1

This is 10.E.5 from Pinter.

Let $a$ and $b$ be elements of a group $G$.

Let $\text{ord}(a) = m$ and $\text{ord}(b) = n$.

Let $a$ and $b$ commute.

Prove:

There is an element $c$ in $G$ whose order is $lcm(m,n)$.

(HINT: Use 10.E.4 together with 10.D.3. Let $c = a^i b$ where $a^i$ is a certain power of $a$.

Here is 10.E.4:

Let $a$ and $b$ commute.

If $m$ and $n$ are relatively prime, then $ord(ab) = mn$.

(HINT: Use 10.E.2)

Here is 10.D.3:

If $ord(a) = km$, then $ord(a^k) = m$.

Here's the start of one approach.

As Pinter suggests, let

$$c = a^i b$$

Let's start from what is to be proven:

$$ord(c) = lcm(m,n)$$

$$ord(a^i b) = lcm(m,n)$$

$$(a^i b)^{lcm(m,n)} = e$$

$$(a^i)^{lcm(m,n)} b^{lcm(m,n)} = e$$

$$a^{i lcm(m,n)} b^{lcm(m,n)} = e$$

$$a^{i lcm(m,n)} = b^{-lcm(m,n)}$$

$$a^i a^{lcm(m,n)} = b^{-lcm(m,n)}$$

$$a^i = b^{-lcm(m,n)} a^{-lcm(m,n)}$$

$$a^i = (ba)^{-lcm(m,n)}$$

In other words, we're aiming to solve for $a^i$.

However, this doesn't seem too helpful as it simplifies to $e$.

Moreover, we haven't used 10.E.5 or 10.D.3.


It seems that this part of the hint:

$c = a^i b$ where $a^i$ is a certain power of $a$

is suggesting that we find an $a^i$ such that $gcd(a^i,b) = 1$.

And once that's done, apply 10.E.4:

$$ ord(a^i b) = ord(a^i) n $$

And hopefully, together with 10.D.3, change that to:

$$ ord(a^i b) = lcm(m,n)$$


This question has been discussed in a few places on math.se.

Here's one approach.

The first part of the answer appears to prove 10.E.4 and solves the case for when $m$ and $n$ are relatively prime.

The second part of the answer does not appear to apply 10.D.3 as recommended by Pinter.


There are many approaches illustrated on this post.

However, none appear to use the path suggested by Pinter.


The answer here essentially restates part of Pinter's hint.


Is there a clear approach which uses Pinter's suggestions to use 10.D.3, 10.E.4, and only what has been covered up to that point in the book?


Bill's answer converted to Pinter's notation

  • This is a conversion of the proof in Bill's answer to the notation in Pinter.
  • It also makes many of the implied steps explicit.
  • This will hopefully make the proof more familiar and digestible to folks coming to Pinter's book and abstract algebra perhaps for the first time.

We induct on

$$ ord(a) ord(b) $$

Part 1

If

$$ ord(a) ord(b) = 1 $$

the only possible values are:

$$ ord(a) = 1 $$

$$ ord(b) = 1 $$

so

$$ lcm(ord(a),ord(b)) = 1 $$

$$ ord(c) = 1 $$

which means

$$ c^1 = e $$

thus

$$ c = e $$

Part 2

Now let's consider the case where

$$ ord(a)ord(b) != 1$$

Split off $p^k$ in $ord(a)$, $ord(b)$. I.e.

$$ ord(a) = xP $$ $$ ord(b) = yP' $$

where

$$ P'|P $$

$$ P = p^k > 1 \tag{7} $$

$p$ is prime and $p∤x,y$.

Then, by 10.D.3:

$$ ord(a^P) = x \tag{1} $$ $$ ord(b^{P'}) = y \tag{2} $$

$$ ord(a^x) = P \tag{3} $$ $$ ord(b^y) = P' \tag{4} $$

By induction, there is a $c$ with

$$ ord(c) = lcm(x,y) $$

Substitute (1) and (2):

$$ ord(c) = lcm(ord(a^P),ord(b^{P'})) \tag{5} $$

$$ c = a^P b^{P'} \tag{6} $$

Substitute (6):

$$ ord(a^P b^{P'}) = lcm(ord(a^P),ord(b^{P'})) $$

So:

$$ ord(a^x c) $$

$$ lcm(ord(a^x),ord(c)) $$

Substitute (3) and (5):

$$ lcm(P, lcm(ord(a^P), ord(a^{P'}))) $$

$$ lcm(P, lcm(x,y)) $$

Since $P = p^k$ where $p$ is prime and $p$ is coprime to $x$ and $y$:

$$ P lcm(x,y) $$

$$ lcm(xP, yP') $$

$$ lcm(ord(a), ord(b)) $$

Thus:

$$ ord(a^x c) = lcm(ord(a), ord(b)) $$


Pinter's approach

This is a start of an approach that closely follows Pinter's hint.

(I have this written up in a text file and didn't have time to format as LaTeX.)

Let ord(a) = m.
Let ord(b) = n.

