Cauchy's Theorem for Abelian GroupsThe existence of a subgroup of an abelian and finite group $G$An attempted proof of Cauchy's theorem for abelian groups using composition series.What is the difference between Cauchy's Theorem and Cauchy's Theorem for Abelian Groups?Subgroups of Abelian Groups, Theorem of Finite Abelian GroupsLet $G$ be a finite abelian group and let $p$ be a prime that divides order of $G$. then $G$ has an element of order $p$every Abelian group is a converse lagrange theorem groupThe proof of Cauchy's theorem for abelian groupsSame order groupsIn this case, why must $p$ divide $|G/N|$?Proof of Cauchy's Theorem for abelian groupsClarification of Proof of Cauchy's theorem for abelian groupsProof of Cauchy's theorem for finite groups in Dummit and FooteAn attempted proof of Cauchy's theorem for abelian groups using composition series.
Is "plugging out" electronic devices an American expression?
Symmetry in quantum mechanics
What are the advantages and disadvantages of running one shots compared to campaigns?
What do you call something that goes against the spirit of the law, but is legal when interpreting the law to the letter?
Re-submission of rejected manuscript without informing co-authors
Doomsday-clock for my fantasy planet
Can a planet have a different gravitational pull depending on its location in orbit around its sun?
How to answer pointed "are you quitting" questioning when I don't want them to suspect
What to wear for invited talk in Canada
Manga about a female worker who got dragged into another world together with this high school girl and she was just told she's not needed anymore
COUNT(*) or MAX(id) - which is faster?
I see my dog run
What is the command to reset a PC without deleting any files
Is it wise to focus on putting odd beats on left when playing double bass drums?
Does bootstrapped regression allow for inference?
Is there a way to make member function NOT callable from constructor?
What is GPS' 19 year rollover and does it present a cybersecurity issue?
Is there a familial term for apples and pears?
How to deal with fear of taking dependencies
Is domain driven design an anti-SQL pattern?
Is there a name of the flying bionic bird?
map list to bin numbers
Is ipsum/ipsa/ipse a third person pronoun, or can it serve other functions?
Domain expired, GoDaddy holds it and is asking more money
Cauchy's Theorem for Abelian Groups
The existence of a subgroup of an abelian and finite group $G$An attempted proof of Cauchy's theorem for abelian groups using composition series.What is the difference between Cauchy's Theorem and Cauchy's Theorem for Abelian Groups?Subgroups of Abelian Groups, Theorem of Finite Abelian GroupsLet $G$ be a finite abelian group and let $p$ be a prime that divides order of $G$. then $G$ has an element of order $p$every Abelian group is a converse lagrange theorem groupThe proof of Cauchy's theorem for abelian groupsSame order groupsIn this case, why must $p$ divide $|G/N|$?Proof of Cauchy's Theorem for abelian groupsClarification of Proof of Cauchy's theorem for abelian groupsProof of Cauchy's theorem for finite groups in Dummit and FooteAn attempted proof of Cauchy's theorem for abelian groups using composition series.
$begingroup$
I am trying to verify the following proposition:
Let $G$ be a finite Abelian group and let $p$ be a prime that divides the
order of $G$. Then $G$ has an element of order $p$.
My proof:
By Lagrange's theorem: $x^G=e$. By assumption we have $kp=|G|$ for some prime $p$. So $e=x^G=x^kp$. Thus $|x^k|=p$. $blacksquare$
The book's proof uses induction and cosets -- is this necessary?
For reference, here's the book proof:
Clearly, this statement is true for the case in which $G$ has order 2.
