I'm going through the proof of Cauchy's Theorem in a text book and I'm stuck on a particular point. I've tried looking at other proofs, but they all use the Orbit-Stabilizer Theorem or induction. The proof presented in the book probably uses the O-S Theorem, but not directly (since it's not been covered yet).(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Let G be a finite group and p a prime dividing the order of G. Define the set [itex] A= \{ (g_{1},...,g_{p} ) : g_{i} \in G , g_{1}...g_{p} = 1 \} [/itex] and a permutation [itex] \pi [/itex] on A by [itex] \pi (g_{1},...,g_{p}) = (g_{2},...,g_{p},g_{1}) [/itex]

It shows that if [itex] g^p=1[/itex], then (g,...,g) is in A and is fixed by [itex]\pi[/itex], and that all other elements of A belong to cycles of size p. That's all fine. Then it shows [itex]|A| = |G|^{p-1} [/itex] and so p divides |A|. Since all cycles have size 1 or p, the number of fixed points is also divisible by p. I don't understand this. Why does the fact that |A| = pk imply that the number of fixed points is also a multiple of p?

All I've been able to deduce is that [itex] kp = |A| = an_{1} + bn_{2} [/itex] where [itex] n_{1}, n_{2}[/itex] is the number of 1 cycles and p cycles, respectively.

Could someone clear this up for me, please?

(also in LaTeX, why are \pi and n_{1},n_{2} not aligned with the rest of the line, and the curly brackets not showing up in the code for the definition of A? EDIT: fixed now, thank you Gregg!)

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Cauchy's Theorem proof

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**