# Showing that an element has order 2 if product of 2-cycles

## Homework Statement

Show that an element has order 2 in ##S_n## if and only if its cycle decomposition is a product of commuting 2-cycles.

## The Attempt at a Solution

Suppose that ##\sigma \in S_n## and ##| \sigma | =2##. Let the cycle decomposition of ##\sigma## be the following: ##\sigma = c_1 c_2 \dots c_m##. Then ##| \sigma | = lcm (|c_1|, |c_2|, \dots , |c_m|) = 2##. This is the case only if the ##|c_i| = 1## or ##|c_i| = 2## with at least one such that ##|c_i| = 2##. Hence ##\sigma## is a product of disjoint 2-cycles.
\Now, suppose that the cycle decomposition of ##\sigma## is a product of commuting 2-cycles: ##\sigma = c_1 c_2 \dots c_m##, where ##|c_1| = \cdots = |c_m| = 2##. Then ##| \sigma | = lcm (|c_1|, |c_2|, \dots, |c_m|) = lcm (2,2, \dots, 2) = 2##.

Is this at all a correct proof? Is there a way to do this without assuming a permutation can be decomposed uniquely into disjoint cycles, or that the order of a permutation is the least common multiple of the orders of the cycles in is decomposition?

Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Homework Helper
Gold Member
2021 Award
This works if you have previously shown that ##|\sigma| = \operatorname{lcm}(|c_i|)##. The cleaner way is to just use that the ##c_i## have order 2 (which is trivial to show) and that, since they commute, ##\sigma^2 = c_1^2 c_2^2 \ldots c_m^2 = e^m = e##.

fresh_42
Mentor
2021 Award

## Homework Statement

Show that an element has order 2 in ##S_n## if and only if its cycle decomposition is a product of commuting 2-cycles.

## The Attempt at a Solution

Suppose that ##\sigma \in S_n## and ##| \sigma | =2##. Let the cycle decomposition of ##\sigma## be the following: ##\sigma = c_1 c_2 \dots c_m##. Then ##| \sigma | = lcm (|c_1|, |c_2|, \dots , |c_m|) = 2##. This is the case only if the ##|c_i| = 1## or ##|c_i| = 2## with at least one such that ##|c_i| = 2##. Hence ##\sigma## is a product of disjoint 2-cycles.
Why do they have to be disjoint, resp. why is ##(12)(23)## no cycle decomposition? And you can eliminate the identities by simply demanding ##c_i \neq 1##.
\Now, suppose that the cycle decomposition of ##\sigma## is a product of commuting 2-cycles: ##\sigma = c_1 c_2 \dots c_m##, where ##|c_1| = \cdots = |c_m| = 2##. Then ##| \sigma | = lcm (|c_1|, |c_2|, \dots, |c_m|) = lcm (2,2, \dots, 2) = 2##.
As @Orodruin has said, a simple calculation of ##\sigma^2## is easier. It also has the big advantage, that you actually see, why the commutation part is essential!

Why do they have to be disjoint, resp. why is ##(12)(23)## no cycle decomposition? And you can eliminate the identities by simply demanding ##c_i \neq 1##.

As @Orodruin has said, a simple calculation of ##\sigma^2## is easier. It also has the big advantage, that you actually see, why the commutation part is essential!
Don't they have to be disjoint 2-cycles since I demanded to being with that the cycle decomposition of ##\sigma## is a product of disjoint cycles?
So I see how the backward direction is easier by just assuming they commute and raising the product to a power of 2. But is the forward direction okay? How could I show the forward direction without the use of the result ##|\sigma| = \operatorname{lcm}(|c_i|)##?

fresh_42
Mentor
2021 Award
Don't they have to be disjoint 2-cycles since I demanded to being with that the cycle decomposition of ##\sigma## is a product of disjoint cycles?
Yes, but only implicit in the word "cycle decomposition". Since you haven't filled out part two of the template which I personally consider even more important than part three, although our rules lay emphasis on own effort, you have to rely on the fact that everybody knows, that ##(12)(23)## isn't a decomposition whereas ##(123)## is. I think you should have mentioned this somewhere because it is crucial for the proof.
So I see how the backward direction is easier by just assuming they commute and raising the product to a power of 2. But is the forward direction okay? How could I show the forward direction without the use of the result ##|\sigma| = \operatorname{lcm}(|c_i|)##?
Both directions are correct, since you already have proven ##|\sigma \tau|=\operatorname{lcm}\{\,|\sigma | , |\tau | \,\}## in case ##[\sigma,\tau]=1## and disjoint permutations commute. However, both facts are necessary for your way to prove it - plus a proper definition of a cycle decomposition. You see, there are many hidden statements, which you all assumed to be known.