We prove the theorem by using the Second Principle of Mathematical Induction on $|G|$. That is, we assume that the statement is true for all Abelian groups with fewer elements than G and use this assumption to show that the statement is true for G as well. Certainly, G has elements of prime order, for if $|x| = m$ and $m = qn$, where $q$ is prime, then $|x^n| = q$. So let $x$ be an element of $G$ of some prime order $q$, say. If $q=p$, we are finished; so assume that $q neq p$. Since every subgroup of an Abelian group is normal, we may construct the factor group $barG = G/langle xrangle$. Then $barG$ is Abelian and $p$ divides $|G|$, since $|barG| = |G|/q$. By induction, then, $G$ has an element — call it $ylangle xrangle$ — of order $p$. Then, $(ylangle xrangle)^p = y^plangle xrangle = langle xrangle$ and therefore $y^p in langle xrangle$. If $y^p = e$, we are done. If not, then $y^p$ has order $q$ and $y^q$ has order $p$. $blacksquare$
group-theory proof-verification finite-groups
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am trying to verify the following proposition:
Let $G$ be a finite Abelian group and let $p$ be a prime that divides the
order of $G$. Then $G$ has an element of order $p$.
My proof:
By Lagrange's theorem: $x^G=e$. By assumption we have $kp=|G|$ for some prime $p$. So $e=x^G=x^kp$. Thus $|x^k|=p$. $blacksquare$
The book's proof uses induction and cosets -- is this necessary?
For reference, here's the book proof:
Clearly, this statement is true for the case in which $G$ has order 2.
We prove the theorem by using the Second Principle of Mathematical Induction on $|G|$. That is, we assume that the statement is true for all Abelian groups with fewer elements than G and use this assumption to show that the statement is true for G as well. Certainly, G has elements of prime order, for if $|x| = m$ and $m = qn$, where $q$ is prime, then $|x^n| = q$. So let $x$ be an element of $G$ of some prime order $q$, say. If $q=p$, we are finished; so assume that $q neq p$. Since every subgroup of an Abelian group is normal, we may construct the factor group $barG = G/langle xrangle$. Then $barG$ is Abelian and $p$ divides $|G|$, since $|barG| = |G|/q$. By induction, then, $G$ has an element — call it $ylangle xrangle$ — of order $p$. Then, $(ylangle xrangle)^p = y^plangle xrangle = langle xrangle$ and therefore $y^p in langle xrangle$. If $y^p = e$, we are done. If not, then $y^p$ has order $q$ and $y^q$ has order $p$. $blacksquare$
group-theory proof-verification finite-groups
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
Google "McKay's Proof of Cauchy Theorem". Increidibly simple, short and elegant, and you don't need to do the abelian and the non-abelian cases separately.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Nov 29 '17 at 23:17
$begingroup$
But your "proof" does not seem to use the fact that $p$ is a prime number? So if your proof were correct, we would have shown that for any divisor $d$ of the group order, there exists an element of order $d$ (in the group). But that is false (do you know a counterexample?). So any valid proof must use in some way the fact that the divisor considered is prime.
$endgroup$
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Nov 30 '17 at 13:09
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am trying to verify the following proposition:
Let $G$ be a finite Abelian group and let $p$ be a prime that divides the
order of $G$. Then $G$ has an element of order $p$.
My proof:
By Lagrange's theorem: $x^G=e$. By assumption we have $kp=|G|$ for some prime $p$. So $e=x^G=x^kp$. Thus $|x^k|=p$. $blacksquare$
The book's proof uses induction and cosets -- is this necessary?
For reference, here's the book proof:
Clearly, this statement is true for the case in which $G$ has order 2.
We prove the theorem by using the Second Principle of Mathematical Induction on $|G|$. That is, we assume that the statement is true for all Abelian groups with fewer elements than G and use this assumption to show that the statement is true for G as well. Certainly, G has elements of prime order, for if $|x| = m$ and $m = qn$, where $q$ is prime, then $|x^n| = q$. So let $x$ be an element of $G$ of some prime order $q$, say. If $q=p$, we are finished; so assume that $q neq p$. Since every subgroup of an Abelian group is normal, we may construct the factor group $barG = G/langle xrangle$. Then $barG$ is Abelian and $p$ divides $|G|$, since $|barG| = |G|/q$. By induction, then, $G$ has an element — call it $ylangle xrangle$ — of order $p$. Then, $(ylangle xrangle)^p = y^plangle xrangle = langle xrangle$ and therefore $y^p in langle xrangle$. If $y^p = e$, we are done. If not, then $y^p$ has order $q$ and $y^q$ has order $p$. $blacksquare$
group-theory proof-verification finite-groups
$endgroup$
I am trying to verify the following proposition:
Let $G$ be a finite Abelian group and let $p$ be a prime that divides the
order of $G$. Then $G$ has an element of order $p$.
