I When is D_{n} abelian? What's wrong with the proof?

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter AdamsJoK
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
AdamsJoK
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I agree that this could have been done more simply(i'm not looking for an alternative proof), but I don't understand how it is wrong, any insight?

Since Dn is an dihedral group, we know its elements are symmetries, Dn = (R1,R2,R3...Ri) and since R is a symmetry, we know it's a permutation, so, each Ri can be written as a product of disjoint cycles (w1,w2...wk), now since each element in w represents the vertices's of Dn, which has n vertices's, it follows that w has a total length of n, therefore by problem 4,which states, two non equal cycles of length 2 commute if and only if they are disjoint and also that this isn't the case when the length is larger than 2, we know that Dn is commutative when n <= 2 and therefore abelian when n <= 2.

I'm not sure if this site has latex, thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AdamsJoK said:
... two non equal cycles of length 2 commute if and only if they are disjoint ...
So far so good.
... and also that this isn't the case when the length is larger than 2 ...
What do you mean by this? Why shouldn't, e.g. ##(1,2,3)(4,5,6,7)(8,9,10,11,12)## don't be commutative?

The dihedral groups contain rotations and reflections. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to use the reflections as an argument, or if you will two-cycles?
 
##e,\ (ab),\ (cd)## and ##(ab)(cd)## gives an Abelian group that contains two-cycles from more than two elements and that are disjoint.
 
Back
Top