MHB Proving Finite subgroups of the multiplicative group of a field are cyclic

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof that finite subgroups of the multiplicative group of a field are cyclic, specifically examining the case of the multiplicative group of the field ${\mathbb{Z}}_5$. Participants clarify that while the additive group has order 5, the multiplicative group contains only the non-zero elements, resulting in an order of 4. The proof relies on Fermat's theorem, which states that for any element \( x \) in ${\mathbb{Z}}_d$, \( x^d = 1 \) holds true, confirming that the group is isomorphic to \( C_4 \) rather than \( C_2 \times C_2 \). This distinction is crucial as it highlights the difference between the order of the group and the order of the field.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of group theory, specifically finite abelian groups.
  • Familiarity with Fermat's theorem and its implications in group order.
  • Knowledge of cyclic groups and their properties.
  • Basic concepts of field theory and multiplicative groups.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the structure of finite abelian groups and their classification.
  • Learn about the implications of Fermat's theorem in group theory.
  • Explore the properties of cyclic groups and their subgroups.
  • Investigate the relationship between field order and group order in various fields.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in abstract algebra, students studying group theory, and anyone interested in the properties of finite fields and their multiplicative groups.

Deanmark
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I am looking at this proof and I am stuck on the logic that $a^{p}$ = 1. For example, consider the group under multiplication without zero, ${Z}_{5}$, wouldn't 2^4 = 1 imply that the order is 4 not 5? We know that if G is a finite abelian group, G is isomorphic to a direct product ℤ(p1)^n1×ℤ(p2)^n2×⋯×ℤ(pr)^nr where pi's are prime not necessarily distinct. Consider each of the ℤ(pi)ni as a cyclic group of oreder pnii in multiplicative notation. Let m be the lcm of all the pnii for i=1,2,…,r. Clearly m≤p1n1p2n2⋯prnr. If ai∈ℤ(pi)ni then (ai)(pini)=1 and hence ami=1. Therefore for all α∈G, whe have αm=1 that is every element of G is a root of xm=1. However G has p1n1p2n2⋯prnr elements, while the polynomial xm−1 can have at most m roots in F. So, we deduce that m=p1n1p2n2⋯prnr. Therefore pi's are distinct primes, and the group G is isomorphic to the cyclic group ℤm.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Deanmark said:
I am looking at this proof and I am stuck on the logic that $a^{p}$ = 1. For example, consider the group under multiplication without zero, ${Z}_{5}$, wouldn't 2^4 = 1 imply that the order is 4 not 5?
Hi Deanmark,

The additive subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}_5$ has indeed order $5$, but the multiplicative subgroup only contains the non-zero elements, and has order $4$.
 
castor28 said:
Hi Deanmark,

The additive subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}_5$ has indeed order $5$, but the multiplicative subgroup only contains the non-zero elements, and has order $4$.

Isn't $2^0$ the first element and $2^4$ the fifth operation which results in the identity making ${\Bbb{Z}}_{5}$ order 5? I guess this is what the proof is referring to when it claims for x in ${Z}_{d}$ $x^d = 1 $ where d is a prime power.
 
Deanmark said:
Isn't $2^0$ the first element and $2^4$ the fifth operation which results in the identity making ${\Bbb{Z}}_{5}$ order 5? I guess this is what the proof is referring to when it claims for x in ${Z}_{d}$ $x^d = 1 $ where d is a prime power.
Hi,

In $\mathbb{Z}_5$, $2^4 = 2^0 = 1$ (this is Fermat's theorem): the group only contains $4$ elements.

The $p_i$ in the proof are the prime divisors of the order of the multiplicative group under consideration. In the case of $\mathbb{Z}_5$, the complete multiplicative group has order $4$ (there is also a subgroup of order $2$). The theorem says that the group is isomorphic to $C_4$, not $C_2\times C_2$, because, otherwise, the equation $x^2 = 1$ would have four roots, which is impossible in a field.

The order of the multiplicative group (4 in this case) should not be confused with the order of the field (5). For example, the theorem also applies to proper subgroups (which is nothing new, since any subgroup of a cyclic group is cyclic). The theorem also applies in the case of a finite multiplicative subgroup of an infinite field: in $\mathbb{C}$, the n-th roots of unity constitute a finite cyclic multiplicative group.
 
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 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
892
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K