Thanks for such a nice and methodical explanation. Can you suggest to me a book regarding this abstract group theory part? I am facing difficulty in my course work.
The book that I used was Dummit and Foote. I didn't reference it very often so I don't actually know how helpful it is! However, it does have many group theory exercises for practice.
When you’re showing its a homomorphism, how is it not assuming the goal? I thought phi((h1,k1)(h2,k2))=phi((h1,k1))phi((h2,k2)) was the goal to show its a bijection, but in the end you use it as a fact to justify the products solution? I think I’m missing something
You've mathematically matured after a semester of college. It's really wonderful to see.
Thank you for the kind words!
This is the best lecture on semidirect products of groups I have ever seen. Thanks so much for your sharing.
This is the clearest video to introduce semi direct products! Thank you so much!🎉
Very cool video! When this topic was on my lessons, I didn't really understand it. But now I can fully understand semidirect product, thank you!
What a perfect lecture
this is truly perfect, thank you so much for this clear lecture
Nice video.. crystal clear
Thanks...we've never taken this idea before this way❤
Very good teacher
I always wondered why the map is K-->Aut(H) rather than Inn(H) ... Can you make a semi direct product using outer automorphism?
that was SO helpful
Thanks for such a nice and methodical explanation. Can you suggest to me a book regarding this abstract group theory part? I am facing difficulty in my course work.
The book that I used was Dummit and Foote. I didn't reference it very often so I don't actually know how helpful it is! However, it does have many group theory exercises for practice.
@@MuPrimeMath Thanks a ton. I shall have a look.
Very nice 👍
How do we know that h1 = h2 and k1 =k2 are we assuming that each element in the group G, H is it's own inverse ?
Gotta say, you remind me of a young Allen Knutson, except that you're probably taller and I don't know if you juggle.
When you’re showing its a homomorphism, how is it not assuming the goal? I thought phi((h1,k1)(h2,k2))=phi((h1,k1))phi((h2,k2)) was the goal to show its a bijection, but in the end you use it as a fact to justify the products solution? I think I’m missing something
Ohhh nvm, we’re finding a law that makes it true! I get it now