MHB Show that the elements have the same order

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elements
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving that the elements \( ab \) and \( ba \) have the same order in a group \( G \). The initial argument shows that if \( (ab)^m = 1 \), then \( (ba)^m = 1 \), indicating that the order of \( ba \) divides \( m \). Further analysis reveals that the order of \( ab \) also divides the order of \( ba \), leading to the conclusion that \( m = n \) when both orders divide each other. Additionally, the discussion touches on the relationship between the orders of \( a \) and \( c^{-1}ac \), ultimately confirming that both pairs of elements share the same order. The conversation concludes with a consensus on the correctness of the proofs presented.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Show that the elements $ab$ and $ba$, with $a,b \in G$ have the same order.
The same stands also for the elements $a$ and $c^{-1}ac$.

I have done the following:

  • Let $m=ord(ab) \Rightarrow (ab)^m=1 \Rightarrow ababab \dots abab=1 $

    Since $a \in G$, $a^{-1} \in G$:

    $\Rightarrow a^{-1}ababab \dots abab=a^{-1} \Rightarrow babab \dots abab=a^{-1} \\ \Rightarrow babab \dots ababa=a^{-1}a \Rightarrow babab \dots ababa=1$

    Since we have still the same number of elements ($2m$), we have that $(ba)^m=1$.

    Therefore, $ord(ab)=ord(ba)$.Is this correct?? (Wondering)
  • Let $ord(a)=m \Rightarrow a^m=1 \tag 1$

    Let $ord(c^{-1}ac)=n \Rightarrow (c^{-1}ac)^n=1 \Rightarrow c^{-1}acc^{-1}ac \dots c^{-1}ac=1 \Rightarrow c^{-1}aa \dots ac=1$

    Since we multiplied $n$ times the element $c^{-1}ac$ at itself, we have that $c^{-1}a^nc=1 \Rightarrow cc^{-1}a^nc=c \Rightarrow a^nc=c \Rightarrow a^ncc^{-1}=c c^{-1} \Rightarrow a^n=1 \tag 2$

    From $(1)$ and $(2)$ we have that $m \mid n$, right ?? But how could I continue to show that $m=n$?? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
$\DeclareMathOperator\ord{ord}$
Hey! :)

mathmari said:
Since we have still the same number of elements ($2m$), we have that $(ba)^m=1$.

Therefore, $\ord(ab)=\ord(ba)$.Is this correct?? (Wondering)

You have proven $\ord(ab)=m \Rightarrow (ba)^m=1$.
That only means that $\ord(ba)|m$.

What more do you need to get $\ord(ab)=\ord(ba)$? (Wondering)
Let $ord(a)=m \Rightarrow a^m=1 \tag 1$

Let $ord(c^{-1}ac)=n \Rightarrow (c^{-1}ac)^n=1 \Rightarrow c^{-1}acc^{-1}ac \dots c^{-1}ac=1 \Rightarrow c^{-1}aa \dots ac=1$

Since we multiplied $n$ times the element $c^{-1}ac$ at itself, we have that $c^{-1}a^nc=1 \Rightarrow cc^{-1}a^nc=c \Rightarrow a^nc=c \Rightarrow a^ncc^{-1}=c c^{-1} \Rightarrow a^n=1 \tag 2$

From $(1)$ and $(2)$ we have that $m \mid n$, right ?? But how could I continue to show that $m=n$?? (Wondering)

You have effectively started from $\ord(c^{-1}ac)=n$ to show that $\ord(a)|n$.
Suppose you start from $\ord(a) = m$, what does that mean for $\ord(c^{-1}ac)$? (Wondering)
 
I like Serena said:
$\DeclareMathOperator\ord{ord}$
You have proven $\ord(ab)=m \Rightarrow (ba)^m=1$.
That only means that $\ord(ba)|m$.

What more do you need to get $\ord(ab)=\ord(ba)$? (Wondering)

$m=\ord(ab), n=\ord(ba)$

$(ab)^m=1 \Rightarrow (ba)^m=1 \Rightarrow n \mid m$

$(ba)^n=1 \Rightarrow bababa \dots baba=1 \Rightarrow bababa \dots baba=a^{-1}=a^{-1} \Rightarrow bababa \dots bab=a^{-1} \\ \Rightarrow abababa \dots bab=aa^{-1} \Rightarrow abababa \dots bab=1 \Rightarrow (ab)^n=1 \Rightarrow m \mid n$

From $n \mid m$ and $m \mid n$ we have that $n=cm$, right?? How can I show that $c=1$ such that $n=m$?? (Wondering)

Is the way I show it correct or is there a better way to prove it?? (Malthe)
I like Serena said:
You have effectively started from $\ord(c^{-1}ac)=n$ to show that $\ord(a)|n$.
Suppose you start from $\ord(a) = m$, what does that mean for $\ord(c^{-1}ac)$? (Wondering)

I have to show also that $n \mid m$, right??