My proof:
By Lagrange's theorem: $x^G=e$. By assumption we have $kp=|G|$ for some prime $p$. So $e=x^G=x^kp$. Thus $|x^k|=p$. $blacksquare$
The book's proof uses induction and cosets -- is this necessary?
For reference, here's the book proof:
Clearly, this statement is true for the case in which $G$ has order 2.
We prove the theorem by using the Second Principle of Mathematical Induction on $|G|$. That is, we assume that the statement is true for all Abelian groups with fewer elements than G and use this assumption to show that the statement is true for G as well. Certainly, G has elements of prime order, for if $|x| = m$ and $m = qn$, where $q$ is prime, then $|x^n| = q$. So let $x$ be an element of $G$ of some prime order $q$, say. If $q=p$, we are finished; so assume that $q neq p$. Since every subgroup of an Abelian group is normal, we may construct the factor group $barG = G/langle xrangle$. Then $barG$ is Abelian and $p$ divides $|G|$, since $|barG| = |G|/q$. By induction, then, $G$ has an element — call it $ylangle xrangle$ — of order $p$. Then, $(ylangle xrangle)^p = y^plangle xrangle = langle xrangle$ and therefore $y^p in langle xrangle$. If $y^p = e$, we are done. If not, then $y^p$ has order $q$ and $y^q$ has order $p$. $blacksquare$
group-theory proof-verification finite-groups
group-theory proof-verification finite-groups
edited Nov 29 '17 at 23:24
José Carlos Santos
173k23133241
173k23133241
asked Nov 29 '17 at 23:10
yoshiyoshi
1,256917
1,256917
4
$begingroup$
Google "McKay's Proof of Cauchy Theorem". Increidibly simple, short and elegant, and you don't need to do the abelian and the non-abelian cases separately.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Nov 29 '17 at 23:17
$begingroup$
But your "proof" does not seem to use the fact that $p$ is a prime number? So if your proof were correct, we would have shown that for any divisor $d$ of the group order, there exists an element of order $d$ (in the group). But that is false (do you know a counterexample?). So any valid proof must use in some way the fact that the divisor considered is prime.
$endgroup$
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Nov 30 '17 at 13:09
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
Google "McKay's Proof of Cauchy Theorem". Increidibly simple, short and elegant, and you don't need to do the abelian and the non-abelian cases separately.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Nov 29 '17 at 23:17
$begingroup$
But your "proof" does not seem to use the fact that $p$ is a prime number? So if your proof were correct, we would have shown that for any divisor $d$ of the group order, there exists an element of order $d$ (in the group). But that is false (do you know a counterexample?). So any valid proof must use in some way the fact that the divisor considered is prime.
$endgroup$
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Nov 30 '17 at 13:09
4
4
$begingroup$
Google "McKay's Proof of Cauchy Theorem". Increidibly simple, short and elegant, and you don't need to do the abelian and the non-abelian cases separately.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Nov 29 '17 at 23:17
$begingroup$
Google "McKay's Proof of Cauchy Theorem". Increidibly simple, short and elegant, and you don't need to do the abelian and the non-abelian cases separately.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Nov 29 '17 at 23:17
$begingroup$
But your "proof" does not seem to use the fact that $p$ is a prime number? So if your proof were correct, we would have shown that for any divisor $d$ of the group order, there exists an element of order $d$ (in the group). But that is false (do you know a counterexample?). So any valid proof must use in some way the fact that the divisor considered is prime.
