Suppose we have a finite group, $G$ with some element, $g$. Is it plausible to say that, $\forall g \in G$, there exists a cyclic subgroup, $\langle g\rangle$, of $G$?
I know, by definition, what $\langle g\rangle$ amounts to and that it's order is identical to that of the element $g$. Is this necessarily a group for any given group element? And, for example, is the group is trivially the identity, would we simply assert that $\langle g\rangle$ is $\langle e\rangle$?
It seems to me that the properties are satisfied. It's surely closed, as $g \in G$ and $G$ is closed per the definition of a group. We can make a similar argument for associativity. The identity is the element $g^0 = 1$, which is surely in this group. The only property I struggle with is inverses. Surely, if $<g>$ has order $m$, then $g^m = 1$. I believe there's a plausible proof outline I 've seen for this wherein we 'multiply' (or apply the group operation) on the left by the inverse of $g$, which exists by the definition of the subgroup (and sine $g^m = g^{m-1} g = 1$, so $g^{m-1}$ is by definition the inverse of $g$. Clearly, $m \geq 0$ as it represents a cardinality. If the subgroup is trivially the identity, then $m = 0$, so $g^{m-1} = g^{1-1} = g^0 = 1$. If the subgroup is not trivial, $m - 1 > 1$. From here, I'm a bit lost on whee to continue.
So, first, is this notion correct? Second, how do we verify that an inverse exists for each element in the subgroup?
Thanks.