Prove that G is a p-group iff every element of G has order a power of p

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ibnashraf
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a finite group \( G \) is a p-group if and only if every element of \( G \) has order that is a power of a prime \( p \). Participants explore the definitions and implications of p-groups, as well as the necessary proof structure.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an initial attempt at the proof, suggesting that if \( G \) is a p-group, then every element must have order a power of \( p \), but does not fully articulate the converse.
  • Another participant, Sudharaka, clarifies that the statement to be proved is essentially the definition of a p-group, emphasizing that every element has order \( p^k \) for some integer \( k \).
  • Sudharaka also suggests that the original poster's understanding of a p-group might be based on the order of \( G \) being \( p^n \) for some prime \( p \), and references Lagrange's theorem to support this view.
  • A later reply critiques the initial proof attempt, stating that it only addresses one direction of the proof and points out that the converse is less trivial and contains errors in the original argument.
  • This participant introduces Cauchy's theorem to argue that if there exists a prime \( q \) dividing the order of \( G \), then \( G \) must contain an element of order \( q \), which contradicts the assumption that all elements have orders that are powers of \( p \).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the completeness and correctness of the initial proof attempt. There is no consensus on the validity of the arguments presented, particularly concerning the proof of the converse statement.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in the original proof attempt, including missing steps and assumptions, particularly in establishing the converse of the statement regarding p-groups.

ibnashraf
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Question:

"Let G be a finite group. Prove that G is a p-group iff every element of G has order a power of p."

this was my attempt at the question:

Suppose G is a p-group
png.latex
, where
png.latex

Let g
png.latex
png.latex

png.latex

Hence, every element of G has order a power of p.

Conversely, suppose that every element of G has order a power of p
png.latex

But
png.latex

png.latex
divides
png.latex

Hence, G is a p-group.can someone look over this and tell me what mistakes i made if any please ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ibnashraf said:
Question:

"Let G be a finite group. Prove that G is a p-group iff every element of G has order a power of p."

this was my attempt at the question:

Suppose G is a p-group
png.latex
, where
png.latex

Let g
png.latex
png.latex

png.latex

Hence, every element of G has order a power of p.

Conversely, suppose that every element of G has order a power of p
png.latex

But
png.latex

png.latex
divides
png.latex

Hence, G is a p-group.can someone look over this and tell me what mistakes i made if any please ?

Hi ibnashraf, :)

The definition of a p-group is,

Given a prime \(p\), a \(\mbox{p-group}\) is a group in which every element has order \(p^k\) for some \(k\in\mathbb{Z}\cup\{0\}\).

The statement that is to be "proved" is in fact the definition of a p-group.

Kind Regards,
Sudharaka.
 
Sudharaka said:
Hi ibnashraf, :)

The definition of a p-group is,

Given a prime \(p\), a \(\mbox{p-group}\) is a group in which every element has order \(p^k\) for some \(k\in\mathbb{Z}\cup\{0\}\).

The statement that is to be "proved" is in fact the definition of a p-group.

Kind Regards,
Sudharaka.

I presume the definition of $p$-group the OP has is "$G$ is a $p$-group if the order of $G$ is $p^n$ for some prime $p$". Then the result follows from Lagrange's theorem, which says that if $H$ is a subgroup of $G$ then $|H|$ divides $|G|=p^n$. If $g\in G$ then the set $\{g, g^2, \ldots, g^m=1\}$ where $m$ is the order of $g$ has $m$ elements. It is also a subgroup of $G$. Thus, $m$ divides $G$ and so is a prime power, and we are done.
 
but you have only proved half of what needs to be proved:

|G| = pn → if g is in G, then |g| = pk, for some 0 ≤ k ≤ n.

that is the "trivial" part. the other part:

(for all g in G: |g| = pk for some k ≥ 0) → |G| = p​n, for some n in N, is far less trivial (and the OP's "proof" is entirely erroneous).

what we DO know, from a corollary to Lagrange, is that |G| = mpn.

without loss of generality, we may assume p does not divide m.

let q be a prime dividing m. by Cauchy's theorem, G has an element of order q. but this contradictions our assumptions on G. thus there can BE no such prime q.

but the only positive integer m that has no prime divisors is 1, and NOW we're done.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K