Show that every group of prime order is cyclic











up vote
21
down vote

favorite
8













Show that every group of prime order is cyclic.




I was given this problem for homework and I am not sure where to start. I know a solution using Lagrange's theorem, but we have not proven Lagrange's theorem yet, actually our teacher hasn't even mentioned it, so I am guessing there must be another solution. The only thing I could think of was showing that a group of prime order $p$ is isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z}$. Would this work?



Any guidance would be appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 4




    Sure. You end up basically re-proving Lagrange's theorem for groups of prime order, but this is certainly easier than proving Lagrange's in full generality first.
    – Cam McLeman
    Feb 6 '12 at 0:18










  • A related question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/28332/…
    – Jonas Meyer
    Feb 6 '12 at 4:57















up vote
21
down vote

favorite
8













Show that every group of prime order is cyclic.




I was given this problem for homework and I am not sure where to start. I know a solution using Lagrange's theorem, but we have not proven Lagrange's theorem yet, actually our teacher hasn't even mentioned it, so I am guessing there must be another solution. The only thing I could think of was showing that a group of prime order $p$ is isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z}$. Would this work?



Any guidance would be appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 4




    Sure. You end up basically re-proving Lagrange's theorem for groups of prime order, but this is certainly easier than proving Lagrange's in full generality first.
    – Cam McLeman
    Feb 6 '12 at 0:18










  • A related question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/28332/…
    – Jonas Meyer
    Feb 6 '12 at 4:57













up vote
21
down vote

favorite
8









up vote
21
down vote

favorite
8






8






Show that every group of prime order is cyclic.




I was given this problem for homework and I am not sure where to start. I know a solution using Lagrange's theorem, but we have not proven Lagrange's theorem yet, actually our teacher hasn't even mentioned it, so I am guessing there must be another solution. The only thing I could think of was showing that a group of prime order $p$ is isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z}$. Would this work?



Any guidance would be appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question
















Show that every group of prime order is cyclic.




I was given this problem for homework and I am not sure where to start. I know a solution using Lagrange's theorem, but we have not proven Lagrange's theorem yet, actually our teacher hasn't even mentioned it, so I am guessing there must be another solution. The only thing I could think of was showing that a group of prime order $p$ is isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}/pmathbb{Z}$. Would this work?



Any guidance would be appreciated.







abstract-algebra group-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Feb 6 '12 at 4:31









Pete L. Clark

79.8k9161311




79.8k9161311










asked Feb 6 '12 at 0:13







user2467















  • 4




    Sure. You end up basically re-proving Lagrange's theorem for groups of prime order, but this is certainly easier than proving Lagrange's in full generality first.
    – Cam McLeman
    Feb 6 '12 at 0:18










  • A related question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/28332/…
    – Jonas Meyer
    Feb 6 '12 at 4:57














  • 4




    Sure. You end up basically re-proving Lagrange's theorem for groups of prime order, but this is certainly easier than proving Lagrange's in full generality first.
    – Cam McLeman
    Feb 6 '12 at 0:18










  • A related question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/28332/…
    – Jonas Meyer
    Feb 6 '12 at 4:57








4




4




Sure. You end up basically re-proving Lagrange's theorem for groups of prime order, but this is certainly easier than proving Lagrange's in full generality first.
– Cam McLeman
Feb 6 '12 at 0:18




Sure. You end up basically re-proving Lagrange's theorem for groups of prime order, but this is certainly easier than proving Lagrange's in full generality first.
– Cam McLeman
Feb 6 '12 at 0:18












A related question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/28332/…
– Jonas Meyer
Feb 6 '12 at 4:57




A related question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/28332/…
– Jonas Meyer
Feb 6 '12 at 4:57










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
7
down vote



accepted










As Cam McLeman comments, Lagranges theorem is considerably simpler for groups of prime order than for general groups: it states that the group (of prime order) has no non-trivial proper subgroups.



I'll use the following




Lemma



Let $G$ be a group, $xin G$, $a,bin mathbb Z$ and $aperp b$. If $x^a = x^b$, then $x=1$.



Proof: by Bezout's lemma, some $k,ellinmathbb Z$ exist, such that $ak+bell=1$. Then
$$ x = x^{ak+bell} = (x^a)^k cdot (x^b)^ell = 1^k cdot 1^ell = 1 $$



(If you know a little ring theory, you might prefer to notice that the set ${i | x^i=1}subseteq mathbb Z$ forms an ideal which must contain $(a,b)=1$ if it contains $a$ and $b$.)




