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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of finite subgroups of the multiplicative group of a field, specifically focusing on the cyclic nature of these groups and the implications of group orders in the context of the field ${\mathbb{Z}}_5$. Participants explore the logic behind the assertion that $a^{p} = 1$ and the consequences for group structure.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the logic that $a^{p} = 1$ in the context of the multiplicative group of ${\mathbb{Z}}_5$, suggesting that $2^4 = 1$ implies an order of 4 rather than 5.
  • Others clarify that the additive subgroup of ${\mathbb{Z}}_5$ has order 5, while the multiplicative subgroup consists of non-zero elements and has order 4.
  • There is a discussion about the interpretation of $2^0$ as the first element and $2^4$ as the fifth operation resulting in the identity, questioning the proof's reference to $x^d = 1$ for elements in ${\mathbb{Z}}_d$ where $d$ is a prime power.
  • One participant emphasizes that the order of the multiplicative group (4) should not be confused with the order of the field (5) and discusses the implications for isomorphism with cyclic groups.
  • Another participant notes that the theorem applies to proper subgroups and finite multiplicative subgroups of infinite fields, providing examples such as the n-th roots of unity in $\mathbb{C}$.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations of the relationship between the orders of the additive and multiplicative groups in ${\mathbb{Z}}_5$. While some clarify the distinction, others remain uncertain about the implications of the proof regarding cyclic groups and their orders. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the interpretation of the proof.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the assumptions made in the proof, particularly concerning the definitions of group order and the implications of Fermat's theorem. The discussion highlights the complexity of group structures in finite fields.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · 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 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K