Some conclusions give that |G| = nm

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr Davis 97
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a finite group ##G## with order ##|G| = nm##, where ##n## is the order of an element ##x \in G##. The original poster attempts to prove that the permutation ##\sigma_x##, defined by ##\sigma_x(g) = xg## for all ##g \in G##, can be expressed as a product of ##m## disjoint n-cycles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the cycle decomposition of ##\sigma_x## and question the notation used by the original poster. There are inquiries about how to properly represent the cycles and the implications of the orbit-stabilizer theorem. Some participants suggest clarifying the relationship between elements in the group and their orbits under the action of ##x##.

Discussion Status

Several participants have provided feedback on the original proof, pointing out areas that require clarification or additional detail. While some minor issues have been identified, there is an acknowledgment of the correctness of the overall approach. The discussion is ongoing, with participants exploring different interpretations and suggestions for improvement.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of the assumption that ##n > 1##, as the case for ##n = 1## is considered trivial. Participants also note the importance of clearly defining cycles and orbits in the context of the proof.

Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44

Homework Statement


Let ##G## be a finite group such that ##|G| = nm##.
Suppose ##x\in G## has order ##n## and let ##\sigma_x\in S_G## be the permutation such that ##\sigma_x(g)=xg## for every ##g \in G##. Prove that ##\sigma_x## is a product of ##m## disjoint n-cycles.

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


Here is my attempt. Note that the cycle decomposition will include every element of ##G##, as if it did not, we would have that for some ##g \in G##, ##xg = g \implies x=1##, which clearly is a contradiction.

Now, suppose that ##a \in G##. Then the cycle that contains ##a## must be ##(1,a,xa,x^2a,\dots, x^{n-1}a)##. Now, consider ##b\in G## s.t. ##b\not = a##. Then either ##b\in \langle x \rangle a## or ##b \not \in \langle x \rangle a##. Suppose the latter, since the former would just result in the same cycle. Then the unique cycle that contains ##b## must be ##(1,b,xb,x^2b,\dots, x^{n-1}b)##. The cycle with ##b## and the cycle with ##a## are disjoint, since if they weren't ##x^ia = x^jb## such that ##i,j\in [0,n)##, and so ##b = x^{j-i}a \implies b\in \langle x \rangle a##, which is a contradiction.

So, every cycle in the cycle decomposition must have n elements and must be disjoint with all other cycles. We also noted that ##\sigma_x## must map all elements, so there must be ##m## n-cycles for this to be the case, since ##|G| = mn## QED

Is this proof correct? I feel like in parts I am hand-wavy, but I don't see how else to argue it.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Mr Davis 97 said:
Now, suppose that ##a \in G##. Then the cycle that contains ##a## must be ##(1,a,xa,x^2a,\dots, x^{n-1}a)##.
Which cycle? You don't have any at the start, except that you wrote ##\sigma_x=c_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot c_k## and then show ##k=m## and ##\operatorname{ord}c_i=n##, but you haven't. I don't really understand your notation. ##\langle x \rangle## usually denotes the subgroup generated by ##x##, orbits are written ##G.x =\{\,g.x\,|\,g\in G\,\}## and the stabilizer ##G_x=\{\,g\in G\,|\,x.g=g\,\}##.

I would say you have:
"The orbit of ##a## is ##\langle x \rangle.a = \{\,a,xa,\ldots,x^{n-1}a\,\}##".
How do you get the ##1## into the orbit? I would try to prove it with the orbit-stabilizer theorem, but I haven't checked. The other idea is the one above. I'm a little bit confused, as I don't see which way you followed.
 
Last edited:
fresh_42 said:
Which cycle? You don't have any at the start, except that you wrote ##\sigma_x=c_1 \cdot \ldots \cdot c_k## and then show ##k=m## and ##\operatorname{ord}c_i=n##, but you haven't. I don't really understand your notation. ##\langle x \rangle## usually denotes the subgroup generated by ##x##, orbits are written ##G.x =\{\,g.x\,|\,g\in G\,\}## and the stabilizer ##G_x=\{\,g\in G\,|\,x.g=g\,\}##.

I would say you have:
"The orbit of ##a## is ##\langle x \rangle.a = \{\,a,xa,\ldots,x^{n-1}a\,\}##".
How do you get the ##1## into the orbit? I would try to prove it with the orbit-stabilizer theorem, but I haven't checked. The other idea is the one above. I'm a little bit confused, as I don't see which way you followed.
Never mind the ##1##, that shouldn't be included in any cycle other than ##(1,x,x^2,\dots, x^{n-1})##. Other than that mistake does the proof look correct?
 
Your proof is correct.

I found some minor issues while "completing" it:
1.) We assume ##n>1## to conclude ##x\neq 1##. The case ##n=1## is trivial, as it implied ##\sigma_x = 1## and ##\sigma_x=\Pi_{g\in G}(g)##, but for sake of completeness, it should be mentioned.
2.) To name the decomposition would be helpful, say ##\sigma_x = c_1\cdot \ldots \cdot c_k##. (I think this is formally needed, see below.)
3,) You didn't mention the case ##b \in \langle x \rangle .a \Longrightarrow \langle x \rangle .b = \langle x \rangle .a##
4.) What you actually have shown is
$$
G = \dot{\bigcup}_{g \in I} \langle x \rangle.g \,\text{ for some set }\, I\subseteq G \text{ and } |\langle x \rangle .a|=n
$$
Since ##|G|=n\cdot m = n \cdot |I|## we have ##|I|=m##.
5.) Now what I formally would add is, that all orbits ##\langle x \rangle .a## are identical to the cycles ##c_i\,##, either at the beginning or at last. It is a simple line: For any ##a\in G## there is a cycle ##c_i## with ##a \in c_i## by the first part of your proof, say ##a=c_{ij}##. Then ##\sigma_x(c_{ij})=c_{ij+1}=x.c_{ij}=x.a## and thus ##\langle x \rangle.a =c_i\; , \;k=|I|=m## and ##c_i \cap c_j = \emptyset ## for ##i \neq j\,.##

Sorry, if this is nitpicking, I just wrote what I added to your proof, so that me could (lazily) read it in one piece.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Mr Davis 97
Mr Davis 97 said:
\implies x=1##, which clearly is a contradiction.

What is the contradiction? Are you adding the hypothesis that ##n > 1## ?

Edit: Never mind. That's already been discussed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K