$endgroup$
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Nov 30 '17 at 13:09
$begingroup$
But your "proof" does not seem to use the fact that $p$ is a prime number? So if your proof were correct, we would have shown that for any divisor $d$ of the group order, there exists an element of order $d$ (in the group). But that is false (do you know a counterexample?). So any valid proof must use in some way the fact that the divisor considered is prime.
$endgroup$
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Nov 30 '17 at 13:09
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Your proof is incorrect. You know that $(x^k)^p=e$ (for any $xin G$), but this does not necessarily mean $x^k$ has order $p$. All it tells you is that the order of $x^k$ divides $p$, so it is either $1$ or $p$.
In fact, your approach cannot work without some major modification. It is possible that $x^k=e$ for all $xin G$, so there is no element of the form $x^k$ which has order $p$. For instance, if $G=(mathbbZ/pmathbbZ)^2$, then $|G|=p^2$ so $k=p$, but $x^p=e$ for all $xin G$.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
(+1) Your answer is better than mine, since you explain why that proof could not work.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 30 '17 at 9:51
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From $x^kp=e$, what you can deduce is that $(x^k)^p=e$, and therefore, that $|x^k|$ divides $p$; that is, that it is equal to $p$ or equal to $1$ (that is, $x^k=e$). How do you know that it is equal to $p$?
And where did you use that $G$ is Abelian?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is a simple proof due to Frobenius, I believe.
Let $x_1, x_2, ..., x_n$ be the elements of the group $G$. Let $r_i$ be the order of the element $x_i$. Furthermore, let $$Z = big( mathbbZ / r_1 mathbbZ, + big) times big( mathbbZ / r_2 mathbbZ, + big) times ldots times big( mathbbZ / r_n mathbbZ, + big)$$
Now define a map $varphi$ from $Z$ into $G$ by $varphi(k_1, k_2, ldots, k_n) = x_1^k_1 x_2^k_2 dots x_n^k_n$. As $G$ is abelian it is easy to see that $varphi$ is a homomorphism. Moreover $varphi$ is surjective as $varphi(0,0, ldots, 1, ldots, 0) = x_i$. If $K = ker varphi$, then $Z/K cong G$ and therefore $|Z| = |K| cdot |G|$. Since $p$ divides $|G|$, it follows that $p$ divides $|Z|$. But $|Z| = r_1 times r_2 ldots r_n$. Hence one of the $r_i$ is divisible by $p$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2543677%2fcauchys-theorem-for-abelian-groups%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Your proof is incorrect. You know that $(x^k)^p=e$ (for any $xin G$), but this does not necessarily mean $x^k$ has order $p$. All it tells you is that the order of $x^k$ divides $p$, so it is either $1$ or $p$.
In fact, your approach cannot work without some major modification. It is possible that $x^k=e$ for all $xin G$, so there is no element of the form $x^k$ which has order $p$. For instance, if $G=(mathbbZ/pmathbbZ)^2$, then $|G|=p^2$ so $k=p$, but $x^p=e$ for all $xin G$.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
(+1) Your answer is better than mine, since you explain why that proof could not work.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 30 '17 at 9:51
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your proof is incorrect. You know that $(x^k)^p=e$ (for any $xin G$), but this does not necessarily mean $x^k$ has order $p$. All it tells you is that the order of $x^k$ divides $p$, so it is either $1$ or $p$.
In fact, your approach cannot work without some major modification. It is possible that $x^k=e$ for all $xin G$, so there is no element of the form $x^k$ which has order $p$. For instance, if $G=(mathbbZ/pmathbbZ)^2$, then $|G|=p^2$ so $k=p$, but $x^p=e$ for all $xin G$.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
(+1) Your answer is better than mine, since you explain why that proof could not work.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 30 '17 at 9:51
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Your proof is incorrect. You know that $(x^k)^p=e$ (for any $xin G$), but this does not necessarily mean $x^k$ has order $p$. All it tells you is that the order of $x^k$ divides $p$, so it is either $1$ or $p$.
