Proving converse of fundamental theorem of cyclic groups

In summary, the conversation discusses the proof that a finite abelian group with exactly one subgroup of each order is cyclic. The example of C_2 x C_2 is brought up, but it is pointed out that it has several subgroups of order 2, while the proof requires only one subgroup of each order. The conversation ends with a clarification that the word "exactly" is important in the statement of the problem.
  • #1
curiousmuch
8
0

Homework Statement


If G is a finite abelian group that has one subgroup of order d for every divisor d of the order of G. Prove that G is cyclic.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Post what you've done on this problem please.
 
  • #3
Can you check the question. C_2 x C_2 has subgroups of orders 1,2 and 4, but is not cyclic.
 
  • #4
matt grime said:
Can you check the question. C_2 x C_2 has subgroups of orders 1,2 and 4, but is not cyclic.

I think the point is that it is supposed to have ONE subgroup of each order. Your example has several subgroups of order 2.
 
  • #5
And that's why we have the word 'exactly'.
 

What is the converse of the fundamental theorem of cyclic groups?

The converse of the fundamental theorem of cyclic groups states that if a group G is cyclic, then G is isomorphic to Z/nZ, where n is the order of the group.

Why is proving the converse of the fundamental theorem of cyclic groups important?

Proving the converse allows us to show that every cyclic group has the same structure, which in turn helps us understand and classify all cyclic groups.

What is the process for proving the converse of the fundamental theorem of cyclic groups?

The proof involves showing that any cyclic group G can be generated by a single element, and that this element has a specific order. Then, using this element, we can construct an isomorphism between G and Z/nZ.

What are some applications of the converse of the fundamental theorem of cyclic groups?

The converse can be used to show that certain groups are cyclic, and also to prove properties of cyclic groups, such as the existence of unique subgroups of a given order. It also has applications in number theory and cryptography.

Are there any limitations to the converse of the fundamental theorem of cyclic groups?

The converse only applies to finite cyclic groups, and not to all finite groups. It also does not hold for infinite cyclic groups. Additionally, the converse does not provide a complete characterization of all cyclic groups, as there are some non-cyclic groups that can also satisfy its conditions.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
962
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top