Some conclusions give that |G| = nm

  • Thread starter Mr Davis 97
  • Start date
In summary, the homework statement is that for a group ##G## with order ##n##, the permutation ##\sigma_x## is a product of ##m## disjoint n-cycles.
  • #1
Mr Davis 97
1,462
44

Homework Statement


Let ##G## be a finite group such that ##|G| = nm##.
Suppose ##x\in G## has order ##n## and let ##\sigma_x\in S_G## be the permutation such that ##\sigma_x(g)=xg## for every ##g \in G##. Prove that ##\sigma_x## is a product of ##m## disjoint n-cycles.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


Here is my attempt. Note that the cycle decomposition will include every element of ##G##, as if it did not, we would have that for some ##g \in G##, ##xg = g \implies x=1##, which clearly is a contradiction.

Now, suppose that ##a \in G##. Then the cycle that contains ##a## must be ##(1,a,xa,x^2a,\dots, x^{n-1}a)##. Now, consider ##b\in G## s.t. ##b\not = a##. Then either ##b\in \langle x \rangle a## or ##b \not \in \langle x \rangle a##. Suppose the latter, since the former would just result in the same cycle. Then the unique cycle that contains ##b## must be ##(1,b,xb,x^2b,\dots, x^{n-1}b)##. The cycle with ##b## and the cycle with ##a## are disjoint, since if they weren't ##x^ia = x^jb## such that ##i,j\in [0,n)##, and so ##b = x^{j-i}a \implies b\in \langle x \rangle a##, which is a contradiction.

So, every cycle in the cycle decomposition must have n elements and must be disjoint with all other cycles. We also noted that ##\sigma_x## must map all elements, so there must be ##m## n-cycles for this to be the case, since ##|G| = mn## QED

Is this proof correct? I feel like in parts I am hand-wavy, but I don't see how else to argue it.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Mr Davis 97 said:
Now, suppose that ##a \in G##. Then the cycle that contains ##a## must be ##(1,a,xa,x^2a,\dots, x^{n-1}a)##.
Which cycle? You don't have any at the start, except that you wrote ##\sigma_x=c_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot c_k## and then show ##k=m## and ##\operatorname{ord}c_i=n##, but you haven't. I don't really understand your notation. ##\langle x \rangle## usually denotes the subgroup generated by ##x##, orbits are written ##G.x =\{\,g.x\,|\,g\in G\,\}## and the stabilizer ##G_x=\{\,g\in G\,|\,x.g=g\,\}##.

I would say you have:
"The orbit of ##a## is ##\langle x \rangle.a = \{\,a,xa,\ldots,x^{n-1}a\,\}##".
How do you get the ##1## into the orbit? I would try to prove it with the orbit-stabilizer theorem, but I haven't checked. The other idea is the one above. I'm a little bit confused, as I don't see which way you followed.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
fresh_42 said:
Which cycle? You don't have any at the start, except that you wrote ##\sigma_x=c_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot c_k## and then show ##k=m## and ##\operatorname{ord}c_i=n##, but you haven't. I don't really understand your notation. ##\langle x \rangle## usually denotes the subgroup generated by ##x##, orbits are written ##G.x =\{\,g.x\,|\,g\in G\,\}## and the stabilizer ##G_x=\{\,g\in G\,|\,x.g=g\,\}##.

I would say you have:
"The orbit of ##a## is ##\langle x \rangle.a = \{\,a,xa,\ldots,x^{n-1}a\,\}##".
How do you get the ##1## into the orbit? I would try to prove it with the orbit-stabilizer theorem, but I haven't checked. The other idea is the one above. I'm a little bit confused, as I don't see which way you followed.
Never mind the ##1##, that shouldn't be included in any cycle other than ##(1,x,x^2,\dots, x^{n-1})##. Other than that mistake does the proof look correct?
 
  • #4
Your proof is correct.

I found some minor issues while "completing" it:
1.) We assume ##n>1## to conclude ##x\neq 1##. The case ##n=1## is trivial, as it implied ##\sigma_x = 1## and ##\sigma_x=\Pi_{g\in G}(g)##, but for sake of completeness, it should be mentioned.
2.) To name the decomposition would be helpful, say ##\sigma_x = c_1\cdot \ldots \cdot c_k##. (I think this is formally needed, see below.)
3,) You didn't mention the case ##b \in \langle x \rangle .a \Longrightarrow \langle x \rangle .b = \langle x \rangle .a##
4.) What you actually have shown is
$$
G = \dot{\bigcup}_{g \in I} \langle x \rangle.g \,\text{ for some set }\, I\subseteq G \text{ and } |\langle x \rangle .a|=n
$$
Since ##|G|=n\cdot m = n \cdot |I|## we have ##|I|=m##.
5.) Now what I formally would add is, that all orbits ##\langle x \rangle .a## are identical to the cycles ##c_i\,##, either at the beginning or at last. It is a simple line: For any ##a\in G## there is a cycle ##c_i## with ##a \in c_i## by the first part of your proof, say ##a=c_{ij}##. Then ##\sigma_x(c_{ij})=c_{ij+1}=x.c_{ij}=x.a## and thus ##\langle x \rangle.a =c_i\; , \;k=|I|=m## and ##c_i \cap c_j = \emptyset ## for ##i \neq j\,.##

Sorry, if this is nitpicking, I just wrote what I added to your proof, so that me could (lazily) read it in one piece.
 
  • Like
Likes Mr Davis 97
  • #5
Mr Davis 97 said:
\implies x=1##, which clearly is a contradiction.

What is the contradiction? Are you adding the hypothesis that ##n > 1## ?

Edit: Never mind. That's already been discussed.
 

1. What does |G| = nm mean in the context of scientific research?

|G| = nm is a mathematical representation of the order or size of a group G, which is determined by the number of elements (n) and the number of subgroups (m) within the group. It is often used in abstract algebra and group theory to describe the structure of a group.

2. How is |G| = nm calculated?

|G| = nm is calculated by multiplying the number of elements in a group (n) by the number of subgroups (m). For example, if a group has 4 elements and 2 subgroups, |G| = 4 x 2 = 8.

3. What can be concluded from the statement |G| = nm?

The statement |G| = nm indicates that the group G has a specific structure and that the number of elements and subgroups are related in a specific way. It can also provide information about the properties and behaviors of the group.

4. How is the statement |G| = nm relevant to scientific research?

The statement |G| = nm is relevant to scientific research as it provides a mathematical representation of the structure of a group, which can be applied to various fields such as chemistry, physics, and computer science. It can also aid in understanding and predicting the behavior of complex systems.

5. Are there any limitations to using the statement |G| = nm in scientific research?

While |G| = nm can provide valuable information about the structure of a group, it may not be applicable to all types of groups or systems. Additionally, it is important to consider other factors and variables that may affect the group's behavior and outcomes in scientific research.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
525
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
507
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
818
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
463
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
283
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
523
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
512
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top