In fact, your approach cannot work without some major modification. It is possible that $x^k=e$ for all $xin G$, so there is no element of the form $x^k$ which has order $p$. For instance, if $G=(mathbbZ/pmathbbZ)^2$, then $|G|=p^2$ so $k=p$, but $x^p=e$ for all $xin G$.
$endgroup$
Your proof is incorrect. You know that $(x^k)^p=e$ (for any $xin G$), but this does not necessarily mean $x^k$ has order $p$. All it tells you is that the order of $x^k$ divides $p$, so it is either $1$ or $p$.
In fact, your approach cannot work without some major modification. It is possible that $x^k=e$ for all $xin G$, so there is no element of the form $x^k$ which has order $p$. For instance, if $G=(mathbbZ/pmathbbZ)^2$, then $|G|=p^2$ so $k=p$, but $x^p=e$ for all $xin G$.
answered Nov 29 '17 at 23:14
Eric WofseyEric Wofsey
192k14220352
192k14220352
1
$begingroup$
(+1) Your answer is better than mine, since you explain why that proof could not work.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 30 '17 at 9:51
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
(+1) Your answer is better than mine, since you explain why that proof could not work.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 30 '17 at 9:51
1
1
$begingroup$
(+1) Your answer is better than mine, since you explain why that proof could not work.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 30 '17 at 9:51
$begingroup$
(+1) Your answer is better than mine, since you explain why that proof could not work.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Nov 30 '17 at 9:51
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From $x^kp=e$, what you can deduce is that $(x^k)^p=e$, and therefore, that $|x^k|$ divides $p$; that is, that it is equal to $p$ or equal to $1$ (that is, $x^k=e$). How do you know that it is equal to $p$?
And where did you use that $G$ is Abelian?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From $x^kp=e$, what you can deduce is that $(x^k)^p=e$, and therefore, that $|x^k|$ divides $p$; that is, that it is equal to $p$ or equal to $1$ (that is, $x^k=e$). How do you know that it is equal to $p$?
And where did you use that $G$ is Abelian?
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
From $x^kp=e$, what you can deduce is that $(x^k)^p=e$, and therefore, that $|x^k|$ divides $p$; that is, that it is equal to $p$ or equal to $1$ (that is, $x^k=e$). How do you know that it is equal to $p$?
And where did you use that $G$ is Abelian?
$endgroup$
From $x^kp=e$, what you can deduce is that $(x^k)^p=e$, and therefore, that $|x^k|$ divides $p$; that is, that it is equal to $p$ or equal to $1$ (that is, $x^k=e$). How do you know that it is equal to $p$?
And where did you use that $G$ is Abelian?
edited Nov 30 '17 at 6:57
answered Nov 29 '17 at 23:15
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
173k23133241
173k23133241
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is a simple proof due to Frobenius, I believe.
Let $x_1, x_2, ..., x_n$ be the elements of the group $G$. Let $r_i$ be the order of the element $x_i$. Furthermore, let $$Z = big( mathbbZ / r_1 mathbbZ, + big) times big( mathbbZ / r_2 mathbbZ, + big) times ldots times big( mathbbZ / r_n mathbbZ, + big)$$
Now define a map $varphi$ from $Z$ into $G$ by $varphi(k_1, k_2, ldots, k_n) = x_1^k_1 x_2^k_2 dots x_n^k_n$. As $G$ is abelian it is easy to see that $varphi$ is a homomorphism. Moreover $varphi$ is surjective as $varphi(0,0, ldots, 1, ldots, 0) = x_i$. If $K = ker varphi$, then $Z/K cong G$ and therefore $|Z| = |K| cdot |G|$. Since $p$ divides $|G|$, it follows that $p$ divides $|Z|$. But $|Z| = r_1 times r_2 ldots r_n$. Hence one of the $r_i$ is divisible by $p$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is a simple proof due to Frobenius, I believe.
