0

Let $G=\Bbb Z_{p_1^{\alpha_1}}\times \dots \times \Bbb Z_{p_n^{\alpha_n}}$ be listed as $G=\{a_1,\dots,a_k\}$, where:

  • $p_1\dots,p_n$ are primes;
  • $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n$ are nonnegative integers;
  • $k:=\prod_{i=1}^np_i^{\alpha_i}$.

As an example, let's take:

\begin{alignat}{1} \Bbb Z_{2^2} \times \Bbb Z_3\times \Bbb Z_{2}= &\{(0,0,0),(0,1,0),(0,2,0),(1,0,0),(1,1,0),(1,2,0),\\ &(2,0,0),(2,1,0),(2,2,0),(3,0,0),(3,1,0),(3,2,0),\\ &(0,0,1),(0,1,1),(0,2,1),(1,0,1),(1,1,1),(1,2,1),\\ &(2,0,1),(2,1,1),(2,2,1),(3,0,1),(3,1,1),(3,2,1)\} \\ \end{alignat}

Then we get:

\begin{alignat}{1} \sum_{i=1}^{24}a_i &= \bigl(3\cdot 2\cdot(0+1+2+3),\space\space 2^2\cdot2\cdot (0+1+2)),\space\space 2^2\cdot 3\cdot (0+1)\bigr) \\ &= \biggl(3\cdot 2\cdot\sum_{i=0}^{2^{2}-1}i,\space\space 2^2\cdot2\cdot\sum_{i=0}^{3-1}i,\space\space 2^2\cdot 3\cdot \sum_{i=0}^{2-1}i\biggr) \\ \end{alignat}

This suggests the following:

Claim. Let $G=\Bbb Z_{p_1^{\alpha_1}}\times \dots \times \Bbb Z_{p_n^{\alpha_n}}$ be listed as $G=\{a_1,\dots,a_k\}$, where $k:=\prod_{i=1}^np_i^{\alpha_i}$. Then:

\begin{alignat}{1} \sum_{i=1}^{k}a_i= \biggl(p_2^{\alpha_2}\dots p_n^{\alpha_n}\sum_{i=0}^{p_1^{\alpha_1}-1}i,\space\space\dots,\space\space p_1^{\alpha_1}\dots p_{n-1}^{\alpha_{n-1}}\sum_{i=0}^{p_n^{\alpha_n}-1}i\biggr) \\ \tag 1 \end{alignat}

I've tried to prove $(1)$ by induction on $(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n)$. The claim holds for $(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n)=(0,\dots,0)$; in fact, in this case $k=1$ and $G=\{a_1\}=\{(\underbrace{0,\dots,0}_{n\space slots})\}$, whence:

\begin{alignat}{1} \sum_{i=1}^{k}a_i= a_1=(\underbrace{0,\dots,0}_{n\space slots}) \end{alignat}

and

\begin{alignat}{1} &\biggl(p_2^{\alpha_2}\dots p_n^{\alpha_n}\sum_{i=0}^{p_1^{\alpha_1}-1}i,\space\space\dots,\space\space p_1^{\alpha_1}\dots p_{n-1}^{\alpha_{n-1}}\sum_{i=0}^{p_n^{\alpha_n}-1}i\biggr)= \\ &\biggl(1\dots 1\sum_{i=0}^{0}i,\space\space\dots,\space\space 1\dots 1\sum_{i=0}^{0}i\biggr)= \\ &(1\dots 1\cdot 0,\space\space\dots,\space\space 1\dots 1\cdot 0)= \\ &(\underbrace{0,\dots,0}_{n\space slots}) \\ \end{alignat}

As inductive step, I've assumed $(1)$ to hold for $\{\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{j-1},\alpha_j,\alpha_{j+1},\dots,\alpha_n\}$ and checked what happens for $\{\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_{j-1},\alpha_j+1,\alpha_{j+1},\dots,\alpha_n\}$, for an arbitrary $j\in\{1,\dots,n\}$. This is where I get stuck, and I don't know whether I get lost in the algebra, or I'm applying induction incorrectly, or simply the claim is false.

  • 1
    To check -- you're taking this sum in the integers? (instead of in the finite abelian group?) – diracdeltafunk Dec 23 '20 at 18:01
  • @diracdeltafunk, yes integers. –  Dec 23 '20 at 19:35
  • 1
    See https://math.stackexchange.com/a/3339707/589 – lhf Dec 23 '20 at 21:52
  • @lhf, per OP's comment above, this is not what they are looking for. – diracdeltafunk Dec 23 '20 at 22:00
  • @lhf Yes, that's precisely the well known result that I'm willing to prove as a corollary of the claim here. –  Dec 23 '20 at 22:00
  • @hal, I think you're going in a roundabout way about it – lhf Dec 23 '20 at 22:02
  • @lhf I mean: if the claim holds, then $2\sum_{i=1}^ka_i=(0,\dots,0)$, which means that $2\sum_{i=1}^ka_i$ is the identity or has order $2$. The fondamental theorem of finite abelian groups would extend such a conclusion to all the finite abelian groups. –  Dec 23 '20 at 22:44
  • @lhf There's a typo in my comment hereabove: I meant "...which means that $\sum_{i=1}^{k}a_i$ is the identity or has oder $2$...". –  Dec 24 '20 at 05:58

2 Answers2

0

I think you should use induction over the number of groups in the crossproduct. I will simply write $G = G_1 \times G_2 \times \cdots \times G_n$.

