9
$\begingroup$

Suppose we have a finite group $G$ and $d\in \mathbb N$ is a divisor of $|G|$. We define the set $E_d= \{g\in G : g^d =1\}$. Prove that $d$ is also a divisor of $|E_d|$.

So far I proved that $E_d=\displaystyle \bigcup_{g\in G : o(g)\vert d} \langle g \rangle$ but I didn't know how to continue from here and if this equality is helpful or not. I will appreciate any help. Thank you.

|cite|improve this question
$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

This is a theorem of Frobenius. He proved:

Theorem (Frobenius 1903): Let $d$ be a divisor of $|G|$ and $a_d$ be the number of elements of order dividing $d$. Then $a_d$ is divisible by $d$.

Note that $a_d=|E_d|$. A proof of this theorem is given, for example, by K. Brown here in Corollary $1.6$. The proof uses that $$ a_d=\sum \mu (H,K) |H|, $$ where $H$ and $K$ range over subgroups of order dividing $d$, obtained by Moebius inversion formula applied to the equations $$ |H|=\sum_{K\le H}f(K), $$ where $f(K)=0$, if $K$ is not cyclic, and $f(K)=\phi(k)$, if $K$ is cyclic of order $k$. For a detailed proof see the article On the Moebius function of a finite group by Hawkes et al, Theorem $6.3$.

Edit: The comments refer to an ealier answer.

|cite|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ $\sum a_kb_k$ needn't be a multiple of $\sum a_k$ $\endgroup$ – anon May 29 '15 at 11:41
  • $\begingroup$ What is an easy argument for the first statement? $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft May 29 '15 at 11:41
  • $\begingroup$ @TobiasKildetoft The map $x\mapsto\langle x\rangle$ from $\{$elements of order $d\}$ to $\{$cyclic subgroups of order $d\}$ is a $\phi(d)$-to-one map. $\endgroup$ – anon May 29 '15 at 11:42
4
$\begingroup$

Consider the set of $d$-tuples

\begin{eqnarray} S=\{(g_1, \cdots, g_d)|g_1g_2\cdots g_d=e, g_1, g_2, \cdots, g_d\text{ are not periodic with periodicity}>1\text{ and }<d\}\end{eqnarray}

Note that $|S|$ is divisible by $d$. Consider the $\mathbb{Z}_d$-action on $S$ by cyclically permuting the entries in a tuple, i.e. the generator $1\in\mathbb{Z}_d$ takes $(g_1, g_2, \cdots, g_d)$ to $(g_2, g_3, \cdots, g_d, g_1)$. There are two types of orbits, namely those tuples in $E_d$ and the orbits consisting of tuples with some entries distinct. Each tuple in $E_d$ forms an orbit itself, while each orbit of the other type consists of $d$ tuples. By class equation,

\begin{eqnarray}|S|=|E_d|+\text{#tuples with some entries distinct}\end{eqnarray} Note that the set of tuples with some entries distinct is a disjoint union of orbits each of which consists of $d$ tuples. Thus $|E_d|$ is divisible by $d$.

Remark: This is just an adaption of the proof of Cauchy's theorem.

|cite|improve this answer
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "Note that the set of tuples with some entries distinct is a disjoint union of orbits each of which consists of d tuples" - Doesn't thsi assume that $d$ is prime? $\endgroup$ – Hagen von Eitzen May 29 '15 at 13:45
  • $\begingroup$ Let $d=4$, $a,b\in G$ such that $a\neq b$ and $(ab)^2=1$. Then involution in $\mathbb{Z}_d$ fixes tuple $s:=(a,b,a,b)$. Hence $\mathbb{Z}_d$-orbit of $s$ has less than $d$ elements. For example, we can take $G=S_4$, $a=(1,2,3),b=(2,3,4)$. Then $ab=(1,3)(2,4)$ and $a\neq b$, $(ab)^2=1$. $\endgroup$ – Alex W May 29 '15 at 15:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Hagenvoneitzen Alexw Thanks for pointing out the mistake on my argument. I did overlook the possibility of orbits with less than $d$ elements. After removing those problematic orbits (I.e. Those with entries exhibiting periodicity), the number of the remaining tuples is still divisible by $d$, and my argument still goes through. I'll supply more details later as now it's bedtime. $\endgroup$ – Alex Fok May 29 '15 at 16:21
  • $\begingroup$ Why $|S|$ is divisible by $d$ ? $\endgroup$ – Alex W May 29 '15 at 16:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And yet, why $|S|$ is divisible by $d$? How to prove it in the beginning? Of course, number of non-fixed under $\mathbb{Z}_d$ tuples in $S$ is divisible by $d$. But why number of fixed points in $S$ relating $\mathbb{Z}_d$ is divisible by $d$? We did not know this until we prove theorem. Or why the number of "problematic" tuples is divisible by $d$? $\endgroup$ – Alex W Jun 2 '15 at 17:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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