Let $x_1, x_2, ..., x_n$ be the elements of the group $G$. Let $r_i$ be the order of the element $x_i$. Furthermore, let $$Z = big( mathbbZ / r_1 mathbbZ, + big) times big( mathbbZ / r_2 mathbbZ, + big) times ldots times big( mathbbZ / r_n mathbbZ, + big)$$
Now define a map $varphi$ from $Z$ into $G$ by $varphi(k_1, k_2, ldots, k_n) = x_1^k_1 x_2^k_2 dots x_n^k_n$. As $G$ is abelian it is easy to see that $varphi$ is a homomorphism. Moreover $varphi$ is surjective as $varphi(0,0, ldots, 1, ldots, 0) = x_i$. If $K = ker varphi$, then $Z/K cong G$ and therefore $|Z| = |K| cdot |G|$. Since $p$ divides $|G|$, it follows that $p$ divides $|Z|$. But $|Z| = r_1 times r_2 ldots r_n$. Hence one of the $r_i$ is divisible by $p$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is a simple proof due to Frobenius, I believe.
Let $x_1, x_2, ..., x_n$ be the elements of the group $G$. Let $r_i$ be the order of the element $x_i$. Furthermore, let $$Z = big( mathbbZ / r_1 mathbbZ, + big) times big( mathbbZ / r_2 mathbbZ, + big) times ldots times big( mathbbZ / r_n mathbbZ, + big)$$
Now define a map $varphi$ from $Z$ into $G$ by $varphi(k_1, k_2, ldots, k_n) = x_1^k_1 x_2^k_2 dots x_n^k_n$. As $G$ is abelian it is easy to see that $varphi$ is a homomorphism. Moreover $varphi$ is surjective as $varphi(0,0, ldots, 1, ldots, 0) = x_i$. If $K = ker varphi$, then $Z/K cong G$ and therefore $|Z| = |K| cdot |G|$. Since $p$ divides $|G|$, it follows that $p$ divides $|Z|$. But $|Z| = r_1 times r_2 ldots r_n$. Hence one of the $r_i$ is divisible by $p$.
$endgroup$
Here is a simple proof due to Frobenius, I believe.
Let $x_1, x_2, ..., x_n$ be the elements of the group $G$. Let $r_i$ be the order of the element $x_i$. Furthermore, let $$Z = big( mathbbZ / r_1 mathbbZ, + big) times big( mathbbZ / r_2 mathbbZ, + big) times ldots times big( mathbbZ / r_n mathbbZ, + big)$$
Now define a map $varphi$ from $Z$ into $G$ by $varphi(k_1, k_2, ldots, k_n) = x_1^k_1 x_2^k_2 dots x_n^k_n$. As $G$ is abelian it is easy to see that $varphi$ is a homomorphism. Moreover $varphi$ is surjective as $varphi(0,0, ldots, 1, ldots, 0) = x_i$. If $K = ker varphi$, then $Z/K cong G$ and therefore $|Z| = |K| cdot |G|$. Since $p$ divides $|G|$, it follows that $p$ divides $|Z|$. But $|Z| = r_1 times r_2 ldots r_n$. Hence one of the $r_i$ is divisible by $p$.
answered Nov 30 '17 at 8:27
Group NutGroup Nut
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2543677%2fcauchys-theorem-for-abelian-groups%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
$begingroup$
Google "McKay's Proof of Cauchy Theorem". Increidibly simple, short and elegant, and you don't need to do the abelian and the non-abelian cases separately.
$endgroup$
– DonAntonio
Nov 29 '17 at 23:17
$begingroup$
But your "proof" does not seem to use the fact that $p$ is a prime number? So if your proof were correct, we would have shown that for any divisor $d$ of the group order, there exists an element of order $d$ (in the group). But that is false (do you know a counterexample?). So any valid proof must use in some way the fact that the divisor considered is prime.
$endgroup$
– Jeppe Stig Nielsen
Nov 30 '17 at 13:09