MHB Clarification for Alternating Group

  • Thread starter Thread starter Enzipino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group
Click For Summary
The discussion clarifies that the group ${A}_{5}$ is not cyclic because it cannot be generated by a single element, specifically an element $\alpha$ with order 60. It is noted that a 4-cycle, 3-cycle, and 5-cycle cannot belong to ${A}_{5}$ since they can be expressed as a product of an odd number of 2-cycles, which disqualifies them from being in the alternating group. The product of these cycles results in an odd permutation, thus confirming their exclusion from ${A}_{5}$. The conclusion drawn is that ${A}_{5}$ is not cyclic due to the nature of its elements and their permutations. Understanding the properties of cycle decompositions is crucial for this clarification.
Enzipino
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
In class we had to show that ${A}_{5}$ is cyclic. So what we did was,

${A}_{5}$ is cyclic iff there is an $\alpha\in{A}_{5}$ with $<\alpha> = {A}_{5}$. So, the $ord(\alpha) = |<\alpha>| = |{A}_{5}| = \frac{5!}{2} = 60$. So, $60 = {2}^{2}*3*5$.

After this, we said that we could do a 4-cycle, 3-cycle, and 5-cycle, which would be in ${S}_{12}$ but not ${A}_{5}$. We concluded by saying ${A}_{5}$ is not cyclic.

The main thing I'm confused about is why the 4-cycle, 3-cycle, and 5-cycle is not in ${A}_{5}$. Could someone just clarify this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Enzipino,

I'm not sure what you are asking for, but I think it is why the product of a 3-cycle, a 4-cycle and a 5-cycle can't be in the alternating group.

A $n-$cycle can be decomposed as the product of $n-1$ 2-cycles, hence you got the product of $2+3+4=9$ 2-cycles, which is odd, so it is not in the alternating group.
 
Thread 'How to define a 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 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
811
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K