2

I recently came across this reference in Wolfram Mathword regarding the modulo multiplication of cyclic groups ($M_n$)

The only ordered n for which the elements of $M_n$ are all self-conjugate are the divisors of $24: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24 (OEIS > A018253; Eggar 2000)$. These correspond to the groups$ <e>, C_2, > C_2×C_2,$ and $C_2×C_2×C_2.$ This also means that no modulo multiplication group is isomorphic to a direct product of more than three copies of $C_2$.

The Eggar (2000) result is this:

"The divisors of 24 greater than 1 are the only positive integers n with the property $m^2 = 1 (mod n)$ for all integer m coprime to n."

Q1: What does self-congancy $m^2=1$ actually mean in this context? I get the math, for example in

$$Z_{12}^* = {1,5,7,11}$$

the square of all these numbers modulo-12 is $1$, but what implications or deductions follows from this?

Q2: More specifically, how does this self-conjugancy apply to models or theories built from cyclic groups? Naively, I'm thinking that any theory that needs inverses would be restricted by this since if the generators don't invert, then not all elements in the group invert.

Q3: More specific yet (or I may just be repeating myself), how should we view the limit $C_2×C_2×C_2$ and what deductions or implications can we make from this?

Any insights welcome and thank you in advance.

  • 2
    The author of the mathworld page made a language mistake - the term is "self-inverse," not "self-conjugate." In a group, every element is conjugate to itself, but generally not every element equals its inverse. Note that $g=g^{-1}$ (the condition of being self-inverse) is equivalent to $g^2=e$ (the condition of being involutory) in any group. Also, I have no idea how to interpret the things you're saying in the bounty description. – anon Sep 15 '16 at 01:26
  • 1
    I have no idea what your Q2 or Q3 are asking either. They sound like gibberish to me. As for Q1: it's related to number theory, lattices, monstrous moonshine, modular forms, string theory, and more. See for instance this question or this note on the number 24 by Baez linked therein. – anon Sep 15 '16 at 01:36
  • For example in regards to Q2 and Q3, how can we view/interpret/use the fact that C2xC2xC2xC2 is impossible in this context? Similarly, given that M_n are also the generators for the group and that the generators of 24 is the largest group where they are "self-inverse", what consequences or limits follow? I think this result is relevant to my research, but I need to understand it in as many other contexts as possible before I'll know for sure. – Ricardo J Rademacher Sep 15 '16 at 01:57

1 Answers1

1

If the bounty description means you'd like to know why the "self-inverse" condition (or what I will call the "involutory" condition) forces $m$ to be a divisor of $24$, then that question is easy to answer.

The Chinese remainder theorem implies that if $m = p_1^{e_1} p_2^{e_2} \ldots p_k^{e_k}$ is the prime factorization of $m$, then we have a canonical ring isomorphism

$$\mathbb{Z}/(m) \cong \mathbb{Z}/(p_1^{e_1}) \times \mathbb{Z}/(p_2^{e_2}) \times \ldots \times \mathbb{Z}/(p_k^{e_k})$$

which immediately implies an isomorphism of unit groups (groups of invertible elements)

$$(\mathbb{Z}/(m))^\ast \cong (\mathbb{Z}/(p_1^{e_1}))^\ast \times (\mathbb{Z}/(p_2^{e_2}))^\ast \times \ldots \times (\mathbb{Z}/(p_k^{e_k}))^\ast.$$

So the question boils down to: when is the group $(\mathbb{Z}/(p^e))^\ast$ ($p$ a prime) isomorphic to a product of copies of $C_2$?

There is a unique ring homomorphism $\phi: \mathbb{Z}/(p^e) \to \mathbb{Z}/(p)$; this map is surjective. It is well-known that the unit group $(\mathbb{Z}/(p))^\ast$ is cyclic of order $p-1$. (In fact any finite multiplicative group in a field is cyclic.) If $x \in \mathbb{Z}/(p^e)$ is any element such that $\phi(x)$ is a generator of $(\mathbb{Z}/(p))^\ast$, then $x$ is invertible and $p-1$ divides the order of $x$ -- and therefore the order of $x$ can't be $2$ if the prime $p$ is greater than $3$. Hence the only primes that can divide $m$ under the involutory condition are $2$ and $3$.

Let's now consider the case $p = 3$; what can the exponent $e$ be? Well, $4$ is invertible modulo $3^e$, and we can't have $4^2 \equiv 1 \; \text{mod}\; 3^e$ unless $3^e$ divides $15$. So the involutory condition would force $e = 0$ or $e = 1$.

Now consider the case $p = 2$. If $e \geq 4$, then we again have a surjective map $(\mathbb{Z}/2^e)^\ast \to (\mathbb{Z}/(16))^\ast$. The element $3 + (16) \in \mathbb{Z}/(16)$ has order $4$. If $x \in \mathbb{Z}/(2^e)$ is any element mapping to $3 + (16)$, then $x$ is invertible and $4$ must divide its order. So the involutory condition rules out $e \geq 4$ in the case $p = 2$.

Thus the involutory condition forces $m = 2^{e_1} \cdot 3^{e_2}$ where $e_1 \leq 3$ and $e_2 \leq 1$, so that $m$ divides $2^3 \cdot 3^1 = 24$.

