Cyclic Group Generators <z10, +> Mod 10 group of additive integers

DUDEEGG
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
So I take <z10, +> this to be the group


Z10 = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9} Mod 10 group of additive integers and I worked out the group generators, I won't do all of them but here's an example :

<3> gives {3,6,9,2,5,8,1,4,7,0}
on the other hand

<2> gives {2,4,6,8,0} and that's it! but my book says prove that 2 and 5 are generators...these two I thought we not generators...what am I doing wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure that you are reading the question correctly? As you have noted, neither 2 nor 5 is a generator of ##Z_{10}##. However, the set ##\{2,5\}## does generate ##Z_{10}##.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Can you give me more info about {2,5} generating Z10? feel like I must be misunderstanding how to Generate Z10. Thanks for the help :)
 
We say that ##\{2,5\}## is a generating set for ##Z_{10}##. Here is the definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generating_set_of_a_group

Briefly, if ##S## is any subset of a group ##G##, then we define ##\langle S\rangle## to be the smallest subgroup of ##G## which contains ##S##. To be more precise, ##\langle S\rangle## is the intersection of all subgroups of ##G## which contain ##S##. We call ##\langle S\rangle## the subgroup generated by ##S##, and we say that ##S## is a generating set for ##\langle S\rangle##.

In the special case where ##S## contains one element, say ##S = \{x\}##, we usually write ##\langle x \rangle## instead of ##\langle \{x\}\rangle##.

Applying these notions to your question, we want to prove that if ##S = \{2,5\}##, then the smallest subgroup of ##Z_{10}## which contains ##S## is ##Z_{10}## itself. In other words, we want to prove that ##\langle S\rangle = Z_{10}##.

To prove this, note that since ##S## contains ##2##, it must be true that ##\langle S\rangle## contains ##\langle 2\rangle##. (Why?) Likewise, since ##S## contains ##5##, it must hold that ##\langle S \rangle## contains ##\langle 5\rangle##. What can you conclude?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes 1 person
A group, G, is generated by a set, S, of members of G if and only if by combining the members of S using the group operation, we get every member of G. The set {3} gives, as you say all members of Z10 because 3= 3, 3+ 3= 6, 3+ 3+ 3= 9, 3+ 3+ 3+ 3= 12= 2 (mod 10), 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3= 15= 5 (mod 10), 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3= 18= 8 (mod 10), 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3= 21= 1 (mod 10), 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3= 24= 4 (mod 10), 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3= 27= 7 (mod 10), and 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3+ 3= 30= 0 (mod 10).

{2} does not generate Z10 because 2= 2, 2+ 2= 4, 2+ 2+ 2= 6, 2+ 2+ 2+ 2= 8, 2+ 2+ 2+2+ 2= 10= 0 (mod 10), 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 2= 12= 2 (mod 10) and now it starts over. We do NOT get 1, 3, 5, 7, or 9.

{5} does not generate Z10 because 5= 5, 5+ 5= 10= 0 (mod10), 5+ 5+5 = 15= 5 (mod 10) and it just repeats. We do not get 1, 2, 3 4, 6, 7, 8, or 9.

But {2, 5} contains all of those and 2+ 5= 7, 2+ 2+ 5= 9, 2+ 2+ 2+ 5= 11= 1 (mod 10), 2+ 2+ 2+ 2+ 5= 13= 3 (mod 10) so that we have all of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 0.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
HallsofIvy EGGGZELLENT Thx :) u2
jbunniii
 
Namaste & G'day Postulate: A strongly-knit team wins on average over a less knit one Fundamentals: - Two teams face off with 4 players each - A polo team consists of players that each have assigned to them a measure of their ability (called a "Handicap" - 10 is highest, -2 lowest) I attempted to measure close-knitness of a team in terms of standard deviation (SD) of handicaps of the players. Failure: It turns out that, more often than, a team with a higher SD wins. In my language, that...
Hi all, I've been a roulette player for more than 10 years (although I took time off here and there) and it's only now that I'm trying to understand the physics of the game. Basically my strategy in roulette is to divide the wheel roughly into two halves (let's call them A and B). My theory is that in roulette there will invariably be variance. In other words, if A comes up 5 times in a row, B will be due to come up soon. However I have been proven wrong many times, and I have seen some...
Back
Top