The question



Now let $P$ be an arbitrary group of prime order $p$. Consider any $xin P$ such that $xneq 1$ and consider the set
$$ S = { 1, x, x^2 , dots , x^{p-1} }subseteq P.$$
First assume two of these elements are equal, say $x^u=x^v$ and $u<v$ without loss of generality. Then $x^{v-u}=1$ and $1leq v-u leq p-1$. But then surely $v-u perp p$. By the lemma, $x^{v-u} = x^p = 1$ now implies that $x=1$, a contradiction so every two members of $S$ must be different.



But then $|S|=p$. This implies $S=P$ and $P=langle xrangle$ is cyclic.






share|cite|improve this answer



















  • 1




    I think this was a comment of Prof McLeman's. This is neat, by the way!
    – Dylan Moreland
    Feb 6 '12 at 12:48












  • @DylanMoreland: Oops, I confused the two comments!
    – Myself
    Feb 6 '12 at 13:11








  • 1




    I just noticed I assumed that $x^p=1$, which is still unproven at that point. Perhaps this can be fixed, but I don't have time to figure out how right now.
    – Myself
    Feb 6 '12 at 13:22










  • Well, it's such a natural theorem that I think one barely notices that you're using anything! I'll try to think about it as well.
    – Dylan Moreland
    Feb 6 '12 at 13:42










  • The problem is that the assumption that $x^p=1$ is basically equivalent to Lagranges theorem (for groups of order $p$). In other words, my reasoning shows that any of the question at hand can easily be transformed into a proof of Lagranges theorem and vice versa, in other words: it shows that they are of the same difficulty. (Still it's not really the perfect answer to the OP's question, I'll think about improving it if I find the time, if no-one else has posted something better.)
    – Myself
    Feb 6 '12 at 15:26


















up vote
3
down vote













This is a proof of Cauchy's theorem that does not use Lagrange, it is due to James McKay. It has an uncanny similarity to the proof of Fermat's Little theorem using necklaces.



Let $G$ be a group of order $np$. Then there are $(np)^{p-1}$ solutions to $g_1g_2dots g_p=1$ since for any values of $g_1,g_2,dots ,g_{p-1}$ there is a unique inverse for $g_1g_2dots g_{p-1}$. We call $S$ the set of solutions, we have asserted $|S|$ is a multiple of $p$.



Notice if $g_1,g_2dots g_p=1$ then $g_ig_{i+1}dots g_pg_1dots g_{i-1}=1$ also.



Divide $S$ in rotation classes. Where $s$ is in the same class as $s'$ only if they are rotations of each other. Notice all classes have size $1$ or $p$ (this uses $p$ is prime).Therefore the number of classes of size $1$ is multiple of $p$. Since $underbrace{1,1dots ,1}_text{p times}$ makes up a class of size $1$ there must be another, this provides the desired element of order $p$.



We may now use Cauchy Theorem to determine a group $G$ of order $p$ has an element $g$ of order $p$, this element generates a cyclic subgroup of order $p$. This subgroup must be $G$ so $G$ is cyclic.






share|cite|improve this answer






























    up vote
    3
    down vote













    The answer is fairly simple once Lagrange's Theorem is quoted. We have no proper subgroups of smaller order. We only need to prove the uniqueness of the group of that size. For this note that given any element of such a group, continue to take powers of it ... This series $x^r$ has to terminate because of closure. The series also has to exhaust all the elements of the group, otherwise we will have subgroups of a smaller order.



    Thus we have proven that every group of prime order is necessarily cyclic. Now every cyclic group of finite order is isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}_n$ under multiplication, equivalently, the group of partitions of unity of order $|G|$. Thus the uniqueness is proved.






    share|cite|improve this answer





















    • correction : ...isomorphic to $mathbb{Z_n}$ under modular addition.
      – Powstini
      Nov 22 '16 at 2:56











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106163%2fshow-that-every-group-of-prime-order-is-cyclic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown
























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    7
    down vote



    accepted










    As Cam McLeman comments, Lagranges theorem is considerably simpler for groups of prime order than for general groups: it states that the group (of prime order) has no non-trivial proper subgroups.



