erogard
- 60
- 0
Hi,
Consider a finite, additive and abelian group G of order mn, where gcd(m,n)=1. Basically m an n are relatively prime.
Now we define G_{m} = { g \in G | order(g) divides m }.
I'm trying to show that G_{m} is a subgroup of G. All I really need to show is that it is closed under addition. That is, g_{1}, g_{2} \in G \Rightarrow g_{1} + g_{2} \in G.
So I let k_{1} and k_{2} be the order of g1 and g2, respectively, and try to express the order of (g1 + g2) in terms of k1 & k2, and, moreover, to show that order (g1+g2) divides m.
I know that k1k2 does the job, that is, k1k2(g1 + g2) = e, but k1k2 may not divide m since we might end up with k1k2 > m.
I've tried a lot of different things, so far unsuccessfully, but any ideas or suggestions would be much appreciated.
Consider a finite, additive and abelian group G of order mn, where gcd(m,n)=1. Basically m an n are relatively prime.
Now we define G_{m} = { g \in G | order(g) divides m }.
I'm trying to show that G_{m} is a subgroup of G. All I really need to show is that it is closed under addition. That is, g_{1}, g_{2} \in G \Rightarrow g_{1} + g_{2} \in G.
So I let k_{1} and k_{2} be the order of g1 and g2, respectively, and try to express the order of (g1 + g2) in terms of k1 & k2, and, moreover, to show that order (g1+g2) divides m.
I know that k1k2 does the job, that is, k1k2(g1 + g2) = e, but k1k2 may not divide m since we might end up with k1k2 > m.
I've tried a lot of different things, so far unsuccessfully, but any ideas or suggestions would be much appreciated.