How Does Lagrange's Theorem Prove a^(|G|+1) = a in Finite Groups?

• Aju
In summary, Prove that if G is a finite group with multiplicative notation, and 'a' is element of G then a^(|G|+1) = a. Prove that if G is a finite group with multiplicative notation, and 'a' is element of G then k must be a factor of |G|. What, then, is a|G|?
Aju
Prove that if G is a finite group with multiplicative notation, and 'a' is element of G then
a^ (|G|+1) = a

Aju said:
Prove that if G is a finite group with multiplicative notation, and 'a' is element of G then
a^ (|G|+1) = a

|G| is the number of elements in G. Look at a0= e (the group identity), a1, a2, a3, ..., aG. Since there are only |G| elements in G, there must be a duplicate in that list of |G|+1 values. Suppose an= am with n< m. Then am-n= e. Now you finish it: Show that the set of powers of a: a, a2, ..., ak=e, with k= m-n, foms a subgroup of G. It follows that k must be a factor of |G|. What, then is a|G|?

perhaps the op does not know "lagrange's" theorem? (due to gauss)

If he doesn't then he surely shouldn't be doing a problem like this!

I think Lagranges theorem is actually due to Camille Jordan. (Gauss discovered the special case of cyclic groups)

agreed, gauss discovered the special case of subgroups of Z/n, (and I believe of units in Z/n). what i refer to is the proof gauss gave, which is exactly the disjoint cosets method which proves the general case.

i.e. although in the special case a more special proof is available, gauss gave a general proof which works in the general case.

i am perhaps more strict than some in my method of attribution, but i decline to attribute a theorem to someone who merely observes that someone else's proof works again in anther case, without providing a new argument.

in teaching group theory this year i worked out the theory of abelian groups first, and was able to take advantage of commutativity in this proof. I.e. in an abelian group, given to elements, there is another element whose order is the lcm of their orders. this implies the lagrqnge theorem for abelian groups.

i was not able however to come up with a new argument for lagrange without using the idea, due to gauss, of disjoint cosets. this is a genuine idea, which one appreciate when trying to circumvent it. when i noticed gauss had introduced this diea in his proof, i became convinced the real idea of the argument for lagranges theorem was due to gauss. indeed i cannot see anyhting new at all in the general argument not present in gauss version.

so more accurately this theorem is perhaps first stated and proved in general by lagrange, but the argument given in books today for this theorem is identical that used by gauss earlier on a special case. (see his disquisitiones for this argument).

so if one were to share the credit, i would still give most of it to gauss.

Last edited:
after further reflection, i think it is a contribution to realize that an existing argument has anew application. i have often done this myself, although niot always with knowledge of the prior argument.

but the later proof should ideally acknowledge the earlier instance of it. since gauss name is almost never mentioend in connection with algranges theorem, i emophasized gauss's priority.

but the reference to jordan is also interesting to me. i am curiious to read his traite des substitutioins and see for myself whetehr he mentiions gauss. and why is lagrange usually credited?

ah history is indeed afscinating and eye opening. a little research reveals that fermats little theorem is a precursor of lagrange's theorem and fermat died in 1665, over a century before gauss's birth.

so i should remember to be more careful in making attributions. someone always knows an earlier reference for a seminal idea on a topic. note too the encouraging side that even great innovators are only building a little on what went before.

so we should read the great mathematicians and try to understand what they have done so well that we see ourselves how to extend it.

indeed the concept of a gcd in euclid could be said to lie beneath all these concepts for cyclic groups. i.e. a cyclic group is a homomorphic image of Z, and subgroups of subgroups of Z correspond to divisors of generators.tht wasin fact my motive in giving credit to gauss for this proof. i.e. euclidfs method works on abelian groups, and gauss method works on non abelian groups. amd i know of no other methods, so to me gauss made the conceptual leap allowing the theorem to generalize to non abelian groups.

someone else actually noticed that however.

Last edited:
I wonder if poor Aju is still with us!

Mr Aju, the result we are referring to says that, for an element a of a finite group, the first positive exponenent t such that a^t = 1, where 1 is the identity element, is a divisor of the number of elements of the group.

Gauss's proof was to observe that one can define a partition of the group into subsets of the same order as follows. one set is the distinct powers a,a^2, a^3,...,a^t = 1. another set is the collection of translates of this first set by any other element g of the group. I.e. ga,ga^2,ga^3,...,ga^t = g. one repeats this process until no more elements remain. this shows that thw group is a disjoint union of translates of the distinct powers of a. hence the number of these powers is a divisor of the order of the group.

this is called lagranges theorem, although it is predated by many other similar results, by fermat, gauss, jordan, euclid,...moses...

if you kniow lagranges theorem your problem follows immediately as follows: a^|G|+1 = a^|G| a = 1a = a. so lagrange is the whole matter.

1. How do I begin to prove this problem?

The first step in proving a problem is to clearly define and understand the problem. Make sure you understand all the given information and any restrictions. Then, brainstorm different approaches or methods that could potentially be used to prove the problem.

2. What type of evidence do I need to prove the problem?

The type of evidence needed to prove a problem will depend on the specific problem and the approach being used. This could include mathematical equations, logical reasoning, experimental data, or other forms of evidence. It is important to carefully consider what evidence will be most effective in proving the problem.

3. How can I verify the accuracy of my proof?

One way to verify the accuracy of a proof is to have someone else review and critique it. This could be a colleague, mentor, or even a peer reviewer if you plan to publish your proof. Another way is to double check all calculations and logical steps to ensure they are correct.

4. What if I encounter roadblocks or challenges while trying to prove the problem?

It is common to face challenges when trying to prove a problem. Some strategies for overcoming these roadblocks include taking a break and coming back to the problem with fresh eyes, seeking help or advice from colleagues or mentors, and breaking the problem down into smaller, more manageable parts.

5. What are some common mistakes to avoid when proving a problem?

Some common mistakes to avoid when proving a problem include making assumptions without justification, skipping steps or logical connections, and not thoroughly checking all calculations and reasoning. It is also important to clearly communicate your thoughts and reasoning throughout the proof.

• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
1K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
1K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
946
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
710
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
835
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
1K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
2K
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
957
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
840
• Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
5
Views
2K