    I'll use the following




    Lemma



    Let $G$ be a group, $xin G$, $a,bin mathbb Z$ and $aperp b$. If $x^a = x^b$, then $x=1$.



    Proof: by Bezout's lemma, some $k,ellinmathbb Z$ exist, such that $ak+bell=1$. Then
    $$ x = x^{ak+bell} = (x^a)^k cdot (x^b)^ell = 1^k cdot 1^ell = 1 $$



    (If you know a little ring theory, you might prefer to notice that the set ${i | x^i=1}subseteq mathbb Z$ forms an ideal which must contain $(a,b)=1$ if it contains $a$ and $b$.)




    The question



    Now let $P$ be an arbitrary group of prime order $p$. Consider any $xin P$ such that $xneq 1$ and consider the set
    $$ S = { 1, x, x^2 , dots , x^{p-1} }subseteq P.$$
    First assume two of these elements are equal, say $x^u=x^v$ and $u<v$ without loss of generality. Then $x^{v-u}=1$ and $1leq v-u leq p-1$. But then surely $v-u perp p$. By the lemma, $x^{v-u} = x^p = 1$ now implies that $x=1$, a contradiction so every two members of $S$ must be different.



    But then $|S|=p$. This implies $S=P$ and $P=langle xrangle$ is cyclic.






    share|cite|improve this answer



















    • 1




      I think this was a comment of Prof McLeman's. This is neat, by the way!
      – Dylan Moreland
      Feb 6 '12 at 12:48












    • @DylanMoreland: Oops, I confused the two comments!
      – Myself
      Feb 6 '12 at 13:11








    • 1




      I just noticed I assumed that $x^p=1$, which is still unproven at that point. Perhaps this can be fixed, but I don't have time to figure out how right now.
      – Myself
      Feb 6 '12 at 13:22










    • Well, it's such a natural theorem that I think one barely notices that you're using anything! I'll try to think about it as well.
      – Dylan Moreland
      Feb 6 '12 at 13:42










    • The problem is that the assumption that $x^p=1$ is basically equivalent to Lagranges theorem (for groups of order $p$). In other words, my reasoning shows that any of the question at hand can easily be transformed into a proof of Lagranges theorem and vice versa, in other words: it shows that they are of the same difficulty. (Still it's not really the perfect answer to the OP's question, I'll think about improving it if I find the time, if no-one else has posted something better.)
      – Myself
      Feb 6 '12 at 15:26















    up vote
    7
    down vote



    accepted










    As Cam McLeman comments, Lagranges theorem is considerably simpler for groups of prime order than for general groups: it states that the group (of prime order) has no non-trivial proper subgroups.



    I'll use the following




    Lemma



    Let $G$ be a group, $xin G$, $a,bin mathbb Z$ and $aperp b$. If $x^a = x^b$, then $x=1$.



    Proof: by Bezout's lemma, some $k,ellinmathbb Z$ exist, such that $ak+bell=1$. Then
    $$ x = x^{ak+bell} = (x^a)^k cdot (x^b)^ell = 1^k cdot 1^ell = 1 $$



    (If you know a little ring theory, you might prefer to notice that the set ${i | x^i=1}subseteq mathbb Z$ forms an ideal which must contain $(a,b)=1$ if it contains $a$ and $b$.)




    The question



    Now let $P$ be an arbitrary group of prime order $p$. Consider any $xin P$ such that $xneq 1$ and consider the set
    $$ S = { 1, x, x^2 , dots , x^{p-1} }subseteq P.$$
    First assume two of these elements are equal, say $x^u=x^v$ and $u<v$ without loss of generality. Then $x^{v-u}=1$ and $1leq v-u leq p-1$. But then surely $v-u perp p$. By the lemma, $x^{v-u} = x^p = 1$ now implies that $x=1$, a contradiction so every two members of $S$ must be different.



