16

Let $G$ be a finite group. For each positive integer $m$, if $x^{m}=e$ has at most $m$ solutions in $G$, $G$ is cyclic.

What I have thought is that $n=\sum_{d\mid n}\phi(d)$ can be used to solve this and showing that $|G|$ order element in $G$ exists is enough.

user67458
  • 832

3 Answers3

16

Yes, that is perfect. Let $|G|=n$. Note that

$$G=\bigsqcup_{d\mid n}X_d$$

where $X_d$ is the set of elements of $G$ of order $d$. Now, if we can show that our restriction requires $\#(X_d)\leqslant \phi(d)$ then the equality $\displaystyle n=\sum_{d\mid n}\phi(d)$ will actually force $\#(X_d)=\phi(d)$, for all $d\mid n$, and so, in particular $\#(X_n)>0$.

Now, suppose that there were more than $\phi(d)$ elements of $G$ of order $d$. Note then that since the cyclic group $\langle x\rangle$, for any $x\in X_d$, has exactly $\phi(d)$ elements of order $d$, there must exist another element $y\in G$ with $|y|=d$ and $y\notin \langle x\rangle$. But, Lagrange's theorem then implies that we've produced $|\langle x\rangle|+1=d+1$ solutions to $x^d=1$--contradictory to assumption.

Alex Youcis
  • 54,059
  • Does $X_{d}$ mean the set of elements of order d in G? – user67458 Mar 31 '13 at 01:53
  • @user67458 Correct, I'll fix that typo. – Alex Youcis Mar 31 '13 at 01:54
  • 3
    I don't see what Lagrange's theorem (I suppose the one in group theory) has to do with the argument at the point you mention it (it is of course used in the beginning to limit $d$ in the union giving $G$ to divisors of $n$). What you use (later) is that if $x$ has order $d$, than all elements $g$ in $\langle x\rangle$ satisfy $g^d=e$; this follows from elementary modular arithmetic. – Marc van Leeuwen May 15 '13 at 12:28
  • 2
    What is the meaning of $#$? – CS1 Dec 19 '13 at 15:31
  • 1
    @CS1 it means cardinality of a set. – nomadd Feb 07 '22 at 01:26
8

Here's a different proof that uses Sylow's theorems. Suppose that $x^m = e$ has at most $m$ solutions in $G$ for all positive integers $m$.

Then for every prime $p$ dividing $|G|$, there exists at most one Sylow $p$-subgroup. Otherwise we would find more than $p^{\alpha}$ solutions to $x^{p^{\alpha}} = e$, where $p^\alpha$ is the largest power of $p$ dividing $|G|$. The Sylow $p$-subgroup is cyclic, since $x^{p^{\alpha-1}} = e$ has less than $p^\alpha$ solutions, so there exists an element $g$ satisfying $g^{p^\alpha} = e$ and $g^{p^{\alpha-1}} \neq e$.

Because every Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$ is normal and cyclic, the group $G$ is cyclic.

There is a stronger statement due to Cohn, see the following paper (PDF link).

J. H. E. Cohn, A condition for a finite group to be cyclic, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 32, No. 1 (1972).

In this article (it is short, and the proof is simple counting argument) Cohn proves that a finite group $G$ is cyclic if for every prime power $p^k$, the equation $x^{p^k} = e$ has at most $p^{k+1} - 1$ solutions.

0

Here's a very basic counting argument. Let $|G| = n = \prod_{i=1}^k\,p_i^{q_i}$, where the $p_i$ are distinct primes and the $q_i$ are $\geq 1$. By Lagrange's Theorem, the order of each element must divide $n$. Hence, if $G$ were not cyclic, there would be no element of order $n$ and we would have $2n$ equals

\begin{align} &\sum_{0\leq l_k\leq q_k}\,\sum_{0\leq l_{k-1}\leq q_{k-1}}\,\dots\, \sum_{0\leq l_2\leq q_2}\,\sum_{0\leq l_1\leq q_1}\,\left|\left\{g\in G\,\middle |\, o(g) = \prod_{i=1}^k\,p_i^{l_i}\right\}\right| \\\leq\,\,\,& \sum_{0\leq l_k\leq q_k}\,\sum_{0\leq l_{k-1}\leq q_{k-1}}\,\dots\, \sum_{0\leq l_2\leq q_2}\,\sum_{0\leq l_1\leq q_1}\,\left|\left\{g\in G\,\middle |\, g^{\prod_{i=1}^k\,p_i^{l_i}}=e\right\}\right| \\\leq\,\,\,& \sum_{0\leq l_k\leq q_k}\,\sum_{0\leq l_{k-1}\leq q_{k-1}}\,\dots\, \sum_{0\leq l_2\leq q_2}\,\sum_{0\leq l_1\leq q_1}\,\prod_{i=1}^k\,p_i^{l_i} \\=\,\,\,& \sum_{0\leq l_k\leq q_k}\,p_k^{l_k}\left( \sum_{0\leq l_{k-1}\leq q_{k-1}}\,p_{k-1}^{l_{k-1}} \left( \dots\,\left( \sum_{0\leq l_2\leq q_2}\, p_2^{l_2}\, \left(\frac{p_1^{q_1+1}-1}{p_1-1}\right) \right)\right)\dots\right) \\=\,\,\,&\left(\frac{p_1^{q_1+1}-1}{p_1-1}\right)\cdot \sum_{0\leq l_k\leq q_k}\,p_k^{l_k}\left( \sum_{0\leq l_{k-1}\leq q_{k-1}}\,p_{k-1}^{l_{k-1}} \left( \dots\,\left( \sum_{0\leq l_2\leq q_2}\, p_2^{l_2}\, \right)\right)\dots\right) \\=\,\,\,&\dots \\=\,\,\,&\prod_{i=1}^k\frac{p_i^{q_i+1}-1}{p_i-1}. \end{align}

However:

$$2n = \prod_{i=1}^k\,2p_i^{q_i} > \prod_{i=1}^k\frac{p_i^{q_i+1}-1}{p_i-1}.$$

Indeed, because $p_i$ is prime and hence $\geq 2$, we have that $2p_i^{q_i} > \frac{p_i^{q_i+1}-1}{p_i-1} \iff p_i^{q_i+1}+1>2p_i^{q_i}$.

Fimpellizzeri
  • 23,126