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

Let $G$ be a finite group, and let $S$ be a nonempty subset of $G$. Suppose $S$ is closed with respect to multiplication. Prove that $S$ is a subgroup of $G$. (Hint: It remains to prove that $S$ contains $e$ and is closed with respect to inverses. Let $S = \{a_{1},...,a_{n} \}.$ If $a_{i} \in S$, consider the distinct elements $a_{i}a_{1}, a_{i}a_{2},...a_{i}a_{n}$.)

Preliminary questions: Can I assume that every element in $S$ unique? If each element is unique, then does that imply the products $a_{i}a_{1}, a_{i}a_{2},...a_{i}a_{n}$ are distinct? If I cannot assume that each element is not unique, then why should I just consider the distinct products?

(i). Show that $S$ contains $e$: Because we know $S$ is closed under multiplication, we know that each element in $S$ can be written as a product of elements in $S$. The book claims that I can write $a_{1} = a_{1}a_{k}$ for some $k$. I don't really understand why I can make such a claim. Does the following explain why? If $a_{1} \in S$ then will one of the following products $a_{1}a_{1}, a_{1}a_{2}, ... , a_{1}a_{n}$ be equal to one element in $S$ and eventually will every product be paired with each element in $S$? How do we know $a_{1} \neq a_{3}a_{2}$?

Because if I assume $a_{1} = a_{1}a_{k}$, then $a_{1}^{-1}a_{1} = a_{1}^{-1}a_{1}a_{k}$ shows that $e = a_{k}$. And I can still make use of $a_{1}^{-1}$ because if $a_{1} \in S$, then $a_{1} \in G$ and $a_{1}^{-1} \in G$ since $G$ is a group. Is this reasoning correct?

(ii). Show that every element $a_{p} \in S$ has an inverse $a_{p}^{-1} \in S$: Let $a_{p} \in S$, then we can write $a_{p} = a_{1}a_{q}$ for some $q$. We can rearrange and get $a_{q} = a_{1}^{-1}a_{p} = (a_{p}^{-1}a_{1})^{-1}$. At this point I've shown that $(a_{p}^{-1}a_{1})^{-1} \in S$, but now I have been stuck for a while. Could I get a hint?

Thanks in advance.


(i). Show that $S$ contains $e$: Using the hint, ``If $a_{i} \in S$, consider the distinct elements $a_{i}a_{1}, a_{i}a_{2},...a_{i}a_{n}$," if $a_{1} \in S$, then we consider $a_{1}a_{1}, a_{1}a_{2},...a_{1}a_{n}$. Then we can write the following: \begin{align*} a_{1} &= a_{1}a_{k} \newline a_{1}^{-1}a_{1} &= a_{1}^{-1}a_{1}a_{k} \newline e &= ea_{k} \newline e &= a_{k} \end{align*}

(ii). Show that every element $a_{p} \in S$ has an inverse $a_{p}^{-1} \in S$: To show that $e \in S$, we can write $a_{1}a_{p} = e$ for $a_{1}, a_{p} \in S$ \begin{align*} a_{1}a_{p} &= e\newline a_{1}a_{p}a_{p}^{-1} &= ea_{p}^{-1}\newline a_{1} &= a_{p}^{-1} \end{align*}

share|cite|improve this question
The notation $S = \{a_1, \ldots, a_n\}$ implies the $a_i$ are distinct elements. Just an example of how to proceed : $a_1 a_2$ and $a_1 a_3$ are distinct because if the were equal, then you'd get $a_2 = a_3$ (by multiplying by $a_1^{-1}$, which exists whether it's in $S$ or not). With the same kind of reasoning the products $a_i a_1, \ldots, a_i a_n$ are distinct. – Joel Cohen Aug 18 '11 at 15:24
@Joel: I would disagree that the notation implies that the elements are necessarily distinct, but there is no harm in assuming they are distinct, since, e.g., $\{1,2,2\} = \{1,2\}$. – Arturo Magidin Aug 18 '11 at 16:55
@Arturo : True :) – Joel Cohen Aug 20 '11 at 10:51

The above answer is perfectly good, but here's an easier (in my opinion) way to proceed. Say you want to show that $e \in S$. Since $S$ is closed under multiplication, in particular $a_1^2 \in S$. And $a_1^3, a_1^4$, etc. are also all in $S$. Given that $G$ is a finite group, what does this tell you?

This line of reasoning will also tell you how to find inverses.

share|cite|improve this answer
"above" mean different things to different settings. Better to identify the answer by the name of the person posting it. – Gerry Myerson Aug 19 '11 at 13:30

If you are asking if you can assume that distinct elements of $S$ are distinct... yes. Generally, you cannot assume that all elements of a family are distinct, because a family is really a function (with domain the index set) and we are focusing on the images.

That means that you can start by saying "Let $S=\{a_1,\ldots,a_m\}$, with $a_i\neq a_j$ if $i\neq j$" with no problem: just remove all the repeats.

For groups, you know that $xy=xz$ implies $y=z$. So if you know that the $a_i$ are pairwise distinct (that's the fancy way of saying they are all different; saying "each element is unique" is a bit hard to parse), then it does indeed follow that for a fixed $j$, $a_ja_1,\ldots,a_ja_m$ are pairwise distinct.

(i) Consider the (set-theoretic) map $S\to S$ given by "left multiplication by $a_1$". That is, the map that sends $s\in S$ to $a_1s$. Because the map is one-to-one, and because the set is finite, it follows that the map is also onto. Therefore, there exists $s\in S$ such that $a_1s = a_1$. Yes, we will in fact also have that $a_1$ can be expressed as $a_2a_j$ for some $j$ (by the same argument), but that is irrelevant here. Remember that elements of a group can be expressed as products in many different ways. In fact, given any $x$ and any $y$ in a group $G$, you can always find a $z$ such that $x=yz$.

Yes, you can still cancel $a_1$ from $a_1=a_1a_j$; that equality holds in $G$, so you can manipulate it "in $G$". Just like, in the positive integers, you can go from $2k = 2$ to $k=1$ even though $\frac{1}{2}$ is not in the integers.

(ii) You already know that $e\in S$. Look at "left multiplication by $a_p$ from $S$ to $S$ again, and ask: is there an element whose image is $e$?

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for another enlightening post. Could you take a look at my update to see if I understand you correctly? – Student Aug 18 '11 at 16:46
@Jon: In (i), I would add the justification for why you know there is a $k$ such that $a_1=a_1a_k$ (the fact that left-multiplication by $a_1$ is one-to-one, hence surjective since $S$ is finite); in (ii), you don't need to show $e\in S$. Rather, let $a\in S$; since we know that $e\in S$, and that left multiplication by $a$ is a bijection, then there exists $s\in S$ such that $as=e$, and then... – Arturo Magidin Aug 18 '11 at 16:54

As $G$ is finite group, every element has finite order. Let $a\in S$ be non-identity element. Then $a$ has finite order say $m>1$. i.e. $a^m=a.a^{m-1}=1$. As $a$ is non-identity, $m-1>0$, so $a^{m-1}$ is the inverse of $a$ in $G$, and as $S$ is closed under multiplication, it should be in $S$; so $S$ is subgroup.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.