Counting Non-Isomorphic Binary Operations on G with p Elements

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Zaare
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the problem of counting non-isomorphic binary operations on a set G with p elements, where p is a prime number. The focus is on operations that are associative and have a specific identity element, while also not forming a group. Participants explore various configurations and properties of such operations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant poses the initial question about the number of non-isomorphic binary operations on G that are not groups, suggesting that there may be one such operation.
  • Another participant proposes a method to analyze the structure of G, indicating that elements of the form g+e could form a group, leading to the exploration of possible configurations for a three-element set.
  • There is a challenge regarding the claim that the set of elements g+e forms a group, with participants discussing the necessary conditions for group formation, including identity and inverses.
  • A participant presents an example using real numbers to argue that a specific operation does not form a group, highlighting the existence of a left identity that is not a right identity.
  • Another participant clarifies that their earlier statement referred to a subset of elements forming a group, not G itself, and discusses the implications of this distinction in the context of the example provided.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the operations and whether certain sets form groups. There is no consensus on the existence or number of non-isomorphic operations, and the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not fully established the assumptions required for their claims, and there are unresolved mathematical steps regarding the properties of the operations and the structure of G.

Zaare
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
"How many?"-question

The problem:
Let [tex]G[/tex] be a set with an associative binary operation and [tex]e \in G[/tex] an element satisfying the following conditions:

1) [tex]eg=g[/tex] for any [tex]g \in G[/tex].
2) For any [tex]g[/tex] there is [tex]h[/tex] such that [tex]gh=e[/tex].

Assume that [tex]p[/tex] is a prime number and [tex]G[/tex] has [tex]p[/tex]-elements. How many non isomorphic such binary operations are on [tex]G[/tex] which are not groups?

I know that there are 2 such operations if [tex]\mid G \mid =p^2[/tex], and 3 such operations if [tex]\mid G \mid =p*q[/tex], if [tex]p[/tex] and [tex]q[/tex] are not equal.
So I'm guessing there answer to the problem is 1. What I've been trying to do for the past week has been to show that 1 such operations exists and to find a contradiction by assuming that a second operation also exists.
But I haven't even been able to prove the existence.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'll use + for the operation, but still use e for the left identity

A little work shows you that the set of elements of G of the form g+e form a group. So G consists of this group of elements with extra elements g for which g+e is in the group.

Suppose G has three elements, e,a and x. e and a are a two element group, and x is an 'extra' element. So we first have to decide what x+e is.

Try x+e=e. Then x+g=x+e+g=e+g=g for each g in G, and we know e+x=x, so this just leaves a+x, which it seems can be either a or x.

If we try x+e=a then if y=(a+x) then y+e=e, so y is not a or x. Hence a+x=e.
However, I think we are still free to choose either x+x=a or x+x=x.

That gives 4 possibilities, which I think are non-isomorphic.
 
I don't quite understand what you mean by "the set of elements of G of the form g+e form a group". For the elements g+e to form a group doesn't g+e have to be g+e=e?
 
Zaare said:
I don't quite understand what you mean by "the set of elements of G of the form g+e form a group". For the elements g+e to form a group doesn't g+e have to be g+e=e?
Suppose n=f+e and m=g+e are elements of this set. Then n+m=f+e+g+e=f+g+e is also an element. Also n+e=f+e+e=f+e=n. So e is a right identity for this set. As for inverses, n+(-f)+e=f+e+(-f)+e=f+(-f)+e=e+e=e, so (-f)+e is a right inverse for n and is in the set. Hence this set of elements has a right inverse and right identity and so it can be shown that it forms a group.
 
Hmm... In the first part of the problem (which I didn't write here) it was asked if G with this operation was a group. I thought I had found an example which showed that it was not a group.
I took the set of all real numbers except 0, and defined the operation + as: a+b=|a|b. In this example the operation is associative and right inverse exists.
I took -1 as identity:
(-1)+g=|-1|g=1g=g, so a left identity exists, but
g+(-1)=|g|(-1)=-g, the left identity is not a right identity.
I thought this showed that the operation with the set was not a group. Where am I thinking wrong?
 
Last edited:
You're not thinking wrong. I didn't say that G was a group. I said that the subset of elements of the form g+e formed a group.

Since your example is multiplicative, I'll use . as the operator, so a.b=|a|b
Now g.e=-|g|, so the subset I mentioned is made up of all negative real numbers. Note that for x<0, x.(-1)=|x|(-1)=x, so -1 is a right identity for this subset.

Note that 1 is also an identity for your example, and in this case the group obtained is just the positive reals with the normal multiplication, while the negative reals are the 'extra' elements.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
Replies
48
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K