On the objects of the category of groups we define the mapping $G\mapsto \operatorname{Hol}(G)$, the holomorph $G\rtimes \operatorname{Aut}(G)$ of $G$. Can we extend this mapping to a functor on this category? (Via extension to morphisms)
-
$\begingroup$ This would induce homomorphisms $Aut(G) \to Aut(H)$ from homomorphisms $G\to H$, no? I don't think this is possible. $\endgroup$– David Roberts ♦Commented Oct 28, 2020 at 4:09
-
$\begingroup$ @DavidRoberts In the question we do not require that the morphism between holomorphs would be canonically assigne to a morphisms from G to H. May you more explain on your comment? $\endgroup$– Ali TaghaviCommented Oct 28, 2020 at 4:16
-
2$\begingroup$ If you don't require that, what do you mean by a functor? What are the morphisms in your category of groups if not homomorphisms? I think more details are needed if you aren't taking the standard definitions (though I assume you really do want them). But my comment is not on firm ground, it just poses one potential problem: it is definitely true that $G\mapsto Aut(G)$ is not the object component of a functor out of the (standard) category of groups. I'm just cautious about a claim the holomorph construction will fix the issues with it. $\endgroup$– David Roberts ♦Commented Oct 28, 2020 at 4:19
-
$\begingroup$ @DavidRoberts morphisms are homomorphism . As you said we ask if "holomorph" the object component of a functor. Apart from your example G \to G' has the same problem,i think. Thanks for giving a better statement of my question,that is object component of a functor. $\endgroup$– Ali TaghaviCommented Oct 28, 2020 at 4:26
-
3$\begingroup$ "Usually this is done via canonical maps(in a natural manner)" Hmm, I don't think so. "Canonical" is an informal word with no good definition that I've seen. Naturality here is a red herring, I agree. I'll leave it to the group theorists to answer your question. It is clear what you want, I just suspect the answer is no. $\endgroup$– David Roberts ♦Commented Oct 28, 2020 at 4:37
1 Answer
There is no such functor. Recall that a split epimorphism is a morphism $f : x \to y$ with a section (right inverse) $g : y \to x$, satisfying $fg = \text{id}_y$. Split epimorphisms, as their name suggests, are epimorphisms, and moreover they are absolute epimorpisms in that they are preserved by any functor whatsoever.
In $\text{Grp}$ every split epimorphism arises as a projection $N \rtimes G \to G$ where $N \rtimes G$ is a semidirect product, so any functor from groups to groups must preserve these. In particular if $\text{Hol}(-)$ were such a functor it would follow that $\text{Hol}(N \rtimes G)$ admits a split epimorphism to $\text{Hol}(G)$.
No such split epimorphism exists in general. Explicitly, take $N = C_2, G = C_2^3$ with the trivial action. Then
$$\text{Hol}(N \rtimes G) \cong C_2^4 \rtimes GL_4(\mathbb{F}_2)$$
while
$$\text{Hol}(G) \cong C_2^3 \rtimes GL_3(\mathbb{F}_2).$$
$GL_n(\mathbb{F}_2) \cong SL_n(\mathbb{F}_2) \cong PSL_n(\mathbb{F}_2)$ is simple for $n \ge 3$, so these two groups each have a unique nonabelian simple group in their Jordan-Holder decompositions, namely $GL_4(\mathbb{F}_2)$ and $GL_3(\mathbb{F}_2)$ respectively. Any non-solvable quotient of $C_2^4 \rtimes GL_4(\mathbb{F}_2)$ must also contain $GL_4(\mathbb{F}_2)$ in its Jordan-Holder decomposition, and since $GL_3(\mathbb{F}_2)$ and $GL_4(\mathbb{F}_2)$ have different orders they are non-isomorphic, so $\text{Hol}(G)$ is not a quotient (or even a subquotient) of $\text{Hol}(N \rtimes G)$.
A similar but simpler argument shows that there is no functor sending a group $G$ to its center $Z(G)$, since for example $\text{sgn} : S_3 \to C_2$ is a split epimorphism but there is no epimorphism $Z(S_3) \to Z(C_2)$ since the former is trivial and the latter is not. We can also show that there is no functor sending a group $G$ to its automorphism group $\text{Aut}(G)$ using the same counterexample $N = C_2, G = C_2^3$ as above, although $N = C_2, G = C_2^2$ also works and requires a slightly different argument. I used a similar but more complicated argument on math.SE recently to show that there is no functor sending a finite-dimensional vector space $V$ to $GL(V)$.
-
3$\begingroup$ The only thing I would add is that it should be a functor on the core of $\mathbf{Grp}$, but this is not what the OP was after. $\endgroup$– David Roberts ♦Commented Oct 28, 2020 at 6:13
-
$\begingroup$ Thank you, Qiaochu for this very interesting answer. Thank you @DavidRoberts for your attention and your very helpful comments. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 28, 2020 at 21:06