The Student Room Group

Algebra: Group theory... HELPPP

Suppose G is a group of order 2p where p is an odd prime number. Using Lagrange’s theorem, show that G must contain an element of
order p.
Reply 1
Original post by cbr_boy
Suppose G is a group of order 2p where p is an odd prime number. Using Lagrange’s theorem, show that G must contain an element of
order p.


What are you specifically having trouble with? :smile:
Reply 2
Well, I think proof by contradiction would be a good idea but I don't know where to start. Do you have any advice?
Reply 3
Original post by cbr_boy
Well, I think proof by contradiction would be a good idea but I don't know where to start. Do you have any advice?


Yups, contradiction is how I did it. :smile:

For all xGx \in \mathbb{G}, what can you tell me about x\mid x \mid?
Original post by cbr_boy
Suppose G is a group of order 2p where p is an odd prime number. Using Lagrange’s theorem, show that G must contain an element of
order p.

By the way, Cauchy's theorem gives this directly, as do the Sylow theorems which are a generalisation. Cauchy's theorem has a really pretty proof, which is as close to magic as any proof I've ever seen. (The proof I know is the second one on the Wikipedia page.)

You are correct that contradiction is correct. Suppose no element had order p. What would the group then look like?
Reply 5
I honestly have no idea, do you think you could explain it please?
Original post by cbr_boy
I honestly have no idea, do you think you could explain it please?

If no elements have order p, then for each gGg \in G there are three options for the order of gg. What are those options, and what does each imply?
Reply 7
Original post by Smaug123
If no elements have order p, then for each gGg \in G there are three options for the order of gg. What are those options, and what does each imply?


3 options, are you sure?
Original post by Zacken
3 options, are you sure?

How many do you think there are? If it's 2, you might not be considering the order 1, which is still a (pretty trivial) option.
Reply 9
Original post by Smaug123
How many do you think there are? If it's 2, you might not be considering the order 1, which is still a (pretty trivial) option.


I'm probably not seeing something here, but wouldn't it be

Spoiler

What other options are there? :eek:
Original post by Zacken
I'm probably not seeing something here, but wouldn't it be

Spoiler

What other options are there? :eek:

What are the factors of 2p which are not 1,2,p? You've missed the most obvious one :P
Reply 11
Original post by Smaug123
What are the factors of 2p which are not 1,2,p? You've missed the most obvious one :P


For all gGg \in G, we have that g=1,2,p,2p|g| = 1,2,p,2p, we also have that if gg has order 2p2p, then g2g^2 has order p.

So if there were no elements with order p, then all elements have order 1 or 2? :redface:

My brain is too tired. :tongue:
Original post by Zacken
For all gGg \in G, we have that g=1,2,p,2p|g| = 1,2,p,2p, we also have that if gg has order 2p2p, then g2g^2 has order p.

So if there were no elements with order p, then all elements have order 1 or 2? :redface:

My brain is too tired. :tongue:

Yes, you're correct, but it took a bit of work to rule out 2p2p; with less work you can rule out 11 :smile:
Reply 13
Original post by Smaug123
Yes, you're correct, but it took a bit of work to rule out 2p2p; with less work you can rule out 11 :smile:


Does your proof go something like showing that G is abelian and showing that there exists a subgroup with order 4, that is, not a divisor of 2p. Hence p is an element? :smile:
Original post by Zacken
Does your proof go something like showing that G is abelian and showing that there exists a subgroup with order 4, that is, not a divisor of 2p. Hence p is an element? :smile:

Pretty much - I happen to know that if all non-identity elements are of order 2 (that is, if the group is boolean), then the group has order a power of 2. Can't remember if my proof required Cauchy's theorem or not, though. Anyway, that would do.
Original post by Smaug123
Pretty much - I happen to know that if all non-identity elements are of order 2 (that is, if the group is boolean), then the group has order a power of 2. Can't remember if my proof required Cauchy's theorem or not, though. Anyway, that would do.
You don't need Cauchy (which when all is said and done is a non-trivial thereom) to show the existence of a subgroup of order 4. (It's easy enough to exhibit one).
Original post by DFranklin
You don't need Cauchy (which when all is said and done is a non-trivial thereom) to show the existence of a subgroup of order 4. (It's easy enough to exhibit one).

I remember having done this question in the past - I was mainly trying to work out whether I'd done it before or after Cauchy's theorem. Probably before, as you say.
Original post by Smaug123
I remember having done this question in the past - I was mainly trying to work out whether I'd done it before or after Cauchy's theorem. Probably before, as you say.
I also did this question at a point before we'd covered Cauchy's theorem, and the only way I found to do it at the time was to prove Cauchy's theorem (which at the point we were in the course, was a *lot* of work).

(I think the quick proof is one of those ones that can easily elude you, particularly if you know there's a way to do it using deeper results).

Quick Reply

Latest