A problem from Herstein's Abstract algebra

AdrianZ
Messages
318
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



if f \in Sn show that there is some positive integer k, depending on f, such that fk=i. (from baby Herstein).

The Attempt at a Solution



Suppose that S={x1,x2,...,xn}. Elements of Sn are bijections from S to S. to show that fk=i it's enough to show that fk(xm)=xm for every m (1<=m<=n)
If f is in Sn, then f may stabilize(not permute) a finite number of elements and permutes the other elements. the elements that are not permuted by f will also be stabilized by fk. (because if f(xs)=xs, then f2(xs)=f(xs)=xs and by induction It's possible to show that fk(xs)=xs). So, for the elements that are not permuted by f we're done.
Now, We can suppose that xp is permuted by f and f(xp)=xq (xp\neqxq). if we apply f again, f2 will again permute xp to another member of S and this process of permutation never halts because if finally xp is mapped to something that is not permuted anymore by f, like xs, then fk(xp)=xs and fk(xs)=xs which contradicts the fact that fk is bijective. Since this process never halts and S is a finite set and f is a bijection, then finally after k times (2<=k<=n) fk(xp)=xp (I'm in someway using the pigeonhole principle). this k depends on xp. (It can be shown by studying permutations of Sn for n>2)
It's easy to show that if fk(xp)=xp then fnk(xp)=xp. since k is dependent to the xp we choose, let's associate a ki with every element of S that is permuted. by the same argument we know that fki(xpi)=xpi. if we set K=LCM(ki) then by our previous arguments, It's obvious that for any xp we'll have fK(xp)=xp. Q.E.D.

I come up with this proof after studying permutations in S5. I know that the way I've explained my proof might be a little bit confusing but I hope that it's understandable. Is my proof correct? and if yes, is there any other way to prove it in a simpler way?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Actually, you don't even need to know that this is a group of permutations. This is true for any finite group. Consider the set of all x^k where k is any positive integer. There are an infinite number of possible values for k but only a finite number of possible values for x^k. Therefore, by the pigeon hole principle as you say, there must be some values, k_1 and k_2, with k_1\ne k_2 but x^{k_1}= x^{k_2}.

We can, without loss of generality, assume that k_1&lt; k_2. It follows that x^{k_2}x^{-k_1}= x^{k_2-k_1}= i.
 
HallsofIvy said:
Actually, you don't even need to know that this is a group of permutations. This is true for any finite group. Consider the set of all x^k where k is any positive integer. There are an infinite number of possible values for k but only a finite number of possible values for x^k. Therefore, by the pigeon hole principle as you say, there must be some values, k_1 and k_2, with k_1\ne k_2 but x^{k_1}= x^{k_2}.

We can, without loss of generality, assume that k_1&lt; k_2. It follows that x^{k_2}x^{-k_1}= x^{k_2-k_1}= i.

I see. so, I had made the problem way harder than It actually was. Was my own proof correct?
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
574
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
923
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
979
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
9K