MHB Proof of Conjugate Cycles Property of Permutations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kiwi1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Conjugate Cycles
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that for a cycle α and a permutation π in Sn, the expression παπ⁻¹ results in a new cycle composed of the images of the elements in α under π. The initial proof attempt shows that the length of the resulting cycle divides the length of α and verifies the mapping of elements. An alternative approach is suggested, emphasizing that elements not in the cycle remain unchanged, while those in the cycle are mapped to the next element. Both methods confirm the conjugate cycle property of permutations. The conversation concludes with an affirmation of the proof's validity and suggestions for clarity.
Kiwi1
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Prove:

Let \alpha = (a_1,...,a_s) be a cycle and let \pi be a permutation in Sn. Then \pi \alpha \pi ^{-1} is the cycle (\pi(a_1), ... \pi(a_s))

My attempt.
(\pi \alpha \pi ^{-1})^s = (\pi \alpha^s \pi ^{-1})=e so if this thing is a cycle and its length divides s.

Assume \pi (a_1) is a member of the cycle. Then:

\pi \alpha \pi ^{-1}(\pi (a_1))=\pi (a_2)

and

\pi \alpha \pi ^{-1}(\pi (a_i))=\pi (a_{i+1}) for 1 \leq i < s

and finally

\pi (a_{s+1})=\pi \alpha \pi ^{-1}(\pi (a_s))=\pi(a_1) (validating the assumption)

I think I have all of the components of a proof here. But how can I make it more rigorous?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

You got it, but if you want to see another way of writing it, I would have do the following.

Let $s_{1},\ldots,s_{n}$ be all the elements on $\mathcal{S}_{n}$.

If $s_{i}\neq a_{j}$ for any $j$, then $\pi\alpha\pi^{-1}(s_{i})=s_{i}$.

If $s_{i}=a_{j}$ for some $j$, then $\pi\alpha\pi^{-1}(s_{i})=a_{j+1}$ (Here we denote $a_{1}=a_{s+1}$).

And that's all.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K