How Do You Prove the Order of ab is mn in an Abelian Group When gcd(m, n) = 1?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Jupiter
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elements Group
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that in an abelian group, if elements a and b have orders m and n respectively, and gcd(m, n) = 1, then the order of the product ab is mn. Participants explore various approaches to establish this proof, particularly focusing on demonstrating that mn is the smallest integer for which (ab)^(mn) = e.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant successfully shows that (ab)^(mn) = e but struggles to prove that mn is the smallest such integer.
  • Another participant suggests considering cases where either a or b is the identity element e, which could simplify the proof.
  • A specific example is provided with orders m = 4 and n = 15, illustrating the approach to assume a smaller order k and derive contradictions.
  • A hint is given that gcd(m, n) = 1 implies lcm(m, n) = mn, which could be relevant to the proof.
  • One participant expresses difficulty in showing that the order of ab must be a common multiple of m and n, leading to further attempts to establish necessary divisibility conditions.
  • A later reply mentions a technique involving the relationship between the orders of a and b and the implications of their relative primality.
  • Another participant acknowledges the usefulness of a hint and describes completing the proof by showing that certain conditions lead to contradictions regarding the orders of a and b.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the proof's details, with multiple approaches and some uncertainty about the implications of certain steps. Disagreement exists on how best to demonstrate that mn is the smallest integer satisfying the condition.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note limitations in their approaches, such as not fully utilizing the relative primality of the orders or failing to establish necessary conditions for divisibility.

Jupiter
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
If G is an abelian group, a in G has order m, b in G has order n, and gcd(m,n)=1, show that ab has order mn.

I am able to show that (ab)^(mn)=e actually occurs. I am having great difficulty however showing that mn is the smallest such integer. I tried to assume that there were a smaller integer, but I could not derive any contradiction. I tried to use the fact that gcd(m,n)=1 as best I could, but I can't make it work for me.

Anyone have any ideas on where to go with this proof?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
first of all, suspect that you have a minor detail of treating the cases when at least one of a and b equals e, having order 1.

i tried this for a while and didn't make heads or tails of it.

then i did the always helpful example. i supposed m=o(a)=4 and n=o(b)=15. note that gcd(4,15)=1.

suppose o(ab)=k<mn=60.

then (ab)^k=e.

as an example, i supposed k=59.

note that a^59=a^3 because o(a)=4 and 59 = 3 mod 4.

also note that b^59=b^14 because o(b)=15 and 59 = 14 mod 15.

by assuming k=59, ie o(ab)=59, (ab)^59=e.

e=(ab)^59=a^59 b^59 (as G is abelian)
=a^3 b^14.

now "multiply" both sides by ab (using abelian again) to get this:
ab=a^4 b^15=e. hence o(ab)=1<k=59 but k was supposed to be the smallest "power" for which (ab)^k=e

now the harder part is proving that it is true in general. one thing i didn't seem to explicitly make use of is the relative primality of o(a) and o(b)...
 
Here's a hint:

gcd(m, n) = 1 if and only if lcm(m, n) = mn.
 
Hurkyl, your hint would be very useful if I could somehow show that the order of ab must be a common multiple of m and n.

... which I cannot do. I suppose that ab has order k, and then I try to show n|k and m|k. I then suppose that I do not have n|k and m|k. I apply the division algorithm and get a^r1b^r2=e. And this does me no good unless I can show ri=0.

Please Hurkyl a further hint.
 
Blarg, I always forget that step when I try to remember the proof to this problem!


The trick is, IIRC, that [itex]a^p b^q = e[/itex] implies [itex]b^{qm} = e[/itex], and do something from there.
 
Hurkyl, your genuis quite disgusts me. In any event, I was able to complete the proof. Thanks so much for your help! You weren't by any chance born knowing this, were you?
In case you're interested, you have to instead compute (ab)^q=e^q. Once you get b^(qm)=e, you use the fact that b has order n and that n,m are relatively prime to show n|q. Similarly, you can show m|q. And so q is a common multiple of m,n, and so mn|q.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K