Showing that a subset is a group

  • Thread starter Thread starter erogard
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
4 replies · 2K views
erogard
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Consider a finite, additive and abelian group [tex]G[/tex] of order [tex]mn[/tex], where [tex]gcd(m,n)=1[/tex]. Basically m an n are relatively prime.

Now we define [tex]G_{m} =[/tex] { [tex]g \in G |[/tex] order(g) divides m }.

I'm trying to show that [tex]G_{m}[/tex] is a subgroup of G. All I really need to show is that it is closed under addition. That is, [tex]g_{1}, g_{2} \in G \Rightarrow g_{1} + g_{2} \in G[/tex].

So I let [tex]k_{1}[/tex] and [tex]k_{2}[/tex] 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.