Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  image.jpeg
Views: 75
Size:  25.3 KB
    Very confused on this proof, not sure how to construct the proof of these 3 questions :/
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Zacken
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maths10101)
    Name:  image.jpeg
Views: 75
Size:  25.3 KB
    Very confused on this proof, not sure how to construct the proof of these 3 questions :/
    Let's say that if we have g \in G, then g^n = e where n is the order of g. This also means that g^k \neq e where 1 \leq k < n.

    Now we have: e' = f(e) = f(g^n) = f(g)^n, now can you use the fact that f is a bijection, along with g^k \neq e to get your result?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    where have all the purists gone?
    where is
    DFranklin
    ghostwalker
    Davros
    Smaug123

    to name a few
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TeeEm)
    where have all the purists gone?
    where is
    DFranklin
    ghostwalker
    Davros
    Smaug123

    to name a few
    Smaug is still around, I think, but busy with Part III. Not sure where the others have disappeared to.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    Smaug is still around, I think, but busy with Part III. Not sure where the others have disappeared to.
    I remembered another one fireGarden or something... gone too
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zacken)
    Let's say that if we have g \in G, then g^n = e where n is the order of g. This also means that g^k \neq e where 1 \leq k < n.

    Now we have: e' = f(e) = f(g^n) = f(g)^n, now can you use the fact that f is a bijection, along with g^k \neq e to get your result?
    Oh okay, I'm slowly starting to understand it..is this for part a right? And would that be the full proof or would you think there's more?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maths10101)
    Oh okay, I'm slowly starting to understand it..is this for part a right? And would that be the full proof or would you think there's more?
    Yes, for part (a). For part(b) find an element that does not obey the thing proved in part(a) to show that they aren't isomorphic.

    If you fill in the blanks I left, that's the full proof, it's not very long. Just needs some heavy ideas.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Make your revision easier

Maths

Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

Equations

How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

Student revising

Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Study Planner

Create your own Study Planner

Never miss a deadline again

Polling station sign

Thinking about a maths degree?

Chat with other maths applicants

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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