111

In Grove's book Algebra, Proposition 3.7 at page 94 is the following

If $G$ is a finite subgroup of the multiplicative group $F^*$ of a field $F$, then $G$ is cyclic.

He starts the proof by saying "Since $G$ is the direct product of its Sylow subgroups ...". But this is only true if the Sylow subgroups of $G$ are all normal. How do we know this?

Jyrki Lahtonen
  • 133,153
QETU
  • 1,119

6 Answers6

149

There's a simple proof which doesn't use Sylow's theory.

Lemma. Let $G$ a finite group with $n$ elements. If for every $d \mid n$, $\# \{x \in G \mid x^d = 1 \} \leq d$, then $G$ is cyclic.

If $G$ is a finite subgroup of the multiplicative group of a field, then $G$ satisfies the hypothesis because the polynomial $x^d - 1$ has $d$ roots at most.

Proof. Fix $d \mid n$ and consider the set $G_d$ made up of elements of $G$ with order $d$. Suppose that $G_d \neq \varnothing$, so there exists $y \in G_d$; it is clear that $\langle y \rangle \subseteq \{ x \in G \mid x^d = 1 \}$. But the subgroup $\langle y \rangle$ has cardinality $d$, so from the hypothesis we have that $\langle y \rangle = \{ x \in G \mid x^d = 1 \}$. Therefore $G_d$ is the set of generators of the cyclic group $\langle y \rangle$ of order $d$, so $\# G_d = \phi(d)$.

We have proved that $G_d$ is empty or has cardinality $\phi(d)$, for every $d \mid n$. So we have:

$$\begin{align} n &= \# G\\ & = \sum_{d \mid n} \# G_d \\ &\leq \sum_{d \mid n} \phi(d) \\ &= n. \end{align}$$

Therefore $\# G_d = \phi(d)$ for every $d \vert n$. In particular $G_n \neq \varnothing$. This proves that $G$ is cyclic. QED

Andrea
  • 7,606
  • 22
    Very nice proof. It may be noted that the last equality $\sum_{d|n}\phi(d)=n$ is derived from the very same argument applied when $G$ is the cyclic group of order$~n$, using the additional knowledge that in this case elements of every order $d|n$ do exist. In other words no knowledge at all about the values $\phi(d)$, apart from the fact that the are well defined, is used. – Marc van Leeuwen Apr 28 '13 at 05:24
  • @MarcvanLeeuwen, what are the $\phi(n)$? – Juan Pablo Jul 12 '13 at 21:27
  • 4
    @JuanPablo: That's Euler's totient function, the number of non-negative integers${}<n$ that are relatively prime to$~n$. – Marc van Leeuwen Jul 12 '13 at 22:06
  • @Andrea or whoever can answer, can you explain what the # notation means, please? –  Sep 27 '18 at 01:47
  • @ALannister It simply means the cardinality of the following finite set (the # notation is typically only used when talking about finite sets, so "cardinality" here means "number of elements"). – Nubok Oct 28 '18 at 00:04
  • How do we get the inequality less than or equal to after “so we have”? @andrea – abeliangrape Jan 01 '22 at 01:18
  • 3
    @abeliangrape - That is obvious. Either $#G_d=0$ or $#G_d=\phi(d)$; in either case, $#G_d\leq\phi(d)$. – mr_e_man Jan 21 '22 at 04:41
  • Why does $\langle y\rangle$ have cardinality $d$? – Koro Feb 27 '23 at 22:00
  • 2
    @Koro by easy consequences of the definition of order, since $y$ has order $d$, $1, y, y^2, ..., y^{d-1}$ are all distinct elements in $G$, and they are the elements of the group generated by $y$, $\langle y\rangle$ – Fra Feb 28 '23 at 13:11
  • 2
    @Fra: Yes. I had misunderstood the definition of $G_d$. Since y is in $G_d$, it is of order $d$, hence the cardinality of $\langle y\rangle$ is $d$. Thanks. – Koro Feb 28 '23 at 15:07
71

We know that if $G$ is a finite abelian group, $G$ is isomorphic to a direct product $\mathbb{Z}_{(p_1)^{n_1}} \times \mathbb{Z}_{(p_2)^{n_2}} \times \cdots \times \mathbb{Z}_{(p_r)^{n_r}}$ where $p_i$'s are prime not necessarily distinct.

