Generator of the additive gr. Z_m

  • Thread starter Thread starter sutupidmath
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Generator Gr
sutupidmath
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
4
Hi all,

I am having trouble proving the following proposition:

\bar a is a generator of the additive group Z_m if and only if gcm(m,a)=1.

Well, first let's start with what i know.

I know how to prove the following:

Let G=[a] be a cyclic group of order q. Show that a^s is a generator of G, iff gcd(s,q)=1.

proof:
(<=) Suppose that gcd(s,q)=1, then there exist some integers x,y such that

1=sx+qy, so

a^1=a^{sx}a^{qy}=(a^s)^x(a^q)^y=(a^s)^xe^y=(a^s)^x so since there exists an integer x, such that (a^s)^x=a then G=[a^s]

(=>) Now, suppose that a^s is a generator of G. THen there should exist some integer k such that

(a^s)^k=a=&gt;a^{sk}=a=&gt;a^{sk-1}=e now from a theorem we know that

q|(sk-1)=> there exists some integer n such that sk-1=mq=>1=sk+(-m)q=>gcd(s,q)=1.


Now i tried to translate this for the additive groups. And here is where the problems start to come in play, for only to get worse when i go to Z_m.

So, i am trying to prove the following:

Let G be an additive group generated by a, where o(G)=q. Prove that s*a is a generator of G iff gcd(s,q)=1.
Proof:
(<=) Suppose that gcd(s,q)=1. Now, as before, there exist x,y integers, such that

1=sx+qy

now: 1*a=(sx+qy)a=(sx)a+(qy)a= x(sa)+y(qa).---(@)
(Now, here i believe that if we Translate the Lagranges theorem into terms of an additive group it would be sth like this, right: "Let G be a finite group with order r. Then the order of each subgroup H in G, and the order of each element a of G is an integral divisor or r. Also r*g=0 for every el. g in G."Basically i am concerned whether the last part would be correct that is: from g^r =e into r*g=e=0. Since in the book we are using we are denoting with 0 the identity in an additive group.)

Now, if this is true, then we get from (@) a=x(sa). Now since there is an integer x, such that this holds, i assume we can conclude that G=[sa], that is sa generates the group G.

(=>) now let's suppose that sa is a generator for the group G. Then there exists some integer k such that k(sa)=a=> k(sa)-a=0 => (ks-1)a=0. Now, since the order of a is q. it follows that

q|(ks-1)=> ks-1=mq =>1=ks +(-m)q , so it follows that gcd(s,q)=1.

Well, let me give a crack to my main issue now:

\bar a is a generator of the additive group Z_m if and only if gcm(m,a)=1.
Proof: again let's suppose that gcd(a,m)=1. so there are integers x, y such that

1=ax+my.

Now, i know that \bar a = a+[m] so let [\bar a]=\{k\bar a:k\in Z\}=\{ka+k(rm):r,k\in Z\} in particular let u\in [\bar a] so, u=ak+k(rm)

So, this would mean that any linear combination of a and m is also in a+[m]. Now since

1=ax+my, i am saying that 1\in a+[m]=\bar a

ok let's stop here, cuz, i lost my stream of thought!

Any hints, ideas, would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Well, i know the previous post is way too long, so if you don't have time to have a look at it, the whole thing is about the following:

Prove that
\bar a is a generator of the additive group Z_m if and only if gcm(m,a)=1.
 
Nevermind, i figuret it out. Thnx though!
 
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...
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...
##\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...

Similar threads

Back
Top