Proving a Group is Cyclic - A Guide for Beginners

friedchicken
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone.

How could I prove if something is a cyclic group? I was wondering because I can prove is something is a group, a subgroup, and a normal subgroup, but I have no Idea as to how to prove something is a cyclic group.

Ex: Suppose K is a group with order 143. Prove K is cyclic.

I read around and I kept seeing something about Sylow's theorems, but I never learned anything like that. Is there another approach?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To prove that K is cyclic, it is sufficient to prove that it has normal subgroups of order 11 and 13. There's a theorem that states that, if we can find such normal subgroups and their intersection is trivial, then K is isomorphic to their direct product. The only groups of order 11 and 13 are Z_11 and Z_13. Since both are cyclic and 11 and 13 are coprime, their direct product is cyclic.

By Sylow's theorems, there's exactly one of each in K.

This works quite generally for prime pairs as long as p\not = 1 mod q and q\not =1 mod p. If p = 1 mod q (such would be the case, for example, if one of the primes is 2), the subgroup of order 2 is not unique and therefore not normal: therefore, for example, there's a non-cyclic group of order 6, S_3 (3 = 1 mod 2), and there's a nontrivial non-cyclic group of order 21 (7 = 1 mod 3).

The same method goes if there are more than two primes in the decomposition.
 
Last edited:
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top