Can a Finite Group Be Expressed as the Product of Two Subsets?

  • Thread starter Thread starter boombaby
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Finite Group
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves a finite group G and nonempty subsets S and T, with the goal of proving that either G can be expressed as the product of these subsets (G=ST) or that the size of G is at least the sum of the sizes of S and T (|G|>=|S|+|T|).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of the sizes of the subsets S and T in relation to the group G, questioning the conditions under which G can be expressed as the product of S and T. Some explore the case when G is abelian versus nonabelian, while others attempt to establish relationships between elements in S, T, and G.

Discussion Status

The discussion includes various attempts to reason through the problem, with some participants expressing frustration and uncertainty. There are indications of partial progress, particularly in considering specific cases and relationships between elements, but no consensus or complete resolution has been reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem may have different complexities depending on whether G is abelian or nonabelian, and there is a suggestion that the intersection of S and T could play a role in the proof.

boombaby
Messages
129
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


let G be a finite group, and let S and T be nonempty subsets.Prove either G=ST={st|s is in S, t is in T} or |G|>=|S|+|T|


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



So it is to prove G=ST, if |G|<|S|+|T|, which means also the intersection of S and T is nonempty (Note two smaller subsets can also have nonempty intersection, so |G|<|S|+|T| should have more properties than nonemptiness, but I fail to find one ). [tex]ST\subset G[/tex] is obvious. I want to prove the other direction by saying any g in G can be represented as g=st for some s,t, or [tex]s_{i}T[/tex] covers G.
This is what I 've done:
Let x be an element in both S and T. then x^2 is in ST. But x^2 can be outside S and T, So it is possible that [tex]x^{3}\notin ST[/tex], which seems to become useless...
Any hint would be appreciated...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
This is really an annoying question. Did you get it? I didn't.
 
No. The only thing I proved is that it is true when G is abelian. But..when G is nonabelian, it is a headache.
 
Let S={s_1,...,s_|S|} and T={t_1,...,t_|T|}. Suppose that there is some x in G but not in ST. Then x != s_i t_j. In particular, (s_i)^(-1) x is never in T. Use this to deduce that |S| <= |G|-|T|.
 
Ah, yea, it is true!
I only tried to make a 1-1 correspondence from those elements g in both S ant T to something outside S and T and got stuck since g^(-1)x can possibly drop in S again.
Thanks!
 
morphism said:
Let S={s_1,...,s_|S|} and T={t_1,...,t_|T|}. Suppose that there is some x in G but not in ST. Then x != s_i t_j. In particular, (s_i)^(-1) x is never in T. Use this to deduce that |S| <= |G|-|T|.

Nice!
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K