Let i = gcd(m,n).           (1)

Let ord(a) = k i            (2)
========================================
Consider: ord(a^i b)

If ord(a^i) and ord(b) are relatively prime then by 10.E.4:

ord(a^i b) = ord(a^i) ord(b)        (3)
========================================
By eq (2) and 10.D.3:

ord(a^i) = k                (4)

Eq (2):

ord(a) = k i

Substitute (4):

ord(a) = ord(a^i) i

Solve for ord(a^i):

ord(a^i) = ord(a)/i         (5)
========================================
Eq (3):

ord(a^i b) = ord(a^i) ord(b)

Substitute (5):

ord(a^i b) = ord(a)/i ord(b)

ord(a^i b) = ord(a) ord(b) / i

Substitute (1):

ord(a^i b) = ord(a) ord(b) / gcd(m,n)

ord(a^i b) = ord(a) ord(b) / gcd(ord(a),ord(b))

ord(a^i b) = lcm(a,b)
----------------------------------------

The only remaining part left to do is to handle the case where ord(a^i) and ord(b) are not relatively prime.

dharmatech
  • 585
  • 2
  • 13
  • 1
  • 1
    Yes, that's the approach used in the proof I gave here (E.4 is used in the final line) – Bill Dubuque Jul 28 '19 at 15:29
  • @BillDubuque Hey Bill! I'll take a closer look. That post mentions that G is abelian. Whereas 10.E.5 does not require G to be abelian (only that $a$ and $b$ commute). So I thought it might be a slightly different question and approach. – dharmatech Jul 28 '19 at 19:53
  • 1
    No they're equivalent - just apply it to the abelian sugroup generated by $a,b$ (or note that my proof only needs that $a,b$ commute). – Bill Dubuque Jul 28 '19 at 19:57
  • @BillDubuque Aha! You do use 10.D.3! You first say $ord(X) = AP$. Then you use 10.D.3 when you say: $ord(X^P) = A$. Cool. :-) – dharmatech Jul 28 '19 at 20:33
  • 1
    Yes, it is used in a few places without explicit mention. I just added a link to a proof of E.4 there. – Bill Dubuque Jul 28 '19 at 20:35
  • 1
    I added a link for the proof of D.3 too. – Bill Dubuque Jul 28 '19 at 20:53
  • @BillDubuque OK, I converted your proof to the notation that Pinter uses. (I.e. renamed X -> a, Y -> b, Z -> c. I also did A -> x and B -> y, O -> ord). That's made it more familiar to me. :-) I think I understand all the jumps you make in the steps there. – dharmatech Jul 28 '19 at 21:27
  • @BillDubuque Off topic but not sure where else to ask... Are you the same Bill that worked on the Macsyma computer algebra system? – dharmatech Jul 28 '19 at 21:28
  • 1
    Glad to see you've got it. Yes, that's me, – Bill Dubuque Jul 28 '19 at 21:29
  • @BillDubuque I wouldn't say yet that I've "got it". But I can see the overall structure now. :-) – dharmatech Jul 28 '19 at 21:30
  • @BillDubuque Fascinating! I've worked on a couple of (very simple) computer algebra libraries. One for Scheme and another for C#. – dharmatech Jul 28 '19 at 21:32
  • @BillDubuque OK, I added the conversion of your proof to Pinter's notation to my post. I'm fairly sure about most of it except for the part that follows $ord(a^x c)$. If that part wasn't properly translated, feel free to let me know. :-) – dharmatech Jul 30 '19 at 05:13
  • @BillDubuque I've added another start of an approach to the question (labeled "Pinter's Approach"). Not sure if what I have there is valid and if the uncompleted part can be proved. It aims to more directly follow the hint given in the text. – dharmatech Aug 03 '19 at 00:19
  • 1
    In the copy of Pinter I'm looking at the hint says "let $c$ be a certain power of $a$" vs. what you wrote above. I don't think either hint works (given what has been presented up to that point), so you may be on a wold goose chase (i.e. the hint may be a (pedagogical) error in the book). – Bill Dubuque Aug 03 '19 at 01:03
  • 1
    Update: I found a copy of the 2nd edition and the hint has been corrected to what you wrote. But I still think that it is a pedagogical error since I doubt it can be done easily using that type of $c$ using only what has been presented up to that point (see here for one way - but that goes beyond what has been presented). So it seems they didn't do a good job of correcting that error in the first edition. – Bill Dubuque Aug 03 '19 at 01:12

1 Answers1

2

This is easily done by exploiting prime factorisations. With your notations, write

$$m= p_1^{k_1}\dots p_s^{k_s}; n = p_1^{l_1}\dots p_s^{l_s}$$

We can express $lcm(m,n)$ as

$$p_1^{\min\{k_1, l_1\}}\dots p_s^{\min\{k_s,l_s\}}$$

If we can find elements $c_i$ with $ord(c_i) = p_i^{\min\{k_i,l_i\}}$, then the element you are looking for is $c=\prod_i c_i$ because the order is multiplicative on commutating elements with coprime orders.

Put $$c_i =\begin{cases} a^{m/p^{k_i}} \quad k_i\leq l_i \\ b^{n/p^{l_i}} \quad l_i < k_i \end{cases}$$

and you see we are done.

J. De Ro
  • 22,064
  • 2
  • 20
  • 49
  • That's essentially the same as the proof I linked in the comments, except I do the induction explicitly (vs. implicitly above). – Bill Dubuque Jul 30 '19 at 13:10
  • In general, if you have a set of group elements whose orders are pairwise relatively prime, is the order of the product of the elements equal to the product of their individual orders? Let $G$ be a group and $A\subseteq G$. If $A = {a_1,a_2,...,a_n}$ and $gcd(ord(a_i),ord(a_j))=1$ for each $i\neq j$, then $ord(a_1a_2...a_n) = ord(a_1)ord(a_2)...ord(a_n)$. – Display name Oct 20 '23 at 21:42