$, and $T(g_1)T(g_i) = g_2g_i$. This implies $g_1 = g_2$.2015-01-16
  • 0
    @tmastny, the $g_i$ are a *basis* for $G$, not an enumeration of $G$. So, by definition, one computes the action of $T$ on an element $g\in G$ by writing $g$ as a product of $g_i$'s and seeing what happens. In particular, in your example, $T(g_1g_i)=T(g_1)T(g_i)=g_2g_i$.2015-01-16
  • 1
    @KevinCarlson, it might not be a direct product. For instance, it might be a direct sum...2015-01-16
42

If $G$ is not abelian, then conjugation by a noncentral element will do.

If $G$ is abelian, then $x\mapsto x^{-1}$ is an automorphism. It will be nontrivial unless every element of $G$ equals its inverse, that is, if every element of $G$ is of exponent $2$.

If every element of $G$ is of exponent $2$, then $G$ is a vector space over the field of $2$ elements, so it is isomorphic to a (possibly infinite) sum of copies of $C_2$, the cyclic group of two elements. Since $|G|\gt 2$, there are at least two copies, so the linear transformation that swaps two copies of $C_2$ is a nontrivial automorphism.

  • 2
    Beat me to it by 90 seconds!2010-10-30
  • 0
    @Henry: Looks that way! (-:2010-10-30
  • 1
    Any idea whether this can be proven constructively?2010-10-30
  • 2
    Carl, what do you mean? There are three cases, but in each case the automorphism is completely explicit. The existence of complete groups, in which every automorphism is inner, shows that there is no one construction that can work for all groups (as abelian groups have no inner automorphisms).2010-10-31
  • 0
    Henry Wilton: I mean, e.g., in Bishop's system. But one could also ask the analogous computability question whether there is a computable procedure that assigns to every index of a computable group of more than two elements an index of a nontrivial automorphism. While it seems like there shouldn't be a procedure like that, I don't quite see how to prove it. I wanted to ask Arturo first before asking it as a separate question.2010-10-31
  • 0
    @Henry Wilton: If your worry is about describing $G$ as a vector space in the final case, one need not do that. Pick any two elements of $x$ and $y$ of order $2$ which are distinct; they generate a subgroup that is isomorphic to the Klein $4$-group. Let $H=\langle z|z\notin\langle x,y\rangle\rangle$. Then $H\cap\langle x,y\rangle=\{e\}$, $G = H+\langle x,y\rangle$, so you can define the automorphism as the identity on $H$ and a nontrivial automorphism on $\langle x,y\rangle$. For other abelian computable groups, the automorphism is given directly. For arbitrary, find a noncentral element.2010-10-31
  • 0
    @Henry Wilton: I don't know anything about Bishop's system, so I can't comment on that (I'm not particularly worried about computability questions as a matter of course). So I also don't see why such a procedure "should" or "should not" exist. Doesn't seem that difficult, but as I said, I don't usually think about such questions.2010-10-31
  • 0
    Arturo, did you really mean to address those last two comments to me? I have no worries, and also don't know about Bishop's system. As I said, the automorphisms are completely explicit, so I don't see any problem with doing it constructively. In fact, I can't imagine a more 'constructive' proof!2010-10-31
  • 0
    I think the comments were intended for me. Henry, you will need to look into constructive mathematics to have a sense of what I was (tersely) asking. Arturo, no worries. I want to think about it for a moment, but I will put a link here if I find another forum for the issue.2010-10-31
  • 0
    @Henry Wilton: Oops; sorry about that. Yes, they should have been addressed at Carl. Sorry!2010-10-31
  • 0
    @Carl: I don't know much about constructive laths and Bishops system. However, thinking about it in terms of computing, it wouldn't be hard to write a program to compute the isomorphism as long as you can enumerate, multiply and compare group elements. Maybe that can be translated into a constructive proof?2010-10-31
  • 1
    @Arturo Magidin: in your comment of 2010-10-31 01:59:58Z, the set $H$ is not a subgroup of $G$, right? I don't see why the map you define has to be an automorphism.2010-10-31
  • 0
    @Carl: Actually, I was thinking of finite groups. For infinite groups, I expect that it can't be done constructively.2010-10-31
  • 0
    @Carl: In my comment, $H$ is a subgroup: it's defined as *the subgroup* generated by all elements not in the subgroup generated by $x$ and $y$.2010-10-31
  • 1
    @Arturo Magidin: Sorry; it's hard to read the TeX and it isn't rendering for some reason. Suppose that $a$ is not in $K = \langle x,y\rangle$. Then $a + x$ is also not in $K$, because $x$ is in $K$. So the subgroup generated by the elements not in $K$ contains $x$. In general we would have to make $H$ a complementary subgroup to $K$, which does exist in the setting at hand, but I'm not certain that there has to be a complementary subgroup that is computable if $G$ is computable.2010-10-31
  • 0
    @Carl: Yes, you're right. There is a bit more work needed to define $H$. Thanks.2010-11-01
  • 0
    Can u please explain this? "then conjugation by a noncentral element will do" we want an automorphism from $G$ to $G$. It takes an element from $G$. What does the function do with this element?2017-05-12
  • 0
    @ArmanMalekzade Can you use full words please? "Conjugation by $x$" is the automorphism that maps $g\in G$ to $x^{-1}gx$. "Conjugation by a noncentral element" is the conjugation automorphism by an element $x$ that is not central.2017-05-12
  • 0
    A question related to the answer https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2855187/an-abelian-group-as-an-mathbb-f-2-vector-space2018-07-18
3

The other two answers assume the axiom of choice:

  • Arturo Magidin uses choice when he forms the direct sum ("...it is isomorphic to a (possibly infinite) sum of copies of $C_2$...")
  • HJRW uses choice when he fixes a basis (the proof that every vector space has a basis requires the axiom of choice).

If we do not assume the axiom of choice then it is consistent that there exists a group $G$ of order greater than two such that $\operatorname{Aut}(G)$ is trivial. This is explained in this answer of Asaf Karagila.

  • 0
    Asak? Who's that guy? :)2018-08-30
  • 0
    Gah! I typed your first name by hand, then copied-and-pasted your second name... incidentally, I noticed that you've started/about to start a postdoc at UEA. It a nice place - I was at a workshop there earlier this year. There is a theatre on the campus which serves nice brownies.2018-08-30
  • 0
    Yeah, I like Norwich so far.2018-08-30