Consider each of the $\mathbb{Z}_{(p_i)^{n_i}}$ as a cyclic group of order $p_i^{n_i}$ in multiplicative notation. Let $m$ be the $lcm$ of all the $p_i^{n_i}$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,r.$ Clearly $m\leq {p_1}^{n_1}{p_2}^{n_2}\cdots{p_r}^{n_r}.$ If $a_i \in \mathbb{Z}_{(p_i)^{n_i}}$ then $(a_i)^{({p_i}^{n_i})}=1$ and hence $a_i^m=1.$ Therefore for all $\alpha \in G,$ we have $\alpha^m=1;$ that is, every element of $G$ is a root of $x^m=1.$

However, $G$ has ${p_1}^{n_1}{p_2}^{n_2}\cdots{p_r}^{n_r}$ elements, while the polynomial $x^m-1$ can have at most $m$ roots in $F.$ So, we deduce that $m={p_1}^{n_1}{p_2}^{n_2}\cdots{p_r}^{n_r}.$ Therefore $p_i$'s are distinct primes, and the group $G$ is isomorphic to the cyclic group $\mathbb{Z}_m.$

J. W. Tanner
  • 60,406
faith
  • 1,006
  • In the second paragraph third sentence: It is not true that if $a_i \in \mathbb{Z}{(p_i)^{n_i}}$, then $(a_i)^{({p_i}^{n_i})}=1$. Take $2 \in \mathbb{Z}{3^2}=\mathbb{Z}_9$. We have $2^9 =512 \equiv 8 \pmod 9$. – user5826 Nov 19 '18 at 16:12
  • 6
    @AlJebr I don't know if I understand this correctly, but $2^9$ should be supposed to mean $2+2+2+\dots+2$ for 9 times ? So the result is clearly divisible by 9. – hephaes Dec 07 '18 at 08:12
  • As, @user5826 pointed out , there is a glitch in the proof . But that can be rectified . Observe that , order of every element in G , devides m , so they are roots of the equation $ x^m-1$ Now how many roots can , $x^m-1$ , can have ? Because F is a field , it will have exactly m roots and number of distinct roots $ \le m$ . Number of elements in G is , $p_{1}^{a_{1}}...p_{k}^{a_{k}}$ . So , $p_{1}^{a_{1}}....p_{k}^{a_{k}})\le m$ . We previously saw the reverse inequality, thus , $p_{1}^{a_{1}}...p_{k}^{a_{k}}= m$ . m being l.c.m , no two $p_{i}$'s can be equal . So , gcd of any pair is 1. – R29nb2xlIFBp Feb 13 '24 at 05:27
  • Excuse , the glitches above ( the 5-min editing time frame passed before noticing much !!!) . – R29nb2xlIFBp Feb 13 '24 at 05:35
28

Note that this result is not true if $F$ is a skew field (division ring), as is illustrated by the quaternion group $Q_8$ inside the quaternions. So one must use commutativity somewhere, and this usually happens implicitly by using that the polynomial $X^d-1$ can have at most $d$ roots in $F$; this is for instance the case in the answer by Andrea, where the proof of the lemma does not use commutativity. Here is a somewhat different approach that exploits commutativity a second time.

Lemma. The set of orders of elements in a finite Abelian group is closed under taking least common multiples.

(Edit: This happens to be the subject of another math.SE question. It may seem quite hard, unless one realises that in Abelian torsion groups, different prime factors can be considered independently due to a canonical direct sum decomposition, after which the question becomes trivial. Here I'll leave my original proof below, which follows another answer to that question.)

Proof. The set of orders (in any group) is certainly closed under taking divisors: if $x$ has order $n$ and $d\mid n$ then $x^{n/d}$ has order $d$. Now if $a,b$ are orders of elements in an Abelian group and $\def\lcm{\operatorname{lcm}}m=\lcm(a,b)$, then there are relatively prime $a',b'$ with $a'\mid a$, $b'\mid b$, and $a'b'=m$: it suffices to retain in $a'$ those and only those prime factors of $a$ whose multiplicity in $a$ is at least as great as in $b$, and to retain in $b'$ all other prime factors of $b$ (those whose multiplicity exceeds those in $a$). Now if $x$ has order $a'$ and $y$ has order $b'$, then these orders are relatively prime, whence $\langle x\rangle\cap\langle y\rangle=\{e\}$, and their product is$~m$ so that $$ x^iy^i =e\iff x^i=e=y^i\iff (\lcm(a',b')=a'b'=)\; m\mid i, $$ and therefore $xy$ has order $m$. QED

Now to prove the proposition, let $n=\#G$, and let $m$ be the least common multiple of all the orders of elements of $G$. By Lagrange's theorem the order of every element divides$~n$, whence $m\mid n$ by the property of least common multiples. But one also has $n\leq m$ since all $n$ elements of $G$ are roots of the polynomial $X^m-1$ in the field$~F$. Therefore $n=m$, and by the lemma (using that $G$ is commutative since $F$ is so) $G$ has an element $g$ of order $m=n=\#G$, so that $G=\langle g\rangle$ is cyclic.

0

Let's have a number-theoretic proof .

Let $o(G) = n$ .
Then , $d|n$ $\Rightarrow$ $x^{d}-1|x^{n}-1$ .
Or, $x^{n}-1=g(x).(x^{d}-1)$ , where , $g(x)$ is a polynomial of degree , $n-d$ .
Now, if $x^{d}-1$ has less than d distinct roots , F being a field,$g(x)$ can't have more than $n-d$ roots resulting less than $n$ distinct roots for $x^{n}-1$ , which is absurd as $o(G)=n$ .

