Proving Even Order Group G Has Element a=/e Satisfying a^2=e

  • Thread starter fk378
  • Start date
  • Tags
    even
In summary, if G is a group of even order, it must have an element a=/ e satisfying a^2=e. This is because if G is of even order, we can pair each element with its inverse, and the only element that can be its own inverse is e. Therefore, the number of elements in G must be 1 plus an even number, which is an odd number. This contradicts the assumption that G is of even order. Therefore, a=/ e must exist in G.
  • #1
fk378
367
0

Homework Statement


If G is a group of even order, prove it has an element a=/ e satisfying a^2=e.

The Attempt at a Solution


I showed that a=a^-1, ie a is its own inverse.
So, can't every element in G be its own inverse? Why does G have to be even ordered?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The problem says "IF G is group of even order", that's why G has even order. The question of whether there is a nontrivial group of odd order such that a^2=e for all a is a completely different question. Do you want to try and solve it? You don't have to since you already solved the original question. Didn't you? Though you didn't really say how.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
If you want to know, then if a^2=e for a not equal to e, the G has a subgroup of order 2. Doesn't it? What does that mean?
 
  • #4
Subgroup of order 2, then the subgroup has 2 elements. a and a-inverse. But can't there exist a b with a b-inverse in the subgroup as well? Why are there only 2 elements?
 
  • #5
{a,a^(-1)} isn't a subgroup. And it doesn't even have two elements. It's certainly not what I was considering. I don't think you are really thinking about this.
 
  • #6
I'm sorry, I'm new to proofs. Can you explain your last post? Why are there not 2 elements in {a, a^-1} and why is this not a subgroup?
 
  • #7
I got some hints from the TA:

Make 2 equivalence relations, one where a~a and another a~a-inverse
Show that every class size is 2 or 1
Show that the sum of the sizes of the equivalence classes=the size of the group

If what the question is asking is false, prove it is equivalent to "for all a =/ 0, the size of a equals 2." This gives a contradiction to the size of G being even.
 
  • #8
fk378 said:
I'm sorry, I'm new to proofs. Can you explain your last post? Why are there not 2 elements in {a, a^-1} and why is this not a subgroup?

You assumed a^2=e for any a in G. That means a=a^(-1). That means {a,a^(-a)} has only one element. It's not a subgroup since if a!=e, e isn't in it. The subgroup is was referring to is {e,a}.
 
  • #9
fk378 said:
I got some hints from the TA:

Make 2 equivalence relations, one where a~a and another a~a-inverse
Show that every class size is 2 or 1
Show that the sum of the sizes of the equivalence classes=the size of the group

If what the question is asking is false, prove it is equivalent to "for all a =/ 0, the size of a equals 2." This gives a contradiction to the size of G being even.

I've begun to realize I'm confusing the original question with one you subsequently posed. Did you get the original question? Yes, pair a with a^(-1) for all elements in the group. e pairs with itself. If no other element pairs with itself then the order of the group must be odd. Right?
 
  • #10
Not quite following...in fact I don't even know how to use the hints the TA gave me.
 
  • #11
Ok, let's go back to the original question. I thought you said you had it and you don't. Forget all of the stuff in between, please? Think of all of the sets {a,a^(-1)} for a in G. Every element is in ONE of those sets, yes? And G is the union of all of those sets, also ok? If you don't agree, say so now.
 
  • #12
I agree.
 
  • #13
I hope so. Now if a=a^(-1), then the set {a,a^(-1)} has one element, otherwise it has two. Still with me?
 
  • #14
Yes, still following.
 
  • #15
Great! So G is the union of a bunch of sets. Some have two elements, some have one. Now {e} is one of those sets, since e=e^(-1). And {e} only has one element. Suppose n1 is the number of sets that have one element and n2 is the number that have two elements. Then the number of elements in G is n1*1+n2*2. Given that the number of elements in G is even, is it possible n1=1?
 
  • #16
Oh, I'm lost here. I thought G was made up of sets of 2 elements, not two and one. I understand that e is one of the sets of one element, though, you implied that there are more.

Where did you get n2*2 from? How do you know there are 2 sets with 2 elements in them?
 
  • #17
Sorry. I meant n1 and n2 to be different numbers. Try this "Suppose a is the number of sets that have one element and b is the number that have two elements. Then the number of members of G is a*1+b*2. Given that the number of members of G is even, is it possible a=1?" If G has an member such that g=g^(-1), then {g,g^(-1)} has only one element. There may be other members that belong to one element sets.
 
  • #18
it is possible for a=1, right? e could be the only element which is its own multiplicative inverse.
 
  • #19
fk378 said:
it is possible for a=1, right? e could be the only element which is its own multiplicative inverse.

Absolutely, then the order of G is 1 plus an even number isn't it? What could be wrong with that?
 
