Proving the Order of Elements in a Finite Group G

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PhysKid24
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Groups Proof Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the order of an element in a finite group G is a divisor of the order of the group. Participants explore definitions, implications, and potential proofs related to this concept, touching on cyclic groups, Lagrange's theorem, and historical context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on the meaning of the order of an element and suggests using cyclic groups to understand the relationship between the order of an element and the order of the group.
  • Another participant defines the order of an element as the minimum positive integer n such that raising the element to the power of n yields the identity element.
  • A participant mentions that the powers of an element generate a subgroup, which may either be trivial or encompass the entire group, and discusses the implications for divisibility of group order.
  • One participant references Gauss's work on modular integers and suggests a method of filling up the group using disjoint translates of the subgroup generated by an element.
  • There is a discussion about differing definitions of the order of an element, with some sources stating it is the size of the cyclic group generated by that element, while others define it as the smallest n such that a^n = e.
  • A participant sketches a proof of Lagrange's theorem and argues that Gauss deserves credit for the foundational ideas, suggesting that Lagrange's theorem can be deduced from Gauss's earlier work.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty regarding the definitions and implications of the order of an element, with multiple definitions presented. There is no consensus on the best approach to proving the main statement, and the discussion includes both agreement on certain definitions and disagreement on the historical attribution of credit for the theorem.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the proof relies on understanding cyclic groups and Lagrange's theorem, but there are unresolved questions about the specifics of subgroup selection and the definitions of order. The discussion reflects varying interpretations of foundational concepts.

PhysKid24
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
For a finite group G, I need to prove that the order of an element in G is a divisor of the order of the group. I'm not sure what this exactly means, but I think you have to use cyclic groups such that G={a^0,a^1,...,a^n) where n+1 is the order of the group and a^0 is the identity element. So I think I need to use Lagrage's thm stating that the order of a subgroup is a divisor of the order of the group. So to find a subgroup of G seems to be a problem. Could I use a^m as a subgroup, where m < n+1?? What is exactly meant by order of the element. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The order of an element a of a group G is the minimum positive integer n such that an = &epsilon;.
 
The elements 1,a,^2,...A^n=1 that Hurkyl mentions generate a group, generally a subgroup of a larger group. Perhaps the group consists of 1 or perhaps it consists of all elements, in either case it divides the order of the group. So, the final case is when the group generated by a is neither of order 1 or the order of the entire group...
 
this result seems basically to be due to gauss, who studied it in the case of modular integers.

the idea is basically to let x be any element not among the powers {a, a^2,...,a^n = e}, and consider the products xa, xa^2,...,xa^n = x. and show none of these are among the elements {a, a^2,...,a^n = e} either.

continuing this process, one fills up the group by disjoint translates of the subgroup {a, a^2,...,a^n = e}. qed.
 
Last edited:
PhysKid24 said:
What is exactly meant by order of the element. Thanks.
some books (hungerford's) say the order of an element is the size of the cyclic group generated by that element. other books say it's the smallest n such that for an element a, a^n = e

PhysKid24 said:
For a finite group G, I need to prove that the order of an element in G is a divisor of the order of the group. I'm not sure what this exactly means, but I think you have to use cyclic groups such that G={a^0,a^1,...,a^n) where n+1 is the order of the group and a^0 is the identity element. So I think I need to use Lagrage's thm stating that the order of a subgroup is a divisor of the order of the group. So to find a subgroup of G seems to be a problem. Could I use a^m as a subgroup, where m < n+1??
i think it would follow from the above definition. the group generated by an element a (whose size = o(a) ) is a subgroup of the big group so the theorem follows from lagrange's theorem.
 
i just sketched the proof of "la grange's theorem" and pointed out that gauss already proved it for modular integers hence generated the key idea, namely exhausting a group by disjoint translates. there is no other idea in la grange's result hence to me, he deserves no credit.

of course it can be deduced by quoting "his" theorem.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
986
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
987
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K