    But then $|S|=p$. This implies $S=P$ and $P=langle xrangle$ is cyclic.






    share|cite|improve this answer



















    • 1




      I think this was a comment of Prof McLeman's. This is neat, by the way!
      – Dylan Moreland
      Feb 6 '12 at 12:48












    • @DylanMoreland: Oops, I confused the two comments!
      – Myself
      Feb 6 '12 at 13:11








    • 1




      I just noticed I assumed that $x^p=1$, which is still unproven at that point. Perhaps this can be fixed, but I don't have time to figure out how right now.
      – Myself
      Feb 6 '12 at 13:22










    • Well, it's such a natural theorem that I think one barely notices that you're using anything! I'll try to think about it as well.
      – Dylan Moreland
      Feb 6 '12 at 13:42










    • The problem is that the assumption that $x^p=1$ is basically equivalent to Lagranges theorem (for groups of order $p$). In other words, my reasoning shows that any of the question at hand can easily be transformed into a proof of Lagranges theorem and vice versa, in other words: it shows that they are of the same difficulty. (Still it's not really the perfect answer to the OP's question, I'll think about improving it if I find the time, if no-one else has posted something better.)
      – Myself
      Feb 6 '12 at 15:26













    up vote
    7
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    7
    down vote



    accepted






    As Cam McLeman comments, Lagranges theorem is considerably simpler for groups of prime order than for general groups: it states that the group (of prime order) has no non-trivial proper subgroups.



    I'll use the following




    Lemma



    Let $G$ be a group, $xin G$, $a,bin mathbb Z$ and $aperp b$. If $x^a = x^b$, then $x=1$.



    Proof: by Bezout's lemma, some $k,ellinmathbb Z$ exist, such that $ak+bell=1$. Then
    $$ x = x^{ak+bell} = (x^a)^k cdot (x^b)^ell = 1^k cdot 1^ell = 1 $$



    (If you know a little ring theory, you might prefer to notice that the set ${i | x^i=1}subseteq mathbb Z$ forms an ideal which must contain $(a,b)=1$ if it contains $a$ and $b$.)




    The question



    Now let $P$ be an arbitrary group of prime order $p$. Consider any $xin P$ such that $xneq 1$ and consider the set
    $$ S = { 1, x, x^2 , dots , x^{p-1} }subseteq P.$$
    First assume two of these elements are equal, say $x^u=x^v$ and $u<v$ without loss of generality. Then $x^{v-u}=1$ and $1leq v-u leq p-1$. But then surely $v-u perp p$. By the lemma, $x^{v-u} = x^p = 1$ now implies that $x=1$, a contradiction so every two members of $S$ must be different.



    But then $|S|=p$. This implies $S=P$ and $P=langle xrangle$ is cyclic.






    share|cite|improve this answer














    As Cam McLeman comments, Lagranges theorem is considerably simpler for groups of prime order than for general groups: it states that the group (of prime order) has no non-trivial proper subgroups.



    I'll use the following




    Lemma



    Let $G$ be a group, $xin G$, $a,bin mathbb Z$ and $aperp b$. If $x^a = x^b$, then $x=1$.



    Proof: by Bezout's lemma, some $k,ellinmathbb Z$ exist, such that $ak+bell=1$. Then
    $$ x = x^{ak+bell} = (x^a)^k cdot (x^b)^ell = 1^k cdot 1^ell = 1 $$



    (If you know a little ring theory, you might prefer to notice that the set ${i | x^i=1}subseteq mathbb Z$ forms an ideal which must contain $(a,b)=1$ if it contains $a$ and $b$.)




    The question



    Now let $P$ be an arbitrary group of prime order $p$. Consider any $xin P$ such that $xneq 1$ and consider the set
    $$ S = { 1, x, x^2 , dots , x^{p-1} }subseteq P.$$
    First assume two of these elements are equal, say $x^u=x^v$ and $u<v$ without loss of generality. Then $x^{v-u}=1$ and $1leq v-u leq p-1$. But then surely $v-u perp p$. By the lemma, $x^{v-u} = x^p = 1$ now implies that $x=1$, a contradiction so every two members of $S$ must be different.



