Is U(13) and U(15) Cyclic Groups?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sarah77
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
U(13) is a cyclic group because it is formed from the units of a prime number, while U(15) is not cyclic due to its composite nature. To find a generator for U(13), one can utilize the property that the powers of any element form a subgroup, and the order of this subgroup must divide the order of the group. The discussion highlights the tediousness of calculating powers manually and suggests using tools like SAGE or Wolfram Alpha to expedite calculations. Additionally, it emphasizes that finding the order of an element can reveal whether it generates the entire group or a cyclic subgroup. Overall, understanding the structure of these groups and leveraging mathematical software can simplify the process of determining their cyclic properties.
sarah77
Messages
27
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Is U(13) cyclic? Is U(15) cyclic?

2. The attempt at a solution

The units in U(13): {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12} U(13) is not cyclic because it is prime?
U15:{1,2,4,7,8,11,13,14} and there are no generators either? I do not think I am correct with this though.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Does anyone know how to find a generator for U13? I know the elements are
{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12}. I have eliminated 1,2,3,4,5 and I am working on 6. I am doing it this way:

60=1
61=6
62=10
63=8
64=9
65=2

..and so on, but I did, for example, 62=36-13=23=10 and that is how I found 10. But when I get into larger numbers it is very time consuming to type, for example, 64=1296-13=1283-13=1270-13...and so on. Does anyone know a faster way to solve these?
 
Well, for prime numbers, the group of units is always cyclic. Actually that holds true for powers of odd primes as well. Therefore, it is just a matter of finding the generator. For composite numbers, I recommend looking into the Chinese Remainder Theorem to determine if it is cyclic.
 
You have the right technique to generate U(13) using the element 6, but unfortunately it is a very tedious way of doing things. In my Abstract Algebra course, we had access to technology such as SAGE - an opensource math software that you can run on your internet browser. Also, Wolfram Alpha is another one that may speed up your calculations - just google it, then type something like mod(123^4,27) in the box and press enter, and it will calculate 123^4 in mod(27). Maybe that will speed things up a little bit.
 
Also keep in mind that you don't have to keep going through all power iterations. Since you know the powers of any element of a group form a subgroup, then the order of that cyclic subgroup must divide the order of the group, i.e. once you found that cyclic group generated by 6 had more than 6 elements, you know it generates the entire group. If it helps, when dealing with groups formed by units, if it is cyclic, then the number of elements that generate the set is equal to the phi function of the order of the group. You can use information like this to help you. Say you find the order of element. If that element doesn't generate the set, it still is a cyclic subgroup. Therefore it is equal to a generator raised to the power of the index number of that subgroup. For example: in U13, 46 = 1. Therefore 4 = g2, implying 2 generates the group. Which raises a concern. How did you eliminate 2 as a generator?
 
There is also a quicker way than yours, sarah77, and it is using the fact that 6^4 mod 13 = (6^3(mod 13)*6) mod 13

Instead of starting at 6^4=1296 and then subtracting 13, use what you found for 6^3 mod 13 (8) and then multiply that by 6, then start subtracting your values of 13. This result will be equal to 6^4 mod 13 =)

Ex. 6^3(mod 13)*6 = 8*6 = 48 = 9 mod 13
 
Last edited:
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K