Proving a group of rotaions is cyclic

  • Thread starter Thread starter SNOOTCHIEBOOCHEE
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cyclic Group
SNOOTCHIEBOOCHEE
Messages
141
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let G be a finite group of rotation of the plane about the origin. Prove that G is cyclic.


The Attempt at a Solution



What it means to be cyclic is that every element of the group can be written as a^n for some integer n.

I can see this is true if i take some examples. i.e. {0,pi/2, pi, 3pi/2} is cleraly cyclic. but i can't for the life of me figure out how to prove this.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are lots of ways to prove this depending on what tools you happen to have around. The group must have a smallest nonzero rotation r. All multiples of r must also be in the group. That makes a nice cyclic subgroup, right? If it's noncyclic there must be an element s which is not a multiple of r. Now what?
 
Dick said:
There are lots of ways to prove this depending on what tools you happen to have around. The group must have a smallest nonzero rotation r. All multiples of r must also be in the group. That makes a nice cyclic subgroup, right? If it's noncyclic there must be an element s which is not a multiple of r. Now what?

By division algorithm s= qr+ m . I am guessing we have to somehow show that m=0? Or show that if s is in a group then r is not.

dont know how to do that.
 
s=qr+m. If r is in the group and s is in the group, s-qr=m is in the group too.The notation is a little bit non-rigorous here, but I think it gets the idea across
 
SNOOTCHIEBOOCHEE said:
By division algorithm s= qr+ m . I am guessing we have to somehow show that m=0? Or show that if s is in a group then r is not.

dont know how to do that.

The idea is that the rotation s is between nr and (n+1)r for some n. Then, yes, s-nr must be in the group. Which is bigger s-nr or r? Then remember we picked r to be the smallest nonzero rotation.
 
s-nr is smaller than r.

because we defined s to be between nr and nr+r. so s is at most (by most i mean slightly less than) nr+r. so s<nr+r ==> s-nr<r.

since we chose r to be the smallest non zero rotation we have a contradiction. But i have no clue what this contradiction tells us.
 
It contradicts that the group is finite. An infinite group of group of rotations doesn't need to have a smallest member. And doesn't need to be cyclic.
 
Back
Top