    But then $|S|=p$. This implies $S=P$ and $P=langle xrangle$ is cyclic.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Feb 6 '12 at 13:10

























    answered Feb 6 '12 at 12:09









    Myself

    7,2531938




    7,2531938








    • 1




      I think this was a comment of Prof McLeman's. This is neat, by the way!
      – Dylan Moreland
      Feb 6 '12 at 12:48












    • @DylanMoreland: Oops, I confused the two comments!
      – Myself
      Feb 6 '12 at 13:11








    • 1




      I just noticed I assumed that $x^p=1$, which is still unproven at that point. Perhaps this can be fixed, but I don't have time to figure out how right now.
      – Myself
      Feb 6 '12 at 13:22










    • Well, it's such a natural theorem that I think one barely notices that you're using anything! I'll try to think about it as well.
      – Dylan Moreland
      Feb 6 '12 at 13:42










    • The problem is that the assumption that $x^p=1$ is basically equivalent to Lagranges theorem (for groups of order $p$). In other words, my reasoning shows that any of the question at hand can easily be transformed into a proof of Lagranges theorem and vice versa, in other words: it shows that they are of the same difficulty. (Still it's not really the perfect answer to the OP's question, I'll think about improving it if I find the time, if no-one else has posted something better.)
      – Myself
      Feb 6 '12 at 15:26














    • 1




      I think this was a comment of Prof McLeman's. This is neat, by the way!
      – Dylan Moreland
      Feb 6 '12 at 12:48












    • @DylanMoreland: Oops, I confused the two comments!
      – Myself
      Feb 6 '12 at 13:11








    • 1




      I just noticed I assumed that $x^p=1$, which is still unproven at that point. Perhaps this can be fixed, but I don't have time to figure out how right now.
      – Myself
      Feb 6 '12 at 13:22










    • Well, it's such a natural theorem that I think one barely notices that you're using anything! I'll try to think about it as well.
      – Dylan Moreland
      Feb 6 '12 at 13:42










    • The problem is that the assumption that $x^p=1$ is basically equivalent to Lagranges theorem (for groups of order $p$). In other words, my reasoning shows that any of the question at hand can easily be transformed into a proof of Lagranges theorem and vice versa, in other words: it shows that they are of the same difficulty. (Still it's not really the perfect answer to the OP's question, I'll think about improving it if I find the time, if no-one else has posted something better.)
      – Myself
      Feb 6 '12 at 15:26








    1




    1




    I think this was a comment of Prof McLeman's. This is neat, by the way!
    – Dylan Moreland
    Feb 6 '12 at 12:48






    I think this was a comment of Prof McLeman's. This is neat, by the way!
    – Dylan Moreland
    Feb 6 '12 at 12:48














    @DylanMoreland: Oops, I confused the two comments!
    – Myself
    Feb 6 '12 at 13:11






    @DylanMoreland: Oops, I confused the two comments!
    – Myself
    Feb 6 '12 at 13:11






    1




    1




    I just noticed I assumed that $x^p=1$, which is still unproven at that point. Perhaps this can be fixed, but I don't have time to figure out how right now.
    – Myself
    Feb 6 '12 at 13:22




    I just noticed I assumed that $x^p=1$, which is still unproven at that point. Perhaps this can be fixed, but I don't have time to figure out how right now.
    – Myself
    Feb 6 '12 at 13:22












    Well, it's such a natural theorem that I think one barely notices that you're using anything! I'll try to think about it as well.
    – Dylan Moreland
    Feb 6 '12 at 13:42




    Well, it's such a natural theorem that I think one barely notices that you're using anything! I'll try to think about it as well.
    – Dylan Moreland
    Feb 6 '12 at 13:42












    The problem is that the assumption that $x^p=1$ is basically equivalent to Lagranges theorem (for groups of order $p$). In other words, my reasoning shows that any of the question at hand can easily be transformed into a proof of Lagranges theorem and vice versa, in other words: it shows that they are of the same difficulty. (Still it's not really the perfect answer to the OP's question, I'll think about improving it if I find the time, if no-one else has posted something better.)
    – Myself
    Feb 6 '12 at 15:26




    The problem is that the assumption that $x^p=1$ is basically equivalent to Lagranges theorem (for groups of order $p$). In other words, my reasoning shows that any of the question at hand can easily be transformed into a proof of Lagranges theorem and vice versa, in other words: it shows that they are of the same difficulty. (Still it's not really the perfect answer to the OP's question, I'll think about improving it if I find the time, if no-one else has posted something better.)
    – Myself
    Feb 6 '12 at 15:26










    up vote
    3
    down vote













    This is a proof of Cauchy's theorem that does not use Lagrange, it is due to James McKay. It has an uncanny similarity to the proof of Fermat's Little theorem using necklaces.