(Incidentally: you can't actually mean $m^2 = 1$ in the OP and in the bounty description; you must have meant what I wrote in the opening paragraph. And you don't mean "groups that are divisors of 24"; you must have meant groups whose orders are divisors of 24. There are other abuses of language as well.)

user43208
  • 8,289
  • " "self-conjugacy" condition (not a term I'd heard before," Self- conjugacy is wolfram alphas term. not mine "but I assume it means that all the units uu in the ring Z/(m)Z/(m) satisfy u2=1" I don't think so, no; but I am the one asking the question so I can't be trusted.

    "you can't actually mean m2=1m2=1 in the OP and in the bounty description" That is eggars (2000) nomenclature, not mine.

    – Ricardo J Rademacher Sep 14 '16 at 17:05
  • Eggar (2000)... only one page... https://1drv.ms/i/s!ApL4eAFes69nulFQumQzto6xQa-L – Ricardo J Rademacher Sep 14 '16 at 17:06
  • You need to read what Eggar wrote more carefully. In the post you are using m for the modulus, whereas he is using m to represent an (invertible) element of the finite ring of integers modulo n. (The class of m is invertible precisely when m is coprime to n.) Thus what I wrote in the opening paragraph was exactly right. But was this what you wanted: an explanation of his note? – user43208 Sep 14 '16 at 17:22
  • " you are using m for the modulus" look at Q1; I'm am not using it as modulus. I am using "m" as the generators of those groups whose square is always 1. – Ricardo J Rademacher Sep 14 '16 at 17:33
  • Look again at the Mathworld page. $M_m$ is the group of elements of $\mathbb{Z}/(m)$ that have multiplicative inverses (considered as a group under multiplication). The $m$ in the expression $\mathbb{Z}/(m)$ is what we call the "modulus". For example, take $M_6$. That $6$ is not an element of $M_6$ or anything you'd call a generator; rather, the elements $1, 5$ represent the elements of $M_6$ (and you could call $5$ a generator). – user43208 Sep 14 '16 at 17:41
  • In my Q1) example, I did not take "m" to be 12 (the modulus as you call it). I took "m" to be {1,5,7,11}, the elements of $M_12$. I don't know why you insist that I'm using "m" to be the modulus when I clearly did not do so in the example provided. – Ricardo J Rademacher Sep 14 '16 at 20:38
  • Because you have, in your post, twice referred to $M_m$, that's why. I knew what you likely meant, but you should have written $M_n$ instead, and then referred to elements $m \in M_n$ therein, such that $m^2 = 1$. Or, you could have kept $M_m$, but then refer to elements $n \in M_m$ such that $n^2 = 1$ in $M_m$. Either way. (I did the latter, except I used the letter $u$, for unit, instead of $n$.) – user43208 Sep 14 '16 at 22:22
  • I see it now. Given that it's relevant to the question, I assumed people would read the Eggar paper or at least be familiar with it and thus know which "m" is which. I'll clear that up; thanks and sorry it took so long for me to see what you meant. – Ricardo J Rademacher Sep 14 '16 at 23:44
  • Okay, good (and no problem). If there's anything in my post that you want more explanation for, let me know. – user43208 Sep 15 '16 at 00:09
  • "(In fact any finite multiplicative group in a field is cyclic" Only if the order equals the exponent though. So as I read it, we can't guarantee your procedure for all Z/m, just Z/p (where m is the order and n is the element for now) (and free free to move to discussion if you're ok with that or the system starts getting persnickety). – Ricardo J Rademacher Sep 15 '16 at 01:15
  • @Ricardo What do you mean by his/her "procedure"? user43208 never says the units of $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ are cyclic in their argument, so there is no mistake being made. Also, it is an unconditionally true fact that "any finite multiplicative group of units in a field is cyclic." – anon Sep 15 '16 at 01:31
  • "any finite multiplicative group of units in a field is cyclic." I'm sorry for being dense, I thank you for pointing out that his presentation did not rely on the cyclic nature and I'm not doubting you are correct but I'm having trouble reconciling that statement with wolframs

    "M_m is a cyclic group (which occurs exactly when m has a primitive root) iff m is of one of the forms m=2, 4, p^n, or 2p^n, where p is an odd prime and n>=1 ("

    and wikipedia

    "The group Z/m is cyclic if and only if its order is equal to its exponent. "

    – Ricardo J Rademacher Sep 15 '16 at 01:41
  • 2
    Yeah, here $p$ denotes a prime so that the ring $\mathbb{Z}/(p)$ is a field. (Primality is necessary and sufficient for that ring to be a field.) – user43208 Sep 15 '16 at 01:42
  • Got it! Thanks! I'm really interested in what this implies for other theories or how it is or can be used, so I hope Q2 and Q3 also get some attention over the next few days; thanks so much for all your help in polishing the questions and answers. – Ricardo J Rademacher Sep 15 '16 at 01:50
  • The business about when $M_m$ is cyclic is a pleasant thing to prove, but it's in a direction different from the analysis here (the present question is asking about when $M_m$ is isomorphic to a product $C_2^n$ of copies of $C_2$, and $C_2^n$ is cyclic only in the case $n = 0$ or $n = 1$; this occurs iff $m = 2, 3, 4$, and $6$ if I didn't make a mistake). – user43208 Sep 15 '16 at 01:58