How Can Finite Group Theory Problems Be Solved?

AI Thread Summary
Finite group theory problems can be approached by proving specific properties of groups. For a finite group G with an even number of elements, it can be shown that there exists an element x such that x is not the identity and x² = e, leveraging the structure of the group and the uniqueness of the identity. Additionally, to establish that a finite set (S, *) with an associative binary operation and an identity satisfies the group properties, one must demonstrate that every element in S is invertible. The cancellation laws play a crucial role in this proof, as they help establish that distinct elements cannot yield the same product when multiplied by a common element. Ultimately, these discussions highlight the interconnectedness of group properties and the importance of careful logical reasoning in proofs.
hgj
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Group Theory, please help!

Okay, so I'm stuck on a couple questions from my homework, and any guidance would be much appreciated.

1. Prove that if G is a finite group with an even number of elements,
then there is an element x in G such that x is not the identity and
x^2 = e.

I know there exists some element x in G because G is not empty. And because e (the identity element in G) is unique, x is not equal to e, so x is not the identity. But I can't see how to go from x doesn't equal e to x^2 = e.

2. Prove that if (S,*) is a finite set with a binary operation that is
associative, has an identity, and satisfies the cancellation laws,
then (S,*) is a group.

I know that for (S, *) to be a group, it must be associative, there must exist an identity element e in S wrt *, and every element in S must be invertible. The first two properties follow easily from the way (S,*) is defined, but I don't know how to show the last property holds. It makes sense to me that it's true when I look at the cancellation law (if a,b,c are in S and ab = ac, the b = c), and I've tried working backwards, but then I find myself wanting to create an inverse in S, and that seems wrong.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
When x² = e, then x = x-1. However, if x² is not equal to e, then x and x-1 are distinct. If the order of G is even, then think about what happens if x and x-1 form distinct pairs for each non-identity x.
 
2. Prove that if (S,*) is a finite set with a binary operation that is
associative, has an identity, and satisfies the cancellation laws,
then (S,*) is a group.

Suppose the elements of S are x_1, \ldots, x_n. Let x_k be some arbitrary element. What happens when you consider the elements

x_1 x_k, x_2 x_k, \cdots, x_n x_k?

Can two of them be equal to each other, for example?
 
Muzza said:
Suppose the elements of S are x_1, \ldots, x_n. Let x_k be some arbitrary element. What happens when you consider the elements

x_1 x_k, x_2 x_k, \cdots, x_n x_k?

Can two of them be equal to each other, for example?

I see if i let x_1x_k = x_2x_k = \cdots = x_nx_k then, through the cancellation law, I get x_1 = x_2 = \cdots = x_n. Then, because it is given that S has an identity element, if these are all the elements of S and they are all equal, then they must all equal that identity element. So, each element in S has an inverse. But how can I claim x_1x_k = x_2x_k = \cdots = x_nx_k ?
 
You don't need all of them to be equal. But can any pair be equal? If any pair at all is equal, then there is an i and a j distinct from each other such that x_ix_k = x_jx_k and by the right cancellation law, x_i = x_j. But this contradicts the stipulation that x_i and x_j are distinct if i and j are distinct. So it cannot the the case that x_ix_k = x_jx_k for any i and j. If S has n distinct elements, and x_1 x_k, x_2 x_k, \cdots, x_n x_k are n distinct elements of S, then clearly S = \{x_1 x_k, x_2 x_k, \cdots, x_n x_k\}. Since identity is an element of S, there is some, let's call it m, such that x_mx_k = e. This should be more than enough, you can tie up the loose ends to complete the proof.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top