Definitions 2.7.1:
Let 
 be a group. A normal series of 
 are finitely many subgroups 
 of 
 such that

Two normal series 
 and 
 of 
 are equivalent if and only if 
 and there exists a bijective function 
 such that for all 
:

A normal series 
 of 
 is a composition series of 
 if and only if for each 
 the group

is simple.
 
Theorem 2.7.2:
Let 
 be a finite group. Then there exists a composition series of 
.
 
Proof:
We prove the theorem by induction over 
.
1. 
. In this case, 
 is the trivial group, and 
 with 
 is a composition series of 
.
2. Assume the theorem is true for all 
, 
.
Since the trivial subgroup 
 is a normal subgroup of 
, the set of proper normal subgroups of 
 is not empty. Therefore, we may choose a proper normal subgroup 
 of maximum cardinality. This must also be a maximal proper normal subgroup, since any group in which it is contained must have at least equal cardinality, and thus, if 
 is normal such that

, then

, which is why 
 is not a proper normal subgroup of maximal cardinality.
Due to theorem 2.6.?, 
 is simple. Further, since 
, the induction hypothesis implies that there exists a composition series of 
, which we shall denote by 
, where

. But then we have

, and further for each 
:
 is simple.
Thus, 
 is a composition sequence of 
.
Our next goal is to prove that given two normal sequences of a group, we can find two 'refinements' of these normal sequences which are equivalent. Let us first define what we mean by a refinement of a normal sequence.
Definition 2.7.3:
Let 
 be a group and let 
 be a normal sequence of 
. A refinement of 
 is a normal sequence 
 such that

 
Theorem 2.7.4 (Schreier):
Let 
 be a group and let 
, 
 be two normal series of 
. Then there exist refinements 
 of 
 and 
 of 
 such that 
 and 
 are equivalent.
 
Proof:
Theorem 2.7.5 (Jordan-Hölder):
Let 
 be a group and let 
 and 
 be two composition series of 
. Then 
 and 
 are equivalent.
 
Proof:
Due to theorem 2.6.?, all the elements of 
 must be pairwise different, and the same holds for the elements of 
.
Due to theorem 2.7.4, there exist refinements 
 of 
 and 
 of 
 such that 
 and 
 are equivalent.
But these refinements satisfy

and

, since if this were not the case, we would obtain a contradiction to theorem 2.6.?.
We now choose a bijection 
 such that for all 
:
