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

Click For Summary
The discussion clarifies the distinction between the order of the additive and multiplicative groups in the field ${\mathbb{Z}}_5$. The multiplicative subgroup contains only non-zero elements, resulting in an order of 4, while the additive group has an order of 5. The proof in question relies on Fermat's theorem, which states that for any element in the multiplicative group, raising it to the power of the group's order yields the identity. It emphasizes that the prime divisors in the proof relate to the order of the multiplicative group, not the field itself. Overall, the group is isomorphic to the cyclic group C4, highlighting the cyclic nature of finite subgroups in 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.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
815
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · 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