Algebra. center. prime numbers

In summary: The number of cosets of Z(x) equals the size of [x]. You can do this by trying to find a bijection between the two, or by arguing that the number of cosets of Z(x) is related to the size of [x] in some way.
  • #1
jostpuur
2,116
19

Homework Statement



Suppose [itex]p[/itex] is some prime number, and [itex]G[/itex] a group such that [itex]\# G = p^n[/itex] with some [itex]n\in\{1,2,3,\ldots\}[/itex]. Prove that the center

[tex]
Z(G) = \{g\in G\;|\; gg'=g'g\;\forall g'\in G\}
[/tex]

contains more than a one element.

Homework Equations



Obviously [itex]1\in Z(G)[/itex], so the task is to find some other element from there too.

A hint is given, that conjugacy classes

[tex]
[x]=\{x'\in G\;|\; \exists y\in G,\; x'=yxy^{-1}\}
[/tex]

are supposed to be examined.

The Attempt at a Solution



Nothing to be done in sight.

I have some results concerning Sylow p-subgroups, but I don't see how they could be used.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hint 1: you don't need anything about Sylow p-subgroups, or anything related to the Sylow theorems.

Hint 2: The word "class" is a hint. Can an element of G be in more than one conjugacy class? Can it be in none?

Hint 3: If g is in Z(G), does that tell you anything about what conjugacy class(es) it lives in?
 
  • #3
[itex]x'\in [x][/itex] is an equivalence relation [itex]x'\sim x[/itex], and always [itex]x\in [x][/itex]. So [itex]G[/itex] is a disjoint union of all conjugacy classes.

[itex]g\in Z(G)[/itex] is equivalent with [itex][g]=\{g\}[/itex].

So I must prove that there is at least one element [itex]g\neq 1[/itex] so that [itex][g]=\{g\}[/itex]?
 
  • #4
jostpuur said:
[itex]x'\in [x][/itex] is an equivalence relation [itex]x'\sim x[/itex], and always [itex]x\in [x][/itex]. So [itex]G[/itex] is a disjoint union of all conjugacy classes.

[itex]g\in Z(G)[/itex] is equivalent with [itex][g]=\{g\}[/itex].

So I must prove that there is at least one element [itex]g\neq 1[/itex] so that [itex][g]=\{g\}[/itex]?

Yes, that's right. It's basically a counting argument. Add up the sizes of all the conjugacy classes and see what you can conclude.

The remaining thing that you'll need to answer is: what sizes do the conjugacy classes have? For those conjugacy classes that contain more than one element, can you relate them somehow to certain subgroups of G, thereby constraining their sizes?
 
  • #5
A natural subset of [itex]G[/itex], related to a given conjugate class [itex][x][/itex], would be

[tex]
H([x]) = \{y\in G\;|\;\exists x'\in [x],\; yx'y^{-1}\in [x]\},
[/tex]

but I was unable to verify that this is a subgroup. If [itex]y,z\in H([x])[/itex], is it true that [itex]yz\in H([x])[/itex]?

Is there some other natural subsets of [itex]G[/itex], related to a given conjugate class [itex][x][/itex]?
 
  • #6
jostpuur said:
A natural subset of [itex]G[/itex], related to a given conjugate class [itex][x][/itex], would be

[tex]
H([x]) = \{y\in G\;|\;\exists x'\in [x],\; yx'y^{-1}\in [x]\},
[/tex]

but I was unable to verify that this is a subgroup. If [itex]y,z\in H([x])[/itex], is it true that [itex]yz\in H([x])[/itex]?

Is there some other natural subsets of [itex]G[/itex], related to a given conjugate class [itex][x][/itex]?

Hint: if you pick two arbitrary elements from the same conjugacy class, what can you say about their centralizers? Can you find a relationship between centralizers and conjugacy classes?
 
  • #7
So the correct natural subset of [itex]G[/itex], related to a given conjugate class [itex][x][/itex], is

[tex]
Z([x]) = \{g\in G\;|\; gx'=x'g,\;\;\forall x'\in [x]\}?
[/tex]

(update: This was the fastest reply from me in this thread so far. It could be that I didn't yet think enough. I'm merely thinking by posting now)

Centralizer of a single element is

[tex]
Z(x) = \{g\in G\;|\; gx=xg\}.
[/tex]

If [itex]x,x'[/itex] are from the same conjugate class, then [itex]Z(x)[/itex] and [itex]Z(x')[/itex] have the same size. Is this the relevant remark?

update:

So for all conjugate classes [itex][x][/itex] we get a collection of centralizers [itex](Z(x'))_{x'\in [x]}[/itex], which all share the same size. Is there supposed to be some explicit relation between the sizes of [itex]Z(x)[/itex] and [itex][x][/itex]?

update:

If [itex]\#Z(x)=p^m[/itex], where [itex]0\leq m\leq n[/itex], then [itex]\# [x] \leq p^n - p^m[/itex].
 
Last edited:
  • #8
If [itex]x,x'[/itex] are from the same conjugate class, then [itex]Z(x)[/itex] and [itex]Z(x')[/itex] have the same size. Is this the relevant remark?

Yes, that's right.

So for all conjugate classes [itex][x][/itex] we get a collection of centralizers [itex](Z(x'))_{x'\in [x]}[/itex], which all share the same size. Is there supposed to be some explicit relation between the sizes of [itex]Z(x)[/itex] and [itex][x][/itex]?

Yes. Hint: Can you show that the number of cosets of [itex]Z(x)[/itex] equals the number of elements of [itex][x][/itex]? Then can you use this fact to constrain the size of [itex][x][/itex]?
 
