I know this is a duplicate of Suppose $ H\leqslant G $, prove that if $ (H, G')=\langle e \rangle $, then $ (H', G)=\langle e \rangle $. but the only answer which does not use the Three Subgroups Lemma (which, at this point, Hungerford has not covered) did not make sense to me, and since my reputation is still low, I can't leave a comment asking for clarification. The given solution is as follows:
"By the previous exercise in the book, for $h,k∈H$, and $g∈G$, we have $[hk,g]=h[k,g]h^{−1}[h,g]=[k,g][h,g],$ because $(H′,G)=1$ (I am writing 1 for ⟨e⟩ and also for e.)
We have to prove that $[[h,k],g]=1$. We have $$[[h,k],g]=[hkh^{−1}k^{−1},g]=[k^{−1},g][h^{−1},g][k,g][h,g]=[k,g]^{−1}[h,g]^{−1}[k,g][h,g].$$
Now, using $(H′,G)=1$ again, we have $h^{−1}[k,g]h=[k,g]$ and $hg^{−1}[k,g]gh^{−1}=g^{−1}[k,g]g,$ and so
$$[k,g]^{−1}[h,g]^{−1}[k,g][h,g]=[k,g]^{−1}ghg^{−1}h^{−1}[k,g]hgh^{−1}g^{−1}=[k,g]^{−1}[k,g]=1$$ as required."
The problem I have with this proof is that they seem to be using $(H',G)=1$, which is what we're trying to prove; we have that $(H,G')=1$ and we're trying to prove $(H',G)=1$, so it seems to me we shouldn't assume that in our proof. Am I missing something? If not, and this proof is invalid, would anyone be able to provide a valid proof of this (without referring to the Three Subgroups Lemma)?