# Thread:

1. ## Does this uniquely determine G?

(up to isomorphism)

$1\longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}_4 \longrightarrow^{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\beta}\ \, G \longrightarrow^{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\alpha}\ \, \mathbb{Z}_2 \longrightarrow 1$

$\mathbb{Z}_2\longrightarrow^{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\gamma} \ \, G$

$\gamma \circ \alpha = 1_{\mathbb{Z}_2}$

(if my latex were better i'd try to put it all on one line, this is a right-split short exact sequence).

if so, is there a "smaller" diagram which conveys the same information?

2. ## Re: Does this uniquely determine G?

Originally Posted by Deveno
(up to isomorphism)

$1\longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}_4 \longrightarrow^{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\beta}\ \, G \longrightarrow^{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\alpha}\ \, \mathbb{Z}_2 \longrightarrow 1$

$\mathbb{Z}_2\longrightarrow^{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\gamma} \ \, G$

$\gamma \circ \alpha = 1_{\mathbb{Z}_2}$

(if my latex were better i'd try to put it all on one line, this is a right-split short exact sequence).

if so, is there a "smaller" diagram which conveys the same information?
Presumably you meant $\alpha\circ\gamma=\text{id}_{\mathbb{Z}_2}$. If so, we can definitely say that $G\cong \mathbb{Z}_4\rtimes_\varphi\mathbb{Z}_2$ for some homomorphism $\varphi:\mathbb{Z}_2\to\text{Aut}(\mathbb{Z}_4)$. But, since $\text{Aut}(\mathbb{Z}_4)=\mathbb{Z}_2$ there is precisely one non-trivial homomorphism. And so, in particular, up to isomorphism the only semidirect product gives $D_4$. Thus, $G\cong D_4$.

3. ## Re: Does this uniquely determine G?

$G \cong \mathbb{Z}_4 \times \mathbb{Z}_2$ satisfies the conditions too. so $G$ is not uniquely determined.

4. ## Re: Does this uniquely determine G?

Originally Posted by NonCommAlg
$G \cong \mathbb{Z}_4 \times \mathbb{Z}_2$ satisfies the conditions too. so $G$ is not uniquely determined.
Right, I forgot the trivial homomorphism $\varphi:\mathbb{Z}_2\to\mathbb{Z}_2$.

5. ## Re: Does this uniquely determine G?

yes i did mean the other composition ( can i claim it was because i was looking at herstein last night? no? ok, i admit it, i'm just stupid).

so...how would i indicate there is no left-split with a picture, to rule out the trivial semi-direct (that is direct) product?

6. ## Re: Does this uniquely determine G?

Originally Posted by Deveno
yes i did mean the other composition ( can i claim it was because i was looking at herstein last night? no? ok, i admit it, i'm just stupid).

so...how would i indicate there is no left-split with a picture, to rule out the trivial semi-direct (that is direct) product?
You mean you just want to indicate, diagramatically that there is no left split?

7. ## Re: Does this uniquely determine G?

correct. what got me thinking about this, is thinking about identifying D4 solely in terms of homomorphisms to and from it (although i admit including the extra information of the short exact sequence is cheating a little) and wondering how well this can be done, for an arbitrary group.
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 0, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 17, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "github"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9305055141448975, "perplexity_flag": "middle"}