    Let $G$ be a group of order $np$. Then there are $(np)^{p-1}$ solutions to $g_1g_2dots g_p=1$ since for any values of $g_1,g_2,dots ,g_{p-1}$ there is a unique inverse for $g_1g_2dots g_{p-1}$. We call $S$ the set of solutions, we have asserted $|S|$ is a multiple of $p$.



    Notice if $g_1,g_2dots g_p=1$ then $g_ig_{i+1}dots g_pg_1dots g_{i-1}=1$ also.



    Divide $S$ in rotation classes. Where $s$ is in the same class as $s'$ only if they are rotations of each other. Notice all classes have size $1$ or $p$ (this uses $p$ is prime).Therefore the number of classes of size $1$ is multiple of $p$. Since $underbrace{1,1dots ,1}_text{p times}$ makes up a class of size $1$ there must be another, this provides the desired element of order $p$.



    We may now use Cauchy Theorem to determine a group $G$ of order $p$ has an element $g$ of order $p$, this element generates a cyclic subgroup of order $p$. This subgroup must be $G$ so $G$ is cyclic.






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      3
      down vote













      This is a proof of Cauchy's theorem that does not use Lagrange, it is due to James McKay. It has an uncanny similarity to the proof of Fermat's Little theorem using necklaces.



      Let $G$ be a group of order $np$. Then there are $(np)^{p-1}$ solutions to $g_1g_2dots g_p=1$ since for any values of $g_1,g_2,dots ,g_{p-1}$ there is a unique inverse for $g_1g_2dots g_{p-1}$. We call $S$ the set of solutions, we have asserted $|S|$ is a multiple of $p$.



      Notice if $g_1,g_2dots g_p=1$ then $g_ig_{i+1}dots g_pg_1dots g_{i-1}=1$ also.



      Divide $S$ in rotation classes. Where $s$ is in the same class as $s'$ only if they are rotations of each other. Notice all classes have size $1$ or $p$ (this uses $p$ is prime).Therefore the number of classes of size $1$ is multiple of $p$. Since $underbrace{1,1dots ,1}_text{p times}$ makes up a class of size $1$ there must be another, this provides the desired element of order $p$.



      We may now use Cauchy Theorem to determine a group $G$ of order $p$ has an element $g$ of order $p$, this element generates a cyclic subgroup of order $p$. This subgroup must be $G$ so $G$ is cyclic.






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        3
        down vote










        up vote
        3
        down vote









        This is a proof of Cauchy's theorem that does not use Lagrange, it is due to James McKay. It has an uncanny similarity to the proof of Fermat's Little theorem using necklaces.



        Let $G$ be a group of order $np$. Then there are $(np)^{p-1}$ solutions to $g_1g_2dots g_p=1$ since for any values of $g_1,g_2,dots ,g_{p-1}$ there is a unique inverse for $g_1g_2dots g_{p-1}$. We call $S$ the set of solutions, we have asserted $|S|$ is a multiple of $p$.



        Notice if $g_1,g_2dots g_p=1$ then $g_ig_{i+1}dots g_pg_1dots g_{i-1}=1$ also.



        Divide $S$ in rotation classes. Where $s$ is in the same class as $s'$ only if they are rotations of each other. Notice all classes have size $1$ or $p$ (this uses $p$ is prime).Therefore the number of classes of size $1$ is multiple of $p$. Since $underbrace{1,1dots ,1}_text{p times}$ makes up a class of size $1$ there must be another, this provides the desired element of order $p$.



        We may now use Cauchy Theorem to determine a group $G$ of order $p$ has an element $g$ of order $p$, this element generates a cyclic subgroup of order $p$. This subgroup must be $G$ so $G$ is cyclic.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        This is a proof of Cauchy's theorem that does not use Lagrange, it is due to James McKay. It has an uncanny similarity to the proof of Fermat's Little theorem using necklaces.



        Let $G$ be a group of order $np$. Then there are $(np)^{p-1}$ solutions to $g_1g_2dots g_p=1$ since for any values of $g_1,g_2,dots ,g_{p-1}$ there is a unique inverse for $g_1g_2dots g_{p-1}$. We call $S$ the set of solutions, we have asserted $|S|$ is a multiple of $p$.



        Notice if $g_1,g_2dots g_p=1$ then $g_ig_{i+1}dots g_pg_1dots g_{i-1}=1$ also.



