How Can Finite Group Theory Problems Be Solved?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around problems in finite group theory, specifically focusing on proving properties related to finite groups and binary operations that satisfy certain conditions. The original poster seeks guidance on two specific proofs involving elements of finite groups and the characteristics of binary operations.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of having an even number of elements in a finite group and question how to demonstrate the existence of an element whose square equals the identity. They also discuss the conditions required for a set with a binary operation to qualify as a group, particularly focusing on the necessity of inverses.

Discussion Status

Some participants provide insights into the relationships between elements in a finite group and the implications of the cancellation law in the context of proving group properties. There is an exploration of distinct pairs of elements and their implications for the structure of the group.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the properties of groups and the definitions of identity and inverses, as well as the constraints imposed by the nature of finite sets and operations.

hgj
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Group Theory, please help!

Okay, so I'm stuck on a couple questions from my homework, and any guidance would be much appreciated.

1. Prove that if G is a finite group with an even number of elements,
then there is an element x in G such that x is not the identity and
x^2 = e.

I know there exists some element x in G because G is not empty. And because e (the identity element in G) is unique, x is not equal to e, so x is not the identity. But I can't see how to go from x doesn't equal e to x^2 = e.

2. Prove that if (S,*) is a finite set with a binary operation that is
associative, has an identity, and satisfies the cancellation laws,
then (S,*) is a group.

I know that for (S, *) to be a group, it must be associative, there must exist an identity element e in S wrt *, and every element in S must be invertible. The first two properties follow easily from the way (S,*) is defined, but I don't know how to show the last property holds. It makes sense to me that it's true when I look at the cancellation law (if a,b,c are in S and ab = ac, the b = c), and I've tried working backwards, but then I find myself wanting to create an inverse in S, and that seems wrong.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
When x² = e, then x = x-1. However, if x² is not equal to e, then x and x-1 are distinct. If the order of G is even, then think about what happens if x and x-1 form distinct pairs for each non-identity x.
 
2. Prove that if (S,*) is a finite set with a binary operation that is
associative, has an identity, and satisfies the cancellation laws,
then (S,*) is a group.

Suppose the elements of S are [tex]x_1, \ldots, x_n[/tex]. Let [tex]x_k[/tex] be some arbitrary element. What happens when you consider the elements

[tex]x_1 x_k, x_2 x_k, \cdots, x_n x_k[/tex]?

Can two of them be equal to each other, for example?
 
Muzza said:
Suppose the elements of S are [tex]x_1, \ldots, x_n[/tex]. Let [tex]x_k[/tex] be some arbitrary element. What happens when you consider the elements

[tex]x_1 x_k, x_2 x_k, \cdots, x_n x_k[/tex]?

Can two of them be equal to each other, for example?

I see if i let [tex]x_1x_k = x_2x_k = \cdots = x_nx_k[/tex] then, through the cancellation law, I get [tex]x_1 = x_2 = \cdots = x_n[/tex]. Then, because it is given that S has an identity element, if these are all the elements of S and they are all equal, then they must all equal that identity element. So, each element in S has an inverse. But how can I claim [tex]x_1x_k = x_2x_k = \cdots = x_nx_k[/tex] ?
 
You don't need all of them to be equal. But can any pair be equal? If any pair at all is equal, then there is an i and a j distinct from each other such that [itex]x_ix_k = x_jx_k[/itex] and by the right cancellation law, [itex]x_i = x_j[/itex]. But this contradicts the stipulation that [itex]x_i[/itex] and [itex]x_j[/itex] are distinct if i and j are distinct. So it cannot the the case that [itex]x_ix_k = x_jx_k[/itex] for any i and j. If S has n distinct elements, and [itex]x_1 x_k, x_2 x_k, \cdots, x_n x_k[/itex] are n distinct elements of S, then clearly [itex]S = \{x_1 x_k, x_2 x_k, \cdots, x_n x_k\}[/itex]. Since identity is an element of S, there is some, let's call it m, such that [itex]x_mx_k = e[/itex]. This should be more than enough, you can tie up the loose ends to complete the proof.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
46
Views
8K