permutation question

[TTob]

1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
prove that there are not permutations of order 18 in S_9.


2. Relevant equations



3. The attempt at a solution
let t=c_1,...,c_k is cycle decomposition of such permutation. let r_1,...,r_k the orders of c_1,...,c_k.

then lcm(r_1,...,r_k) = 18 and r_1+...+r_k = 9.

What To Do Next ?

[morphism]

Why is r_1+...+r_k=9? There is definitely something to be said about the r_i's, but this is not it!

[TTob]

Why is r_1+...+r_k=9? There is definitely something to be said about the r_i's, but this is not it!
because this is cycle decomposition and hence c_1 is r_1-cycle,..., c_k is r_k cycle.

[sutupidmath]

well, here are my thoughts, but wait for morphism to confirm it.

Like you said, let

\alpha=\beta_1\beta_2.....\beta_k-----(@) be such a permutation written as a product of k disjoint cycles. Let o(\beta_i)=r_i,i\in\{1,2,....,k\} be the orders of those cycles respectively.

Then we know that the order of that permutation is the least common multiple of the lengths(orders) of the cycles, that is

lcm[r_1,r_2,....,r_k]=18 (in here we are using proof by contradiction, that is we are assuming that indeed there is such a permutation in S_9 whose order is 18)

But this is not possible, why?

In order for lcm[r_1,r_2,....,r_k]=18 to be true there must be cycles in (@) with orders 9 and 6. But, such a thing is not possible, because say:

\beta_1=(a_1a_2a_3a_4a_5a_6), and \beta_2=(b_1b_2.....b_9) if

\beta=\beta_1\beta_2 there must be some a_i=b_j for i=1,2...6 and j=1,2,...,9.

So, the contradiction derived, tells us that the assumption that lcm[r_1,r_2,....,r_k]=18 is not true.