        Divide $S$ in rotation classes. Where $s$ is in the same class as $s'$ only if they are rotations of each other. Notice all classes have size $1$ or $p$ (this uses $p$ is prime).Therefore the number of classes of size $1$ is multiple of $p$. Since $underbrace{1,1dots ,1}_text{p times}$ makes up a class of size $1$ there must be another, this provides the desired element of order $p$.



        We may now use Cauchy Theorem to determine a group $G$ of order $p$ has an element $g$ of order $p$, this element generates a cyclic subgroup of order $p$. This subgroup must be $G$ so $G$ is cyclic.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Oct 17 '15 at 19:48









        Henning Makholm

        236k16300534




        236k16300534










        answered Jul 18 '14 at 17:54









        Jorge Fernández

        75k1089190




        75k1089190






















            up vote
            3
            down vote













            The answer is fairly simple once Lagrange's Theorem is quoted. We have no proper subgroups of smaller order. We only need to prove the uniqueness of the group of that size. For this note that given any element of such a group, continue to take powers of it ... This series $x^r$ has to terminate because of closure. The series also has to exhaust all the elements of the group, otherwise we will have subgroups of a smaller order.



            Thus we have proven that every group of prime order is necessarily cyclic. Now every cyclic group of finite order is isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}_n$ under multiplication, equivalently, the group of partitions of unity of order $|G|$. Thus the uniqueness is proved.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • correction : ...isomorphic to $mathbb{Z_n}$ under modular addition.
              – Powstini
              Nov 22 '16 at 2:56















            up vote
            3
            down vote













            The answer is fairly simple once Lagrange's Theorem is quoted. We have no proper subgroups of smaller order. We only need to prove the uniqueness of the group of that size. For this note that given any element of such a group, continue to take powers of it ... This series $x^r$ has to terminate because of closure. The series also has to exhaust all the elements of the group, otherwise we will have subgroups of a smaller order.



            Thus we have proven that every group of prime order is necessarily cyclic. Now every cyclic group of finite order is isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}_n$ under multiplication, equivalently, the group of partitions of unity of order $|G|$. Thus the uniqueness is proved.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • correction : ...isomorphic to $mathbb{Z_n}$ under modular addition.
              – Powstini
              Nov 22 '16 at 2:56













            up vote
            3
            down vote










            up vote
            3
            down vote









            The answer is fairly simple once Lagrange's Theorem is quoted. We have no proper subgroups of smaller order. We only need to prove the uniqueness of the group of that size. For this note that given any element of such a group, continue to take powers of it ... This series $x^r$ has to terminate because of closure. The series also has to exhaust all the elements of the group, otherwise we will have subgroups of a smaller order.



            Thus we have proven that every group of prime order is necessarily cyclic. Now every cyclic group of finite order is isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}_n$ under multiplication, equivalently, the group of partitions of unity of order $|G|$. Thus the uniqueness is proved.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            The answer is fairly simple once Lagrange's Theorem is quoted. We have no proper subgroups of smaller order. We only need to prove the uniqueness of the group of that size. For this note that given any element of such a group, continue to take powers of it ... This series $x^r$ has to terminate because of closure. The series also has to exhaust all the elements of the group, otherwise we will have subgroups of a smaller order.



            Thus we have proven that every group of prime order is necessarily cyclic. Now every cyclic group of finite order is isomorphic to $mathbb{Z}_n$ under multiplication, equivalently, the group of partitions of unity of order $|G|$. Thus the uniqueness is proved.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Nov 21 '16 at 9:20









            Powstini

            512




            512












            • correction : ...isomorphic to $mathbb{Z_n}$ under modular addition.
              – Powstini
              Nov 22 '16 at 2:56


















            • correction : ...isomorphic to $mathbb{Z_n}$ under modular addition.
              – Powstini
              Nov 22 '16 at 2:56
















            correction : ...isomorphic to $mathbb{Z_n}$ under modular addition.
            – Powstini
            Nov 22 '16 at 2:56




            correction : ...isomorphic to $mathbb{Z_n}$ under modular addition.
            – Powstini
            Nov 22 '16 at 2:56


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106163%2fshow-that-every-group-of-prime-order-is-cyclic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Index of /

            Tribalistas

            Listed building