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

  • Thread starter Thread starter ibnashraf
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
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. The initial attempt incorrectly states that if G is a p-group, then every element must have order as a power of p, which is indeed the definition of a p-group. The conversation highlights the necessity of using Lagrange's theorem to show that if every element has order a power of p, then the order of G must also be a power of p. A critical point raised is that proving the converse is less trivial and requires demonstrating that no prime other than p can divide the order of G. The conclusion emphasizes that the only integer without prime divisors is 1, thus confirming G's order aligns with being a p-group.
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.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
874
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
850
  • · 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 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K