$a^m=1 \Rightarrow aa \dots aa=1 \Rightarrow acc^{-1}acc^{-1}a \dots cc^{-1}acc^{-1}a=1=cc^{-1} \\ \Rightarrow c^{-1}acc^{-1}acc^{-1}a \dots cc^{-1}acc^{-1}ac=c^{-1}cc^{-1}c \Rightarrow c^{-1}acc^{-1}acc^{-1}a \dots cc^{-1}acc^{-1}ac=1$

Are there $m$ terms of $c^{-1}ac$ ?? (Wondering)
 
$\DeclareMathOperator\ord{ord}$
mathmari said:
$m=\ord(ab), n=\ord(ba)$

$(ab)^m=1 \Rightarrow (ba)^m=1 \Rightarrow n \mid m$

$(ba)^n=1 \Rightarrow bababa \dots baba=1 \Rightarrow bababa \dots baba=a^{-1}=a^{-1} \Rightarrow bababa \dots bab=a^{-1} \\ \Rightarrow abababa \dots bab=aa^{-1} \Rightarrow abababa \dots bab=1 \Rightarrow (ab)^n=1 \Rightarrow m \mid n$

From $n \mid m$ and $m \mid n$ we have that $n=cm$, right?? How can I show that $c=1$ such that $n=m$?? (Wondering)

Is the way I show it correct or is there a better way to prove it?? (Malthe)

We have:
$$n \mid m \Rightarrow n\le m$$
$$m \mid n \Rightarrow m\le n$$
It follows that:
$$m=n$$
(Emo)

I have to show also that $n \mid m$, right??

$a^m=1 \Rightarrow aa \dots aa=1 \Rightarrow acc^{-1}acc^{-1}a \dots cc^{-1}acc^{-1}a=1=cc^{-1} \\ \Rightarrow c^{-1}acc^{-1}acc^{-1}a \dots cc^{-1}acc^{-1}ac=c^{-1}cc^{-1}c \Rightarrow c^{-1}acc^{-1}acc^{-1}a \dots cc^{-1}acc^{-1}ac=1$

Are there $m$ terms of $c^{-1}ac$ ?? (Wondering)

Yep! (Mmm)
 
I like Serena said:
We have:
$$n \mid m \Rightarrow n\le m$$
$$m \mid n \Rightarrow m\le n$$
It follows that:
$$m=n$$
(Emo)

Ahaa.. Ok! (Smile)
I like Serena said:
Yep! (Mmm)

So we have $(c^{-1}ac)^m=1$.
$\Rightarrow n \mid m$

Therefore,
$$n \mid m \Rightarrow n\le m$$
$$m \mid n \Rightarrow m\le n$$

$$ \Rightarrow m=n$$
Is it the only way to prove the sentence?? (Wondering)
 
I find it easier to use this fact, for any $m \geq 0$:

$(ba)^{m+1} = b(ab)^ma$ (can you prove this using induction?).

Now if $(ab)^m = 1$, then:

$(ba)^{m+1} = b(ab)^ma = ba$.

Multiplying both sides by $a^{-1}b^{-1}$ we get:

$(ba)^m = 1$.

Suppose that for some $0 < k < m$, we have:

$(ba)^k = 1$.

It follows that:

$a(ba)^kb = ab$, but the LHS is: $(ab)^{k+1}$, so this is:

$(ab)^{k+1} = ab$, and multiplying by $b^{-1}a^{-1}$ on both sides, we have:

$(ab)^k = 1$. This is a contradiction, since $0 < k < m$, and $m$ is the SMALLEST positive integer for which:

$(ab)^m = 1$.

So we know that:

(1) the order of $ba$ divides $m$.
(2) the order of $ba$ is not less than $m$.

The only positive integer which qualifies is $m$.

It is also handy to remember that:

$(cac^{-1})^k = ca^kc^{-1}$ (this can also be proved by induction).

So if the order of $a$ is $m$, then:

$(cac^{-1})^m = ca^mc^{-1} = cc^{-1} = 1$.

So the order of $cac^{-1}$ divides $m$, so is at MOST $m$.

Again, suppose that $(cac^{-1})^k = 1$, for some $0 < k < m$.

Then $ca^kc^{-1} = 1$ so that:

$a^kc^{-1} = c^{-1}$

$a^k = c^{-1}c = 1$, which is impossible.

***************************

In other words, to show $m = n$ when $n|m$, we can show that $m|n$, OR:

we can show that $0 < n < m$ is not possible.
 
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 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
472
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K