MHB A cyclic group with only one generator can have at most two elements

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Show that a cyclic group with only one generator can have at most two elements.

I thought the following:

When $a \neq e$ is in the group, then $a^{-1}$ is also in the group.
So, when $a$ is a generator, then $a^{-1}$ is also a generator.

Is this correct?? (Wondering)

But I how can I use this to show that a cyclic group with only one generator can have at most two elements??

Or should I use something else to prove this?? (Wasntme)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

Show that a cyclic group with only one generator can have at most two elements.

I thought the following:

When $a \neq e$ is in the group, then $a^{-1}$ is also in the group.
So, when $a$ is a generator, then $a^{-1}$ is also a generator.

Is this correct?? (Wondering)

But I how can I use this to show that a cyclic group with only one generator can have at most two elements??

Or should I use something else to prove this?? (Wasntme)

Hi mathmari,

By having an $a\in G$ different from $e$, you are assuming $G$ has more than one element. It's true that $a$ and $a^{-1}$ will generate $G$, but this does not follow from the fact that $a^{-1}$ is in the group. Instead, it follows from the fact that any element in a group has the same order as its inverse. Now, knowing that $a$ and $a^{-1}$ generate $G$ and $G$ has only one generator, you deduce that $a = a^{-1}$, i.e., $a^2 = e$. So $G$ has order two, with elements $e$ and $a$.

Of course, if $G = {e}$, then $G$ is cyclic with one generator. So all cases have been covered.
 
Euge said:
Hi mathmari,

By having an $a\in G$ different from $e$, you are assuming $G$ has more than one element. It's true that $a$ and $a^{-1}$ will generate $G$, but this does not follow from the fact that $a^{-1}$ is in the group. Instead, it follows from the fact that any element in a group has the same order as its inverse. Now, knowing that $a$ and $a^{-1}$ generate $G$ and $G$ has only one generator, you deduce that $a = a^{-1}$, i.e., $a^2 = e$. So $G$ has order two, with elements $e$ and $a$.

Of course, if $G = {e}$, then $G$ is cyclic with one generator. So all cases have been covered.

Have we proven in that way that a cyclic group with only one generator can have at most two elements??
 
Certainly. Either $G$ has one element (which is cyclic with only one generator) or it has more than element, in which case $G$ has only two elements.
 
mathmari said:
Have we proven in that way that a cyclic group with only one generator can have at most two elements??

Yes, but it might be hard for you to SEE.

Suppose that we have $b \in G$ with $b \neq a,e$. Since $a$ generates $G$, it must be that $b = a^k$ for some integer $k$. However, since $a^k = e$ if $k$ is even, and $a^k = a$ if $k$ is odd, there is no such $b$.
 
Thread 'How to define vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
677
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
9K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K