Thus , $G'=(\alpha\in G : \alpha^{d}=1)$ , is a subgroup of $G$ .
Let, $\psi(d)$ be the number of elements of order d in $G'$ , then , $\sum_{c|d} \psi(d)= d$ .

By , Möbius Inversion formula ,
$\psi(d)=\sum_{c|d}\mu(c).\frac{d}{c}$.....(1) , where $\mu$ is Möbius function.

We know , $\sum_{c|d}\phi(c)=d$ . Applying , Möbius Inversion formula to it we observe , $\sum_{c|d}\mu(c).\frac{d}{c}$....(2).

Using (1) and (2) , we may conclude, $\psi(d)=\phi(d)\geq1$ .

Putting , n in place of d , the theorem is proven.

0

This is another elementary proof that uses only the fact that a polynomial of degree $n$ has at most $n$ roots in a field.

So, let $F$ be a finite field let $g$ be an element of maximal possible order $n$ in the multiplicative group $F^*=F\setminus\{0\}$ of $F$. Let $H:=\{g^k:0\le k<n\}$ be the cyclic subgroup of $F^*$, generated by the element $g$. If $H=F^*$, then the group $F^*$ is cyclic and we are done. So, assume that $H\ne F^*$. Observe that every element $x\in H$ satisfies the equation $x^n-1=0$, which has at most $n$ roots in the field $F$. Therefore, $H=\{x\in F:x^n=1\}$. Let $p$ be the smallest positive number for which there exists an element $y\in F^*\setminus H$ such that $y^p\in H$. The minimality of $p$ implies that $p$ is a prime number. Let $k\in\{0,\dots,n-1\}$ be the smallest possible number such that $y^p=g^k$ for some element $y\in F^*\setminus H$. We claim that $k<p$. Assuming that $k\ge p$, we can observe that the element $z=yg^{-1}\in F^*\setminus H$ has $z^p=(yg^{-1})^p=g^{k-p}$, which contradicts the minimality of $k$. If $k=0$, then $y^p=g^k=1$ and $y\notin H$ imply that $p$ does not divide $n$. In this case the element $yg\in F^*$ has order $pn>n$, which contradicts the maximality of $n$. This contradiction shows that $k>0$. It follows from $0<k<p$ that the element $g^k$ has order $d>\frac{n}{p}$. Then the element $y$ has order $pd>n$, which contradicts the maximality of $n$. This is a final contradiction showing that the group $F^*=H$ is cyclic.

-2

Let $G$ be a finite group with $n$ elements of a field with the field's multiplication operation. Let $d \: | \: n$ and consider the set $G_d$ containing elements of $G$ with order $d$. Suppose $G_d \neq \varnothing$, so there is $y \in G_d$.

Let's generate a cyclic group $\langle y \rangle$. From group theory, generators of $\langle y \rangle$ are elements of $\langle y \rangle$ that are relatively prime to $|\langle y \rangle| = d$. And because any other elements having orders different than $d$ could not generate $\langle y \rangle$, $G_d$ contains all elements that generate $\langle y \rangle$, so $\#G_d$ = $\phi(d)$.

($\#G_d$ is number of elements of $G_d$; $\phi$ is Euler's totient function.)

Let's partition $G$ into sets of elements with the same order. For example if $G = Z_{10}$, then it would be partitioned into sets of elements: $\{0\}$, $\{5\}$, $\{2, 4, 6, 8\}$ and $\{1, 3, 7, 9\}$ of order $1$, $2$, $5$, and $10$ respectively. By Lagrange's theorem, all elements of a group must have their orders divide the order of the group, so by partitioning G into all $d \: | \: n$, we would have the whole $G$, and having a formula as following:

$$n = |G| = \sum_{d|n} \#G_d = \sum_{d|n} \phi(d)$$

Borrowing Gauss' divisor sum we also have the following formula:

$$\sum_{d|n} \phi(d) = n$$

To recapitulate, we have shown that $\#G_d = 0$ or $\#G_d = \phi(d)$, but if $\#G_d$ could be equal to $0$, then we would have:

$$n = |G| = \sum_{d|n} \#G_d \leq \sum_{d|n} \phi(d) = n$$

which is false because we would have $|G|$ less than $n$. So $\#G_d = \phi(d)$, could not be $0$, and in particular for $d = n$ and $y_n \in G_n \neq \varnothing$, we are guaranteed to have $y_n$, so is $\langle y_n \rangle$ as well.

Then note that $\langle y_n \rangle = \{x \in G \: | \: x^n = 1\}$, and as $|\langle y_n \rangle| = n$, that is all elements of $G$ (because $G$ is already defined as a finite group with $n$ elements). This proves that $G \cong \langle y_n \rangle$ hence cyclic.