Show every group of order 77 has elements of order 7 and 11

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter matticus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elements Group
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of groups of order 77, specifically addressing whether such groups must contain elements of order 7 and 11. Participants explore this question using Lagrange's theorem and various reasoning approaches, while attempting to avoid reliance on Sylow's theorems or Cauchy's theorem.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests starting by assuming the absence of elements of order 7 and 11, leading to a cyclic group generated by an element of order 77.
  • Another participant references Cauchy's theorem, noting that if a prime divides the order of a group, there should be a subgroup of that order, but seeks to avoid using Cauchy directly.
  • It is argued that if a group of order 77 has no elements of order 7 or 11, then all elements must have order 77 or 1, which leads to contradictions regarding the existence of elements of lower orders.
  • A participant points out that the previous reasoning does not address cases where there is an element of order 7 but not 11, or vice versa.
  • Another participant clarifies that if the group is cyclic, then there exists at least one element of order 77, which can generate elements of orders 7 and 11.
  • One participant acknowledges a misunderstanding regarding the nature of the prime factors of 77.
  • A hint is provided regarding the relationship between subgroups of equal prime order, suggesting that they must either intersect trivially or be equal.
  • A later reply proposes a method to show that if all non-identity elements have order 7 or 11, it leads to a contradiction with the total number of elements in the group.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of elements of order 7 and 11 in groups of order 77, with some arguing for the existence based on cyclic properties and others pointing out gaps in the reasoning. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the completeness of the proof without additional assumptions.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments rely on assumptions about the structure of groups and the implications of cyclicity, while others highlight the limitations of reasoning without invoking Cauchy's theorem or Sylow's theorems. The discussion reflects a variety of approaches to the problem, with no consensus reached.

matticus
Messages
107
Reaction score
1
Without Sylow's theorems!

This was a problem at the end of a chapter on Lagrange's theorem. I know that every subgroup of order 77 is cyclic. But I don't know how to prove this using only Lagrange. Any suggestions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wellll why don't you begin by assuming that there do *not* exist elements of order 7 and 11? In this case the group must be cyclic, generated by, say, a (by Lagrange). What is the order of a^11?

This argument will prove that there must exist at least one element of order 7 OR 11. A similar argument will prove that there must be elements of both orders.
 
This follows from Cauchy's theorem that if p divides the order of a finite group with finite order, then there is a subgroup of order p. This question is however a specific form of the condition as the order of the group can be anything in cauchys theorem, need not be multplication of two primes as in this case.

Lets work for this case without cauchy:

First of all the elements of a group of order 77 are either going to have order 1, 7, 11 and 77 as obvious from lagrange.

If the group has no elements with order 7 or 11 then all its elements can have order 77 or 1. We know that only identity has order 1. So in this case all elements would have to have order 77. As shaggy says, take any such element a (not e), a^11 has order 7 and a^7 has order 11.

We used: only divisors of 77 are 7 and 11. We didn't use the fact that they are primes but if you try to prove it generally by cauchy's theorem you will need it.
 
That doesn't complete the proof, for it doesn't handle the case where there is an element of order 7 but not 11 and vice versa.
 
edit: wait right it is not right let me think some more
edit2: ok as matt says this only applies IF the group is cyclic sorry

What I wrote was if this group of 77 elements is cyclic, then there exists atleast one element which has order 77. Take that element, a then a^11 and a^7 is certainly elements with order respectively 7 and 11.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but I think you just said the 77 is prime, and wrote down 7 and 11, the prime factors of 77.
 
Let G be a group of order 77. If G is cyclic we're done. If not, then either the hypothesis holds or all elements have order 7 or they all have order 11 (excluding the identity).

HINT: if K and L are subgroups of G and |K|=|L|=p a prime then either KnL={e} or L=K.
 
you are right I am just too sleepy thanks for pointing it out
 
I am just looking at this again after a long while, does this work?

Let G be a group of order 77. If G is cyclic we're done. If not, then either the hypothesis holds or all elements have order 7 or they all have order 11 (excluding the identity). Supposing all non-identity elements have order 7, then using your hint we can write G = {e,x^{1}_{1},x^{2}_{1},...,x^{6}_{1},...x^{1}_{k},x^{2}_{k},x^{6}_{k}} for a total of 6k + 1 elements for some integer k. Similarly, if all non-identity elements had order 11 then G would have 10m + 1 elements for some integer m. Since the equations 6k + 1 = 77 and 10m + 1 = 77 have no solutions in the integers, neither of these cases can occur.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
825
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K