2

Question: If $G$ is finite cyclic group then why is it true that for every divisor of the cardinality of $G$, there only exists at most one subgroup with such cardinality?

I am struggling to see a way to explain this properly. I realise that this group $G\cong \mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$ and every subgroup of a cyclic group is again cyclic.

My attempt thus far:

Suppose for a contradiction that for some $d<n$ such that $\exists p,q\in G$ such that $ord(p)=ord(q)=d$ with the property that $\langle p \rangle \neq\langle q\rangle$ but now how do I proceed further? (I realise this eventually boils down to finding two elements with order $d$ such that one is not in the other's orbit.)

Moreover I saw that the converse is also true and thus could someone please give me some feedback for my attempt, too?

Claim I also tried to prove: Suppose for every $d<n=|G|$ there only exists one subgroup with cardinality $d$ then show $G$ is cyclic.

My attempt to this claim: Suppose $G$ is not cyclic then by structure theorem that $G\cong \mathbb{Z}/p_1\mathbb{Z}\oplus\cdots\oplus\mathbb{Z}/p_n\mathbb{Z}$ where $p_1|\cdots|p_n$ and $n\geq 2.$ Now clearly, since $n\geq 2$ there are at least two subgroups with order $p_1$ and thus we reached a contradiction (for instance, since $\mathbb{Z}/p_1\mathbb{Z}$ is embedded in $\mathbb{Z}/p_2\mathbb{Z}$)

Many thanks in advance for providing any feedback to either question! :)

Shaun
  • 44,997
  • There is a counting argument: the elements of $G$ each have their own order, and there are exactly enough to generate precisely one subgroup of each relevant order. And on the other hand if there are enough to generate all those particular subgroups, there are no elements left over to do anything else. The number of generators of a cyclic group is given by the Euler $\varphi$ function. – Mark Bennet Dec 21 '20 at 20:08
  • For all $n \in \mathbb{N}$, there is exactly one unique cyclic group of order $n$ up to isomorphism. If you are convinced that subgroups of cyclic groups are cyclic, then the subgroups must also be unique up to isomorphism, hence they are the same subgroup. – Ty Jensen Dec 21 '20 at 20:21
  • See also https://math.stackexchange.com/a/410464/589 – lhf Dec 22 '20 at 14:03

1 Answers1

1

Hints: if $G=\langle g \rangle$, $|G|=o(g)=n$, and $d \mid n$, then $o(g^{\frac{n}{d}})=d$. Conversely, if $|\langle h \rangle|=d$, and $h=g^i$, then by Lagrange $d \mid n$. And $n|id$, whence $\frac{n}{d}|i$, say $i=m \cdot \frac{n}{d}$. So $h=(g^{\frac{n}{d}})^m$. Over to you to fill in the details. Note that this shows that for every divisor $d$ of $|G|$ there is precisely one subgroup of order $d$.

For your second question/claim: let $\varphi$ denote the Euler function, then if there is exactly one subgroup of order $d$ for every $d \mid n$, implies $G$ has at most $\varphi(d)$ elements of order $d$ for each $d\mid n$. But $\sum_{d\mid n}\varphi(d)=n$, so $G$ must contain exactly $\varphi(d)$ elements of order $d$ for each $d\mid n$, in particular, $G$ contains an element of order $n$.

Note Here is a different proof of the fact that if the finite group $G$ has the property
$(*)$ for each $d \mid |G|$ there is exactly one subgroup of order $d$
then $G$ is cyclic. Because of $(*)$ every Sylow subgroup is normal and hence $G$ is nilpotent, that is the direct product of its Sylow subgroups. If $|G|$ has more than one prime factor, by induction (and basically the Chinese Reaminder Theorem) we are done. So we can assume that $G$ is a $p$-group for some prime $p$. Pick a $g \in G$ of maximal order and assume $M=\langle g \rangle \lt G$. Let $x \in G-M$. Then, since $G$ is a $p$-group, we can find an element of $o(x)$ in $\langle g \rangle$. But owing to $(*)$, this forces $\langle x \rangle \subseteq M$, contradicting $x \notin M$. So $G=M$ is cyclic.

Nicky Hekster
  • 49,281
  • Thank you so much for your answer! If you do not mind me questioning, is my attempt for the second part faulty? (Of course I know that your way definitely works :)) – UnsinkableSam Dec 21 '20 at 23:06
  • Yes it is correct, Well done, but I will give a different proof tomorrow without using the Structure Theorem! – Nicky Hekster Dec 21 '20 at 23:21