I Clarification of a specific orbit example

mk9898
Messages
109
Reaction score
9
Hello,

In my professor's lecture notes she gives this example and I have a couple of questions regarding it:Let M = \mathbb Z/6\mathbb Z and f: M \rightarrow M, x \rightarrow x+1 the cyclical permutation of the elements from M. Then is G := \{id_M, f, f^2,f^3,f^4,f^5\} a subset from S_M. Just like the symmetric group, G operates on M through applicaton. M has exactly one orbit namely M = G*0. We can have G operate also on the 2-element subset from M. |Pot_2(M)| = 15 and G has on Pot_2(M) exactly 3 orbits:G \cdot \{0,1\} = \{\{i,i+1\} | i \in M \}, of the length 6,

G \cdot \{0,2\} = \{\{i,i+2\} | i \in M \}, of the length 6

G \cdot \{0,3\} = \{\{0,3\},\{1,4\},\{2,5\} | i \in M \}, of the length 3.Questions:

1. How can one quickly calculate the cardinality of the power set Pot_2 without writing out all of the possibilities? The cardinality of the power set is 2^n but in this case it is 15 which confuses me.

2. The definition of an orbit is: Gm:= \{gm| g \in G\} \subseteq M and there are 6 elements from M. Why is G*0 the only orbit? Any help/insight is appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks like she is defining ##Pot_2(M)## to be the set of two-distinct-element subsets of ##M##, and has defined an action of ##G## on that set such that for ##g\in G## and ##(m,n)\in Pot_2(M)## we have ##g((m_1,m_2))=(gm_1,gm_2)##. This has nothing to do with power sets, hence the power set cardinality formula ##2^{|M|}## is not relevant. Instead use permutations or combinations to find the cardinality of ##Pot_2(M)##. Which should it be (perms or combs?) given that the subsets are not ordered pairs?

##G*0## is the only orbit because the orbits form a partition of the set. In particular they are mutually exclusive. Since ##G*0## covers all six elements of ##M##, that mutual exclusivity implies that no other orbit can have any elements. So ##G*0## is the only orbit.
 
Hallo andrewkirk,

Thanks for the response. The G*0 makes a lot of sense now. That is simply the all of the g's in G acting on M and all of them are on the same orbit and orbits are disjunct. Regarding the cardinality of the set |Pot_2(M)|. The 15 is the total pairs of the tuples given the mapping of M (I believe). That means that if we were to write out all possibilities of pairs disregarding the order and remove all of the {i,i} i = (1,2,3,4,5) then we would have 15. I.e.: {0,1},{0,2},{0,3},{0,4},{0,5},{1,2},{1,3},{1,4},{1,5},{2,3},{2,4},{2,5},{3,4},{3,5},{4,5}. I THINK that it was she meant. She expected us to know the answer within 2 seconds so I am wondering if there is a formula to know this answer?
 
I got it. It's just the binomial coefficient of 6 choose 2. Writing it out helped me realize it. Thanks!
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...

Similar threads

Back
Top