Showing that a subset is a group

  • Thread starter Thread starter erogard
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around demonstrating that a subset \( G_m \) of a finite, additive, and abelian group \( G \) is a subgroup. The group \( G \) has an order of \( mn \) where \( \gcd(m,n) = 1 \), and \( G_m \) consists of elements whose orders divide \( m \).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to show that \( G_m \) is closed under addition by expressing the order of the sum of two elements in terms of their individual orders. There is a consideration of whether the product of the orders divides \( m \), leading to questions about the relationship between the least common multiple and \( m \).

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring the implications of using the least common multiple of the orders of the elements. Some guidance has been offered regarding the relationship between the least common multiple and \( m \), but there is still a need for further clarification and assurance regarding these relationships.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing discussion about the properties of orders of elements in relation to the subgroup criteria, particularly focusing on the closure property under addition.

erogard
Messages
60
Reaction score
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
How about lcm(k1,k2) (least common multiple). That works doesn't it? It's certainly less than m.
 
Dick said:
How about lcm(k1,k2) (least common multiple). That works doesn't it? It's certainly less than m.

Thanks, that certainly does it - I'm just trying to convince myself that it is less than m.
 
erogard said:
Thanks, that certainly does it - I'm just trying to convince myself that it is less than m.

Then yourself is hard to convince. m IS a common multiple of k1 and k2.
 
Dick said:
Then yourself is hard to convince. m IS a common multiple of k1 and k2.

haha, right, I think I've been a bit slow thinking last night. Thanks for your help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K