Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

As a follow-up to my previous question, the next two exercises state:

Use the given generators and relations to show that if $x$ is any element of $D_{2n}$ which is not a power of $r$, then:

  • a) $rx = xr^{-1}$, and
  • b) $x$ has order 2, and hence $D_{2n}$ is generated by $s$ and $sr$, each with order 2.

Here, $D_{2n}$ has the "usual" presentation $$D_{2n} = \left\langle r, s \mid r^n = s^2 = 1, rs = sr^{-1} \right\rangle.$$

For part a), since $x$ is not a power of $r$, I have written $ x = sr^k$ for some $0 \leq k \leq n - 1$.

So then $rx = r(sr^k) = (rs)r^k = (sr^{-1})r^k = sr^{k - 1}$, but this doesn't seem to be moving me in the right direction.

Should I be using induction on the power of $r$ in the element $x$ ?

Then for part b), I simply wrote $(sr^k)(sr^k) = s(r^ks)r^k = s(sr^{-k})r^k = s^2 = 1$, but I doubt that I have sufficiently justified my work.

From the comments to the previous question, I get the feeling that this is a very simple verification, but I'm having trouble.

Thanks in advance for your help!

share|improve this question
    
You should use \langle instead of < and \rangle instead of > to denote "subgroup generated by". –  Arturo Magidin May 17 '11 at 19:50
    
@Arturo, thanks for the edits and info. I couldn't figure out that tex code! –  Altar Ego May 17 '11 at 19:58

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Why do you think you are not going in the right direction in part (a)? You've shown that $rx = sr^{k-1}$. Now, how much is $xr^{-1}$? Since $x=sr^k$, then $xr^{-1} = (sr^k)r^{-1} =\ldots$

Remember what you are trying to prove!

For part (b), you have to show that $$r^ks = sr^{-k}$$ which can be done by induction on $k$. Alternatively, why not use part (a)? You have $x=sr^k$, so then $$(sr^k)^2 = (sr^{k-1})r(sr^{k-1})r = sr^{k-1}sr^{k-1}r^{-1}r = (sr^{k-1})^2.$$ Repeating this until $k=0$ we get $x^2=1$.

Once you do that, you've correctly shown that $x$ has order dividing 2; now simply note that it cannot have order $1$ (it's not the identity, because the identity does lie in $\langle r\rangle$), so it has order exactly $2$.

But you aren't done, because you haven't addressed the second part. Can you show that $s$ and $sr$ generate $D_{2n}$? And that they each have order $2$? (The latter part is what you just finished; the former is easy: just show that you can obtain all elements from a generating set by using $s$ and $sr$).

share|improve this answer
    
Oh man, (a) was a lot easier than I realized! I will work on the end of (b). In the meantime, should I somehow edit my question to include this progress? –  Altar Ego May 17 '11 at 20:17
    
@Altar: You can; if you do, I would suggest adding it (say, below a horizontal line added with <hr/>). That way it won't seem like the answers are going over stuff you already knew. –  Arturo Magidin May 17 '11 at 20:20
    
@Altar: Now that you have the reputation for it, don't forget to start voting up answers that you find helpful/interesting (and questions others post that you find interesting); also, eventually you'll want to accept answers to your questions, if you are satisfied. Check out the FAQ for more info on all of that. –  Arturo Magidin May 17 '11 at 20:32

For (a), I reckon induction is the way to go. You have the case $k=0$ in the group presentation.

For (b), your argument looks sound. The only part you might want to think about is justifying $r^ks=sr^{-k}$, but that's an almost immediate consequence of (a).

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

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.