Proving the Orbits and Partitions Problem in Group Permutations

  • Thread starter Thread starter moo5003
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Orbits partitions
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the orbits of a group of permutations of a set constitute a partition of that set. Participants are exploring the definitions of orbits and partitions, as well as the relationships between them in the context of group theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are attempting to clarify the definitions of orbits and partitions, with some expressing uncertainty about how to start the proof. There are discussions about using definitions as a foundation for the proof and the necessity of demonstrating that orbits are non-empty and disjoint.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided insights into the nature of orbits and their properties, suggesting that the proof may be straightforward once the definitions are clarified. There is an ongoing exploration of how to show that orbits are disjoint and cover the entire set, with various lines of reasoning being discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the lack of clear definitions in some resources, which may affect their understanding. There is also mention of the need to consider equivalence relations in the context of orbits and partitions.

moo5003
Messages
202
Reaction score
0
Problem:

"Let G be a group of permutations of a set S. Prove that the orbits of the members of S constitute a partition of S."

I'm a little hazy on how to start this proof. I started by writing down the definition of the Orbit of any element in S. I'm guessing, so correct me if I'm wrong that the proof should be followed by the definition of a partition and I then prove using the definition of an orbit that it fufills all parts of the definition. Or is there some type of theorem that I should spring board off of that correlates the topics.

PS: I was trying to useLagranges Theorem but that is for finite groups only, is there some other theroem I should be looking at?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm a little hazy on how to start this proof. I started by writing down the definition of the Orbit of any element in S. I'm guessing, so correct me if I'm wrong that the proof should be followed by the definition of a partition and I then prove using the definition of an orbit that it fufills all parts of the definition.
Definitions are never a bad place to start!
 
Hurkyl said:
Definitions are never a bad place to start!

My book lacks a clean cut definition for partitions it seems. Is there one that you could possibly link me too? Otherwise I will just have to use my own interpretation of what a partition is which may end up being much bigger and more general then what is usually found in written definition.
 
I'm still a little unclear in begenning this proof. Can anyone provide some more direction for me?
 
Well I've been working on it with little avail.

Orb(K) = { FI(K) : FI in G }
Partition: Collection of non-empty disjoint subsets of S whose union is S.

Work: Since G is a group of permutations there is a FI such that FI(K) = K
and therefore all orbits are non empty.

Now I'm trying to show that if any orbits map a k to a k' then that k' has an orbit = to k's orbit. I'm just not sure how to show this.

Thus far I've tried showing that if there exists a fi(K) = K' then there must exist a FI inverse such that FI^-1(K') = K.

The problem I run into when I approach it this way is that if the orbit of K includes K, K', and another K''. Then I'm unsure how to show that the orbit of K' must then include K''.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

*NVM* if there exists a permutation sending K to K'' and a permutation that sends a K' to K then the composition must send K' to K''.

A confirmation of this type of proof would be good. I'm unsure if this is a confusing way to approach the problem.
 
But all you need to show is that the orbits cover (trivial, every element is in some orbit) and are disjoint (trivial as well, if you ask me) and that's it, since that is the definition of partition.

'Being in the same orbit' is clearly an equivalence relation since groups have inverses, identities, and composition is associative, so it trivially is a partition (a partition obviously being equivalent to the classes of an equivalence relation)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K