$q_k := |G_k|$ and $G_k = \{a^k_1 , \dots , a^k_{q_k}\}$.

For $n = 1$ the proposition is trivially true.

Now proof $n$ assuming the claim is true for $n-1$. The sum looks like this:

$$\sum_{a\in G} a = \sum_{j_1=1}^{q_1} \sum_{j_2=1}^{q_2} \cdots \sum_{j_n=1}^{q_n} (a_{j_1}^1, a_{j_2}^2, \dots, a_{j_{n-1}}^{n-1} , a_{j_n}^n)$$

Because of the way addition is defined on product groups it follows: \begin{equation} \sum_{j_n=1}^{q_n} (a_{j_1}^1, a_{j_2}^2, \dots, a_{j_{n-1}}^{n-1} , a_{j_n}^n) = (q_n a_{j_1}^1, q_n a_{j_2}^2, \dots, q_n a_{j_{n-1}}^{n-1} ,\sum_{j_n=1}^{q_n} a_{j_n}^n) \end{equation}

If we take this result and plug it back into the original equation we get:

$$\sum_{a\in G} a = \sum_{j_1=1}^{q_1} \sum_{j_2=1}^{q_2} \cdots \sum_{j_n=1}^{q_n} (a_{j_1}^1, a_{j_2}^2, \dots, a_{j_{n-1}}^{n-1} , a_{j_n}^n) = \sum_{j_1=1}^{q_1} \sum_{j_2=1}^{q_2} \cdots \sum_{j_{n-1}=1}^{q_{n-1}} (q_n a_{j_1}^1, q_n a_{j_2}^2, \dots, q_n a_{j_{n-1}}^{n-1} ,\sum_{j_n=1}^{q_n} a_{j_n}^n) $$

But as you may realize now we can use our original induction result, as it is now only a sum over $n_1$ summation signs. $\square$

Remark: We did neither use that we were using the integer groups nor that our subsets over which we add even are groups. In fact the claim in your questions holds for the product of subsets of groups. All we needed was the way addition is defined on products.

Hope it helps.

Guenterino
  • 860
  • 4
  • 17
0

I think you are applying induction incorretly, by applying induction on $(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n)$ you are assuming that $\alpha_1=\dots=\alpha_n$ but it can happen otherwise. I think it would be easier to prove the claim for all natural numbers by induction instead of only for powers of primes.

New Claim. Let $G=\Bbb Z_{l_1}\times \dots \times \Bbb Z_{l_n}$ be listed as $G=\{a_1,\dots,a_k\}$, where $k:=\prod_{i=1}^nl_i$. Then:

\begin{alignat}{1} \sum_{i=1}^{k}a_i= \biggl(l_2\dots l_n\sum_{i=0}^{l_1-1}i,\space\space\dots,\space\space l_1\dots l_{n-1}\sum_{i=0}^{l_n-1}i\biggr) \\ \tag 2 \end{alignat} Proof: \begin{alignat}{2} \sum_{i=1}^{k}a_i= \biggl(\sum_{i=1}^{k}i,...,\sum_{i=1}^{k}i\biggr) \end{alignat}, where the $i$ is an element of $ \Bbb Z_{l_j}$.

therefore it suffices to prove that for each coordinate j, $\sum_{i=1}^{k}i = l_1...l_{j-1}l_{j+1}... l_n\sum_{i=0}^{l_j-1}i$.

For all $1\le j\le n$,

there are $l_1\times...l_{j-1}\times l_{j+1}...\times l_n$ elements in $\Bbb Z_{l_1}\times ... \times \Bbb Z_{l_j-1} \times \Bbb Z_{l_j+1} \times ... \times \Bbb Z_{l_n}$ therefore for each $i$ in $\Bbb Z_{l_j}$ there are $l_1\times...l_{j-1}\times l_{j+1}...\times l_n$ elements with $j-th$ coordinate $i$ in $G=\Bbb Z_{l_1}\times \dots \times \Bbb Z_{l_n}$.

Therefore $\sum_{i=1}^{k}i = (1\times l_1\times...l_{j-1}\times l_{j+1}...\times l_n) + (2\times l_1\times...l_{j-1}\times l_{j+1}...\times l_n) + ... + (l_{j-1}\times l_1\times...l_{j-1}\times l_{j+1}...\times l_n) = (l_1\times...l_{j-1}\times l_{j+1}...\times l_n) \times (1+2+...+l_j-1) = l_1...l_{j-1}l_{j+1}... l_n\sum_{i=0}^{l_j-1}i$

Since (2) holds for all numbers it also holds for powers of primes.

  • 1
    I like your more general (and easier) approach, but why inducting on $(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n)$ would mean assuming they are all equal? –  Dec 24 '20 at 08:01
  • When inducing on $(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n)$ your base case wil be $(0,...,0)$ your hyphotesis will hold for $(n,...n)$ and you want to prove $(n+1,...,n+1)$. Therefore all coordinates would be equal. One way to do this for induction is: for every coordinate, you prove it holds for $0$ then supposing it holds for $n$ you prove it holds for $n+1$. Which is different from inducing on all the coordinates at the same time. – Diogo Santos Dec 24 '20 at 16:33
  • Well, I think that what I wrote in the final part of my post, from "As inductive step" onwards, means precisely what you say here, from "One way" onwards. –  Dec 24 '20 at 16:43
  • 1
    Yes what you wrote on the final part of your post is a way to tackle the problem, but your base case would then be $\alpha_j=0$ and not $(\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n) = (0,...,0)$. – Diogo Santos Dec 24 '20 at 16:50