  • #20
That would imply that the order of G is odd.
 
  • #21
Right. You started by assuming the order of G is even. Can a be one?
 
  • #22
a can be one. G can be of odd order...
But how does that relate to the question asking if G is of even order then there is an a=/e s.t. a^2=e?
 
  • #23
IF G IS OF EVEN ORDER CAN a BE ONE? Answer me! The fact G 'could' of odd order in the world of all possible groups has nothing to do with this. We are talking about the world of groups of even order!
 
  • #24
NO! If G is of even order, then a cannot be one.
 
  • #25
How did you know that each set is just composed of at most 2 elements though (besides the hint I gave). You could have had a bigger set than just {a,a^-1}.
 
  • #26
No, no one has said "G was made up of sets of 2 elements"! What Dick said before was that if a= a-1, then {a, a-1} contains only a single member because those (seeming) two elements are really the same. If a is NOT a-1, then it has 2 members. Of course, any subgroup must contain the group identity, e. If either a or a-1 is the group identity, then the other must be: a(a-1)= e by definition of inverse. If a= e, then e(a-1)= e or a-1= e. That is the only case in which {a, a-1} forms a subgroup: a= e so {a, a-1} is the trivial subgroup, {e}. In any other case, whether a=a-1 or not, {a, a-1} is NOT a subgroup because it does not contain the group identity.

Now, suppose G is a set containing an even number of members. We know that the group identity, e, is a member of G and that e= e-1. That leaves an odd number of "non-identity" members. If there were no member [itex]a\ne e[/itex] such that a= a-1, we can pair each non-identity member with its inverse: {a, a-1}. But such a pairing partitions G-{e}, as set with an odd number of members into a collection of sets each containing two members. Do you see what's wrong with that?

Notice that this only says "G has a member a such that a= a-1". It does not say that a is the only such member! The Klein 4 group, for example, has a= a-1 for all its members.

G must have even order because Lagrange's theorem says that the order of any subgroup of G must divide the order of G. In particular, if a= a-1, then {a, e} (NOT {a, a-1}!) is a subgroup of order 2 and so the order of G must be even.
 
  • #27
HallsofIvy said:
But such a pairing partitions G-{e}, as set with an odd number of members into a collection of sets each containing two members. Do you see what's wrong with that?

I'm a bit confused by the wording of this statement. Do you mean that since we now have |G|=odd, and then we multiply that number of sets with (2), then the order will actually become even?
 
  • #28
I'm confused by your confusion. We are 27 posts into a not terribly hard problem and I'm about ready to give up. I'll recap. We've split G into disjoint subsets which have size two (if a!=a^(-1)) or size one (if a=a^(-1)). We know there is at least one set of size one, {e}. IF G IS EVEN (and don't take caps lightly) can there be only one set of size one? That's all I have to say. Finally and forever.
 
  • #29
Hasn't everybody been confused by something that other people see as easy? To someone new to proofs, some of these responses, even if well-intentioned, may seem quite condescending. Some of them so much that it's almost certainly intentional.
 
  • #30
Tobias Funke said:
Hasn't everybody been confused by something that other people see as easy? To someone new to proofs, some of these responses, even if well-intentioned, may seem quite condescending. Some of them so much that it's almost certainly intentional.

Tobias, this isn't condescension. It's frustration. Read the posts. Do you think I haven't been patient? At this point all I can think of to do is go back and repeat previous posts. And I'm tired of that because most of them are already repetitions. If you have a better idea and think you can do a better job, then please try it. Jeez. This isn't even about l'Hopital's theorem and you still find the time to criticize. Why don't you try to help? I find you condescending.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
fk378 said:
I'm a bit confused by the wording of this statement. Do you mean that since we now have |G|=odd, and then we multiply that number of sets with (2), then the order will actually become even?
If I understand what you are saying here, yes, that's the basic idea. IF G contains no member a, other than the identity e, such that a-1= a, then we can pair all non-identity members, {a, a-1}. If we multiply the number of such sets by 2, we get the number of non-identity members which must be even. Since there is one identity, e, the total number of members of G, |G|, must be odd.

Here's an example. Suppose we have a group with 4 members, e, x, y and z where e is the group identity. Suppose further that there is no member, other than e, such that a-1= a. e is its own inverse. What is the inverse of x? Since x is not its own inverse, it must be either y or z. Suppose it is y: we can pair {x,y}. Now that leaves z. z is not, by hypothesis, its own inverse, but there is nothing else left to pair it with!

It occurs to me that this requires we know that the inverse of z cannot be either x or y because they are "already paired"- theorem: if a-1= b and c-1= b, the a= c. Do you see why that is true? Suppose a-1= b and c-1= b. Look at a(cb) and (ac)b.
 

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
927
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
689
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
914
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
763
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
455
Back
Top