Proving Existence of $N$ for $a^N=e$ in Finite Group $G$

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the existence of a positive integer \( N \) such that \( a^N = e \) for all elements \( a \) in a finite group \( G \). The scope includes theoretical reasoning and mathematical proofs related to group theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that since \( G \) is finite, there exists a positive integer \( N \) such that \( a^N = e \) for all \( a \in G \).
  • Another participant presents a proof involving the repetition of elements in a list of powers of a single element \( g \), concluding that \( N = l - k \) for some indices \( k \) and \( l \).
  • Several participants note that the proof shows the existence of \( N \) for a single element but question how to find a common \( N \) that works for all elements in \( G \).
  • One participant proposes taking the product of individual \( n_i \) values for each element to find a universal \( N \) for the group.
  • Another participant questions whether a smaller \( N \) could suffice, leading to a discussion about the efficiency of the proposed \( N \).
  • A specific example is raised regarding a group of 8 elements with varying orders, prompting a discussion about the smallest \( N \) that would work for all elements.
  • There is a suggestion that the least common multiple (lcm) of the orders of the elements might provide a more efficient \( N \).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that there exists an \( N \) such that \( a^N = e \) for all \( a \in G \), but there is no consensus on the smallest or most efficient \( N \). Multiple competing views regarding the method to determine \( N \) remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the efficiency of the proposed \( N \) and the implications of using the least common multiple versus the product of individual orders. The discussion highlights the dependence on the specific structure of the group and the orders of its elements.

Guest2
Messages
192
Reaction score
0
If $G$ is a finite group, show that there exists a positive integer $N$ such that $a^N = e$ for all $a \in G$.

All I understand is that G being finite means $G = \left\{g_1, g_2, g_3, \cdots, g_n\right\}$ for some positive integer $n.$
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I found a proof online. Let me rephrase it if I understand it. Suppose $G$ has $k$ elements. Consider the following list of the elements: $g^1, g^2, \cdots, g^{k+1}$. Since $G$ has only $k$ elements, there must be repetition in our list, say when $k = l$. So we have $g^k = g^l$ and $g^k = g^l \iff g^{k}(g^{-1})^{k} = g^l (g^{-1})^{k} \iff e = g^{l-k}$. Hence we take $N = l-k$, and the proof is complete.

I would never come up with this, however! :(
 
That shows that there exists such an $N$, for any given (single) $g \in G$. But you're not done yet-you need to find an $N$ that works for EVERY $g$ in $G$.
 
Deveno said:
That shows that there exists such an $N$, for any given (single) $g \in G$. But you're not done yet-you need to find an $N$ that works for EVERY $g$ in $G$.
Thank you! I thought I was done! (Giggle)

So for any $g_i$ in our list, we have shown that we have corresponding $n_i$ such that $g_i^{n_i} = e.$ So that $n_{i-1}$ works for $g_{i-1}$ (assuming $i > 1$ here). And $n_i \times n_{i-1}$ works for both $g_i$ and $g_{i-1}$ etc. Let $N = n_1 \times n_2 \times \cdots \times n_k$. Then we've $g^N = e$ for every $g \in G.$
 
Could a smaller $N$ work?
 
Deveno said:
Could a smaller $N$ work?
No, I think, since have $k$ elements this is smallest $N$ that works for every one of them. Not sure, though. (Thinking)
 
Suppose I have a group of 8 elements where 5 elements have order 2, and 2 elements have order 4, and the identity has order 1.

Is $8 = (1)(2)(4)$ the smallest $N$ that will work?

You're not wrong, the multiple of all the orders will work, but it's a bit inefficient.
 
Deveno said:
Could a smaller $N$ work?
So the answer to this should have been yes, $N = \text{lcm}(n_1, n_2, \cdots, n_k)$ would work?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
740
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
748
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K