I'm trying to go through Harvard's Abstract Algebra lectures on my own, and would like a little help with one of the homeworks. The problem asks:
Let $G$ be the group of invertible real upper $2 \times 2$ matrices. Determine whether or not the following conditions describe normal subgroups $H$ of $G$. If they do, use the First Isomorphism Theorem to identify the quotient group $G/H$.
(a) $\quad a_{11}$ = 1
(b) $\quad a_{12}$ = 0
(c) $\quad a_{11}$ = $a_{22}$
(d) $\quad a_{11}$ = $a_{22}$ = 1
To do this, we'll need to go one by one and determine whether the subgroup $H$ described is normal or not. If it's normal then it must be kernel of a surjective homomorphism. It can easily be shown that
$$\det: G \rightarrow R^{*}$$
is a surjective homomorphism. Then, $G/H$ must be isomorphic to $R^{*}$ by the First Isomorphism Theorem. So, we'll go one by one and see if they're normal.
NOTE: I have put *'s in places where computation would be too long simply to indicate the presence of some value determined through multiplying through.
(a) $$H = \begin{bmatrix} 1 & b \\ 0 & d \end{bmatrix},$$
$$aha^{-1} \;=\; \begin{bmatrix} a & b\\ 0 & d \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} 1 & b'\\ 0 & d' \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \frac{1}{a} & \frac{-b}{ad} \\ 0 & \frac{1}{d} \end{bmatrix} \;=\; \begin{bmatrix} 1 & * \\ 0 & d' \end{bmatrix}.$$
This is a normal subgroup and therefore $G/H \simeq R^{*}.$
(b)
$$H = \begin{bmatrix} a & 0 \\ 0 & d \end{bmatrix},$$
$$aha^{-1} \;=\; \begin{bmatrix} a & b\\ 0 & d \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} a' & 0\\ 0 & d' \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \frac{1}{a} & \frac{-b}{ad} \\ 0 & \frac{1}{d} \end{bmatrix} \;=\; \begin{bmatrix} a' & * \\ 0 & d' \end{bmatrix}.$$
This is NOT a normal subgroup.
(c)
$$H = \begin{bmatrix} a & b \\ 0 & a \end{bmatrix},$$
$$aha^{-1} \;=\; \begin{bmatrix} a & b\\ 0 & d \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} a' & b'\\ 0 & a' \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} \frac{1}{a} & \frac{-b}{ad} \\ 0 & \frac{1}{d} \end{bmatrix} \;=\; \begin{bmatrix} a' & * \\ 0 & a' \end{bmatrix}.$$
This is a normal subgroup and therefore $G/H \simeq R^{*}.$
(d) This is an instance of (c), and therefore it follows trivially that it is a normal subgroup.
Is this correct? Any and all help is greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Part (a)
Let me state the definitions in simple terms. You have a group $$G=\left\{\begin{pmatrix}a & b\\ 0 &c\end{pmatrix}:\ a,b,c\in\mathbb R, ac\neq 0\right\}$$
And its normal subgroup $$H=\left\{\begin{pmatrix}1 & b\\ 0 &c\end{pmatrix}:\ b,c\in\mathbb R, c\neq 0\right\}$$
To identify the group $G/H$ using the first isomorphism theorem, I will construct a homomorphism $f:G\to \mathbb R^*$ such that $\DeclareMathOperator{\ker}{ker}\ker f=H$.
$\det :G\to \mathbb R^*$ is not appropriate for this purpose because $\ker(\det)\neq H$ so we cannot make any conclusion about $G/H$. In fact:$\displaystyle \ker(\det) = \left\{\begin{pmatrix}a & b\\ 0 &\frac{1}{a}\end{pmatrix}:\ a,b\in\mathbb R, a\neq 0\right\}\tag*{}$
Consider the mapping $f:G\to \mathbb R^*$ $$f\begin{pmatrix}a & b\\ 0 &c\end{pmatrix}= a$$ It is well defined because $a\neq 0$. It is also a homomorphism which is routine to prove. $$\underbrace{\begin{pmatrix}a_1 & b_1\\ 0 &c_1\end{pmatrix}}_{g_1\in G}\underbrace{\begin{pmatrix}a_2 & b_2\\ 0 &c_2\end{pmatrix}}_{g_2\in G}=\begin{pmatrix}a_1a_2 & a_1b_2+b_1c_2\\ 0 &c_1c_2\end{pmatrix}\\ \implies f(g_1g_2)=a_1a_2=f(g_1)f(g_2)$$
It is also surjective. By first isomorphism theorem, $G/H\cong \mathbb R^*$.
Part (c)
Another normal subgroup $$K=\left\{\begin{pmatrix}a & b\\ 0 &a\end{pmatrix}:\ a,b\in\mathbb R,a\neq 0\right\}$$
Again, we need a homomorphism with this as kernel.
Consider the mapping $f:G\to \mathbb R^*$ $$f\begin{pmatrix}a & b\\ 0 &c\end{pmatrix}= \frac{a}{c}$$
Prove that
$\therefore G/K\cong \mathbb R^*$
Part (d)
Normal subgroup of $G$: $$P=\left\{\begin{pmatrix}1 & b\\ 0 &1\end{pmatrix}:\ b\in\mathbb R\right\}$$
Consider the mapping $f:G\to \mathbb R^*\times \mathbb R^*$ $$f\begin{pmatrix}a & b\\ 0 &c\end{pmatrix}= (a,c)$$
Yet again, prove that
$\therefore G/P\cong \mathbb R^*\times \mathbb R^*$
Though not related to the questions in the post, I noticed that $P\cong (\mathbb R, +)$. It becomes obvious if you observe that $$\begin{pmatrix}1 & b_1\\ 0 &1\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1 & b_2\\ 0 &1\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}1 & b_1+b_2\\ 0 &1\end{pmatrix} $$
Now, this does not mean that $G\cong \mathbb R\times \mathbb R\times(\mathbb R, +)$ (you can't "multiply" both sides by $P$ and make this conclusion). :)