You are Here: Home >< Maths

# The Proof is Trivial! Watch

1. (Original post by TheMagicMan)
There are groups satisfying that property but to my knowledge there are no elementary counterexamples.

Some research has led me to the fact that the modular group order 16 and is a counterexample. (http://www.opensourcemath.org/gap/small_groups.html)

You should never have to resort to such a theorem in A-level though.

One final thought that occurred to me about order 16 groups. There are 14 non-isomorphic groups order 16, and each of these groups can have at most 10 subgroups (itself, the 5 groups order 8, the 2 groups order 4, the 1 group order 2 and the one group order 1) so of course order 16 will contain a counterexample to your proposition! Indeed there are 51 groups order 32 so there will be an order 32 counterexample too. And so on.
Are cyclic groups of the same order always isomorphic, if so, why?
2. (Original post by Primus2x)
Groups A and B have the same order and have the same number of subgroups, are they necessarily isomorphic? If this is true, can I use it in an A-Level MEI FP3 answer without explaining it?
I came across a past paper question asking me to explain why all groups of order 5 are always isomorphic to eachother. The first thing I wrote down was "5 is a prime number so by Lagrange's Theorem, the only subgroups it can have is itself and a group only containing its identity"

So the second part of my answer is "So all order 5 groups have the same number of subgroups, therefore all of them are isomorphic to eachother". But I am not sure if this is correct.
It's because they're cyclic. Let be cyclic of order , and let be generators for them. You can check that by is a group isomorphism.
3. (Original post by Primus2x)
Are cyclic groups of the same order always isomorphic, if so, why?
Yes of course. Write the groups as and and then define by
4. (Original post by Smaug123)
It's because they're cyclic. Let be cyclic of order , and let be generators for them. You can check that by is a group isomorphism.
I showed that one order five group was cyclic in the first party the question. I was trying a different approach to show that all of order five groups are cyclic so they are all isomorphic, but I am not sure how.
5. (Original post by Renzhi10122)
From doing n=m=0, you should be able to just compete the question. You should get
Spoiler:
Show
and then use the first condition
may you please post your solution to the possible solutions to f(2001)?
would be appreciated
thanks
6. (Original post by demigawdz)
may you please post your solution to the possible solutions to f(2001)?
would be appreciated
thanks
Spoiler:
Show
I get one solution of , which works, so is the only solution
7. (Original post by Primus2x)
I showed that one order five group was cyclic in the first party the question. I was trying a different approach to show that all of order five groups are cyclic so they are all isomorphic, but I am not sure how.
take a group G of order p (=5). pick an arbitrary non-trivial element and consider the group generated by that element.

Then write down a homomorphism from G to the cyclic group order p (=5) which maps ______ to ________ and show that it is an isomorphism.
8. (Original post by TheMagicMan)
Yes of course. Write the groups as and and then define by
You want \langle and \rangle () rather than <, >
9. (Original post by Primus2x)
I showed that one order five group was cyclic in the first party the question. I was trying a different approach to show that all of order five groups are cyclic so they are all isomorphic, but I am not sure how.
You could also use Lagrange: the order of any element is either 1 or 5. There's only one element of order 1 - the identity - so the other four must be of order 5. In particular, there is an element of order 5, so that element must generate the group.
10. (Original post by demigawdz)
may you please post your solution to the possible solutions to f(2001)?
would be appreciated
thanks
Woops, you probably wanted a full solution:

Spoiler:
Show

Let n=0

Let , then is the only possible function. We check this works by a substitution into condition 2 to give so this function satisfies both conditions, so the only possible value of
11. (Original post by Renzhi10122)
Woops, you probably wanted a full solution:

Spoiler:
Show

Let n=0

Let , then is the only possible function. We check this works by a substitution into condition 2 to give so this function satisfies both conditions, so the only possible value of
I don't think this solution is rigorous. In particular f is not necessarily surjective.
12. (Original post by TheMagicMan)
I don't think this solution is rigorous. In particular f is not necessarily surjective.
Ah woops, I'll have another go then.
13. (Original post by TheMagicMan)
I don't think this solution is rigorous. In particular f is not necessarily surjective.
Actually, why is my solution not rigorous? I showed that if there is a solution, then it is what I said, and then showed that that solution worked.

Edit: Nevermind, I see where I went wrong.
14. (Original post by TheMagicMan)
I don't think this solution is rigorous. In particular f is not necessarily surjective.
Spoiler:
Show

Let m=n=0
by condition 1
Now let m=0
and the rest follows as before
15. (Original post by Renzhi10122)
Spoiler:
Show

Let m=n=0
by condition 1
Now let m=0
and the rest follows as before
Why does have to be 1? Why can't it be 3 say?
16. (Original post by TheMagicMan)
Why does have to be 1? Why can't it be 3 say?
Because I'm dumb . Welp ,I've done this wrong
17. (Original post by Renzhi10122)
Because I'm dumb
dw i got nowhere lol

but maybe that's because i've never actually solved one before..
18. (Original post by Renzhi10122)
Because I'm dumb
Here's a hint: Suppose . What is ? We have that . use this to determine an inequality on

Here's a solution to this part

Spoiler:
Show

We have .

let .

Then setting in condition 2

Now

so for have

so

so

So and by the first line

19. (Original post by TheMagicMan)
Here's a hint: Suppose . What is ? We have that . use this to determine an inequality on

Here's a solution to this part
Spoiler:
Show

We have .

let .

Then setting in condition 2

Now

so for have

so

so

So and by the first line

Ah thanks, got it after the hint. I'm feeling real dumb right now haha.
20. (Original post by Renzhi10122)
Ah thanks, got it after the hint. I'm feeling real dumb right now haha.
You shouldn't feel dumb. It's the last question on a BMO. If you find it easy at 18/19 you're part of a very small group.

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: December 11, 2017
Today on TSR

### Is this person a genius?

...with these A Level results?

### I think I'm transgender AMA

Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• Poll
Useful resources

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## See more of what you like on The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

• The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.