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

It occurred to me that I somehow believe the following statement without actually knowing how to prove it: for every composite natural number $d$ there is a group whose order is divisible by $d$ yet it contains no element of order $d$. This is a kind of converse to Cauchy's Theorem that every group of order divisible by a prime $p$ contains an element of order $p$.

This is obviously true when $d$ is such that there is more than a single isomorphism type of groups of order $d$; just take any such non-cyclic group and you're done. But there are composite numbers $d$ for which every group of order $d$ is cyclic (I think these numbers, along with the primes themselves, are called "Cyclic numbers").

For example, every group of order $15$ is cyclic. However, the group $A_5$ has order divisible by $15$ but contains no element of that order.

How would one proceed to construct such a group for any given composite $d$?

share|cite|improve this question
Just a comment: every cyclic number is squarefree, so you can reduce to that case. (There is a well-known simple characterization of cyclic numbers, but it may not be directly relevant here. I can supply a reference if anyone wants one.) – Pete L. Clark Apr 17 '11 at 5:48
P.S.: I believe it too, without having a proof off the top of my head! It's a fun question... – Pete L. Clark Apr 17 '11 at 5:49
up vote 13 down vote accepted

Let $d$ be your composite, squarefree number. Let $p$ be the largest prime dividing $d$. Then the symmetric group $S_p$ will have order a multiple of $d$ (since its order is $p$-factorial, a multiple of every prime up to $p$), but no element of order $d$. Every element of $S_p$ is a product of disjoint cycles; to have an element of order a multiple of $p$, one of those cycles must be a $p$-cycle; but there's no cycle disjoint from that $p$-cycle.

share|cite|improve this answer
Great! Simple and elegant. As Pete mentioned, when $d$ is not squarefree there is clearly a non-cyclic group of order $d$ (say, a direct product of cyclic groups of prime orders with the appropriate multilplicities) so your proof handles all the remaining cases. – Alon Amit Apr 17 '11 at 14:28
Perhaps the simplest example when $d$ is not squarefree is ${\bf Z}_p\times{\bf Z}_{d/p}$, where $p$ is any prime whose square divides $d$. – Gerry Myerson Apr 18 '11 at 0:23

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.