Show that every group of prime order is cyclic
up vote
21
down vote
favorite
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
add a comment |
up vote
21
down vote
favorite
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
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
add a comment |
up vote
21
down vote
favorite
up vote
21
down vote
favorite
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
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
abstract-algebra group-theory
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
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
|
show 2 more comments
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.
add a comment |
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.
correction : ...isomorphic to $mathbb{Z_n}$ under modular addition.
– Powstini
Nov 22 '16 at 2:56
add a comment |
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.
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
|
show 2 more comments
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.
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
|
show 2 more comments
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.
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.
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
|
show 2 more comments
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
|
show 2 more comments
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
edited Oct 17 '15 at 19:48
Henning Makholm
236k16300534
236k16300534
answered Jul 18 '14 at 17:54
Jorge Fernández
75k1089190
75k1089190
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
correction : ...isomorphic to $mathbb{Z_n}$ under modular addition.
– Powstini
Nov 22 '16 at 2:56
add a comment |
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.
correction : ...isomorphic to $mathbb{Z_n}$ under modular addition.
– Powstini
Nov 22 '16 at 2:56
add a comment |
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.
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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