MHB Finite Fields - F_4 - Galois Field of Order 2^2

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Beachy and Blair's book: Abstract Algebra (3rd Edition) and am currently studying Section 6.5: Finite Fields,

I need help with a statement of Beachy & Blair in Example 6.5.2 on page 298.

Example 6.5.2 reads as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/2858In the above example, Beachy and Blair write the following:

" ... ... Note that since the multiplicative group of non-zero elements has order 3, it is cyclic. ... ... "

Can someone explain why this assertion follows?

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is elementary group theory.

Theorem:

If $G$ is a group of order $p$, then $G$ is cyclic.

Proof:

Let $x \neq e$ be any non-identity element of $G$.

By Lagrange's theorem, the order of $\langle x\rangle$, the cyclic subgroup generated by $x$, has order dividing the order of $G$.

Since this is prime, either $|x| = 1$, or $|x| = p$ (by definition, the order of $x$ as an element, is also the order of $\langle x\rangle$ as a subgroup*).

If the order of $x$ is 1, then $x^1 = x = e$, contradicting our choice of $x$. Hence $|x| = p$, so that $\langle x\rangle = G$, so that $G$ is cyclic (with generator $x$).

*****************

Since 3 is prime, any group of order 3 is cyclic, QED.

*****************

*Note: perhaps this is not obvious. Suppose that $k$ is the smallest positive integer for which we have: $x^k = e$.

Now if $\{e,x,x^2,\dots,x^{k-1}\}$ are not all distinct, we have: $x^m = x^n$ for some $0 \leq m < n \leq k-1$.

Then $0 < n-m < k-1$, and we have:

$x^{n-m} = x^n(x^{-m}) = (x^n)(x^m)^{-1} = (x^n)(x^n)^{-1} = e$, contradicting our choice of $k$.

On the other hand, suppose $\langle x\rangle = \{e,x,x^2,\dots,x^{k-1}\}$, and these are distinct.

Since a group is closed under multiplication, we have $x^k \in \langle x\rangle$.

If $x^k = x^m$, for $0 < m \leq k-1$, then:

$e = (x^k)(x^k)^{-1} = (x^k)(x^m)^{-1} = x^k(x^{-m}) = x^{k-m}$, where $0 < k-m \leq k-1$, contradicting distinctness.

Thus the only viable possibility is $m = 0$, that is $x^k = e$, and no smaller positive integer has this property.
 
Last edited:
##\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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...

Similar threads

Back
Top