## "nontrivial subgroups" (terminology question)

For the discussion of math. Duh.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

skullturf
Posts: 556
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Chicago
Contact:

### "nontrivial subgroups" (terminology question)

If I have a group G and I say "consider its nontrivial subgroups" with no further explanation, what do I mean?

What are the "trivial subgroups" I'm ignoring?
(a) the group containing only the identity
(b) the group containing only the identity, and G itself.

A rather cursory Google search seems to indicate some degree of consensus. Do you think my question has a generally agreed-upon answer? Or do you think it's ambiguous?

z4lis
Posts: 767
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:59 pm UTC

### Re: "nontrivial subgroups" (terminology question)

If you made it a poll, I would vote (b). But I'm also an undergraduate who's only had a year of algebra, so I'm certainly not in touch with current usage in the literature.
What they (mathematicians) define as interesting depends on their particular field of study; mathematical anaylsts find pain and extreme confusion interesting, whereas geometers are interested in beauty.

Harg
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:24 pm UTC

### Re: "nontrivial subgroups" (terminology question)

I'd say (a) is the usual meaning. You often see "proper notrivial subgroups" if you want to exclude (b).

theorigamist
Posts: 129
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 12:06 am UTC

### Re: "nontrivial subgroups" (terminology question)

The group consisting of a single element, {e}, is called the trivial group. Usually, nontrivial subgroup means subgroup not isomorphic to the trivial group (that is, (a)). Frequently, nontrivial subgroup is used to mean proper, nontrivial subgroup. You shouldn't worry too much about the distinction. If a problem just says "consider the nontrivial subgroups of G and prove X about them", then check if X is true of G itself. If not, then "nontrivial" means "proper and nontrivial" for the purposes of that problem.

Eebster the Great
Posts: 3463
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

### Re: "nontrivial subgroups" (terminology question)

I often see "nontrivial" in the context of groups to be analogous to "nonempty" in the context of sets, so (a).

Hix
Posts: 364
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 5:46 pm UTC

### Re: "nontrivial subgroups" (terminology question)

Definitely (a)

The trivial subgroup of any group G is the subgroup with just one element. So a nontrivial subgroup is any other subgroup. If G itself is not supposed to be considered, you should specify "proper", as others have indicated.

Token
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:07 pm UTC
Location: London

### Re: "nontrivial subgroups" (terminology question)

Hix wrote:The trivial subgroup of any group G is the subgroup with just one element.

You say that like maths terminology is standardised. I seem to recall (though I may easily be wrong) that one of my group theory lecturers for my master's explicitly enumerated the trivial subgroups of a group G as {e} and G itself. The problem lies in whether the word "trivial" is used to mean triviality as a group (in which case, only {e}) or triviality as a group-subgroup pair (and having them both be the same is certainly trivial). It's ambiguous - if you're reading, don't assume, and if you're writing, be explicit.
All posts are works in progress. If I posted something within the last hour, chances are I'm still editing it.

skullturf
Posts: 556
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Chicago
Contact:

### Re: "nontrivial subgroups" (terminology question)

My cursory searching seemed to indicate that it's almost standard to use "trivial subgroup" to refer only to the one-element group.

But I agree with Token: the words "trivial subgroup" are close to "trivially a subgroup", in which case it's not that far-fetched to interpret it as including the whole group. If you're writing about a situation where it matters, it's probably better to be explicit and not assume.