Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

If $|G|=65$ then $G$ contains an element of order $5$.

Proof: If $G$ is cyclic then there is some $x \in G$ where $|x| = 65$ so $|x^{13}|=5$.

Assume $G$ is not cyclic and that no elements in $G$ have order $5$. By LaGrange's theorem all elements of $G$ have their order dividing $G$ so every non-identity member of $G$ has order $13.$

(From here I have seen the solution and the claim at this point is that if $x \neq y$ then $\left< x \right> \cap \left< y \right> = \{ e \}.$ The trouble I am having is why this is true. The hint is that the order of $\left< x \right> \cap \left< y \right>$ divides both the order of $\left< x \right>$ and the order of $\left< y \right>$. If the intersection of the cyclic groups had order $13$, this would somehow imply that $x=y$? I have seen in the symmetry group $S_3$ that different elements can give the same cyclic group. I am sort of unsure why this is true or maybe I am missing something else.)

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Choose $y \notin \langle x \rangle$, which we can do since $|x| = 13$. Then $\langle y \rangle \cap \langle x \rangle = 1$ because the only alternative is that $|\langle y \rangle \cap \langle x \rangle| = 13$, implying $\langle x \rangle = \langle y \rangle$. So every non-identity element is in exactly one cyclic group of order 13, which leads to a quick contradiction with $|G| = 65$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Of course it's not true. If $x$ has order 13, then each of its powers different from $e$ generates $\langle x \rangle$.

What must have been claimed is that two distinct subgroups of order 13 have trivial intersection. (The argument you sketch, which involves Lagrange, points in that direction.)

This allows you to conclude, by counting the elements of the group in dozens, plus the identity.

share|cite|improve this answer
Okay yes that sounds right. Okay thank you. – Frudrururu Mar 7 '13 at 7:40
@Wishingwell, you're welcome. – Andreas Caranti Mar 7 '13 at 7:41

You've started out quite nicely. Trying to pick up from where you're stuck, and given the clarification of what must have been intended, or left out, by the assertion you're puzzled by:

Recall that if the only subgroups $H_i$ of $G$ are of order $13$, since $13$ is prime, each non-identity element in $H_1, H_2, ...$ must generate a subgroup of order $13$. That is, for all $x \in G, x \neq e$, then $|\langle x\rangle| = 13$ and for any given $x$, every non-identity element in $\langle x \rangle$ generates $\langle x \rangle$ too. So if $y \in G, y\notin \langle x\rangle,$ then $\langle x \rangle \cap \langle y \rangle = \{e\}$.

As Andreas suggests, you can then conclude that subgroups each contain 12 elements distinct from elements in other groups, with one element, $e$, common to them all. So say there are $n$ distinct subgroups of order $13$, then $|G| = 65 \neq 12n + 1$, for any $n$. Hence if G is not cyclic, then it cannot be the case that every subgroup of $G$ has order $13$.

share|cite|improve this answer
I like this thank you – Frudrururu Mar 7 '13 at 8:06
You're very welcome ;-) – amWhy Mar 7 '13 at 8:21

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.