  • #9
jostpuur said:
Not yet. I'm not sure why [itex](Z(x'))_{x'\in [x]}[/itex] would be disjoint. Are they, and is it relevant?

Well, you can't have disjoint subgroups at all - they all have to contain the identity.

But what I meant was, consider the cosets of [itex]Z(x)[/itex], i.e., [itex]\{gZ(x)\}_{g\in G}[/itex]. They are all the same size and they partition [itex]G[/itex]. So in particular, the number of cosets must divide [itex]|G|[/itex], which is useful for this problem if you can argue that the number of cosets of [itex]Z(x)[/itex] equals the size of [itex][x][/itex]. You can do this by trying to find a bijection between the two, or by arguing directly.
 
  • #10
You were fast. I don't think that that message was here for more than couple of seconds.
 
  • #11
jostpuur said:
You were fast. I don't think that that message was here for more than couple of seconds.

Ha, lucky (or unlucky?) timing on my part!
 
  • #12
I'm still making no significant progress. Two cosets [itex]gZ(x), g'Z(x)[/itex] are the same if [itex](g')^{-1}g x = x(g')^{-1}g[/itex].

There seems to be two potentially good looking mappings. One is

[tex]
[x]\to G/Z(x),\quad x'\mapsto x'Z(x),
[/tex]

and other one is

[tex]
F\to G/Z(x),\quad y_{x'}\mapsto y_{x'}Z(x),
[/tex]

where [itex]F\subset G[/itex] is such set that for all [itex]x'\in [x][/itex] there is a unique [itex]y_{x'}\in F[/itex] such that [itex]x'=y_{x'}xy_{x'}^{-1}[/itex].

I don't see any reason why either one of these would be injective.

update:

I had a mistake in the first equation originally, namely having [itex]g[/itex] and [itex](g')^{-1}[/itex] in wrong order. Now it seems, that in fact [itex]F\to G/Z(x)[/itex] is injective.

And surjectivity is clear. I'll continue...
 
Last edited:
  • #13
final strike attempt

So for all [itex]x\in G[/itex] there is [itex]0\leq m(x) \leq n[/itex] such that [itex]\# [x]=p^{m(x)}[/itex].

If [itex]J\subset G[/itex] is collection of representative elements of the conjugate classes, excluding [itex]1\in G[/itex], then

[tex]
\sum_{x\in J} p^{m(x)} = p^n - 1
[/tex]

If [itex]m(x)>0[/itex] for all [itex]x\in J[/itex], then the left side is divisible by [itex]p[/itex], but the right side is not. Hence there must exist [itex]x\in J[/itex] such that [itex]m(x)=0[/itex], and then [itex]\#[x] = 1[/itex].
 
  • #14


jostpuur said:
So for all [itex]x\in G[/itex] there is [itex]0\leq m(x) \leq n[/itex] such that [itex]\# [x]=p^{m(x)}[/itex].

If [itex]J\subset G[/itex] is collection of representative elements of the conjugate classes, excluding [itex]1\in G[/itex], then

[tex]
\sum_{x\in J} p^{m(x)} = p^n - 1
[/tex]

If [itex]m(x)>0[/itex] for all [itex]x\in J[/itex], then the left side is divisible by [itex]p[/itex], but the right side is not. Hence there must exist [itex]x\in J[/itex] such that [itex]m(x)=0[/itex], and then [itex]\#[x] = 1[/itex].

Looks good to me!

One last thing you can observe is that [tex]|Z(G)|[/tex] equals the number of conjugacy classes of size 1. Then you can neatly summarize the results in the following equation, called the class equation, which often comes in handy when dealing with finite groups:

[tex]|G| = |Z(G)| + \sum_j |C_j|[/tex]

where the [tex]C_j[/tex] are the conjugacy classes with 2 or more elements.

And, as you just showed, [tex]|C_j|[/tex] = |G|/|Z(x_j)| for some element [tex]x_j[/tex], and so in particular each [tex]|C_j|[/tex] divides [tex]|G|[/tex].
 
  • #15
An easier way to prove the relation between the size of the conjugacy class [tex] [x] [/tex] and the centralizer [tex] Z(x) [/tex] is to use the orbit-stabilizer theorem. Indeed, [tex] G [/tex] defines a group action on itself by conjugation: [tex] g \cdot x \equiv g x g^{-1} [/tex] (it's trivial to verify that this actually is a group action). The stabilizer of [tex] x [/tex] under this action is [tex] Z(x) [/tex] and its orbit is [tex] [x] [/tex]. Thus, the theorem gives [tex] |[x]| = [G : Z(G)] [/tex].
 

1. What is algebra and why is it important?

Algebra is a branch of mathematics that involves the use of symbols and equations to represent and manipulate unknown quantities. It is important because it helps us solve real-world problems, understand patterns and relationships, and make predictions.

2. What is the center of an algebraic expression?

The center of an algebraic expression is the point where the expression is balanced, meaning that the left and right sides of the equation or inequality are equal. This point is also known as the solution or root of the expression.

3. What are prime numbers and why are they important in algebra?

Prime numbers are positive integers that are only divisible by 1 and themselves. They are important in algebra because they can help us find the factors of a number and simplify algebraic expressions.

4. How do you find the center of an algebraic expression?

To find the center of an algebraic expression, you need to set the expression equal to 0 and then solve for the variable. The value of the variable that satisfies the equation is the center or solution of the expression.

5. Can prime numbers be negative?

No, prime numbers are defined as positive integers, so they cannot be negative. However, negative numbers can have prime factors. For example, -2 is a prime factor of -24.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
880
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
799
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
954
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
500
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
720
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
873
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top