There are some questions that I have regarding the following Theorem (and its proof):

Theorem $\mathbf{13.2}$ Every finite abelian group $G$ is the internal direct product of $p$-groups.

$\text{P}\scriptstyle{\rm ROOF}$. If $|G|=1$, then the theorem is trivial. Suppose that the order of $G$ is greater than $1$, say $$|G|=p_1^{\alpha_1}\cdots p_n^{\alpha_n},$$ where $p_1,\ldots,p_n$ are all prime, and define $G_i$ to be the set of elements in $G$ order $p_i^k$ for some integer $k$. Since $G$ is an abelian group, we are guaranteed that $G_i$ is a subgroup of $G$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$. We must show that $$G=G_1G_2\cdots G_n.$$ That is, we must be able to write every $g\in G$ as a unique product $g_{p_1}\cdots g_{p_n}$ where $g_{p_i}$ is of the order of some power of $p_i$. Since the order of $g$ divides the order of $G$, we know that $$|g|=p_1^{\beta_1}p_2^{\beta_2}\cdots p_n^{\beta_n}$$ for integers $\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_n$. Letting $a_i=|g|/p_i^{\beta_i}$, the $a_i$'s are relatively prime; hence, there exist integers $b_1,\ldots,b_n$ such that $a_1b_1+\cdots+a_nb_n=1$. Consequently, $$g=g^{a_1b_1+\cdots+a_nb_n}=g^{a_1b_1}\cdots g^{a_nb_n}.$$ Since $g^{(a_ib_i)p_i^{\beta_i}}=g^{b_i|g|}=e,$ it follows that $g^{a_ib_i}$ must be in $G_i$. Let $g_i=g^{a_ib_i}$. Then $g=g_1\cdots g_n$ and $G_i\cap G_j=\{e\}$ for $i\neq j$.
$\quad$ To show uniqueness, suppose that $g=g_1\cdots g_n=h_1\cdots h_n$, with $h_i\in G_i$. Then $$e=(g_1\cdots g_n)(h_1\cdots h_n)^{-1}=g_1h_1^{-1}\cdots g_nh_n^{-1}.$$ The order of $g_ih_i^{-1}$ is a power of $p_i$; hence, the order of $g_1h_1^{-1}\cdots g_nh_n^{-1}$ is the least common multiple of the orders of the $g_ih_i^{-1}$. This must be $1$, since the order of the identity is $1$. Therefore, $|g_ih_i^{-1}|=1$ or $g_i=h_i$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$. $\tag*{$\square$}$

$1-$ Why $a_i$'s are relatively prime? They must not since for example $a_1=p_2^{\beta_2}p_3^{\beta_3} \dots p_n^{\beta_n}$ and $a_2=p_1^{\beta_1}p_3^{\beta_3} \dots p_n^{\beta_n}$ have $p_3^{\beta_3} \dots p_n^{\beta_n}$ in common.

$2-$ If $a$ and $b$ are relatively prime, I know a proof for 'there exist integers $c$ and $d$ such that $ac+bd=1$. I don't know how to generalize it even by induction method. How to prove that if $a_i$'s are relatively prime there exist integers $b_i$'s such that $a_1b_1+ \dots =1$?

$3-$ Is it necessary to show the uniqueness or it is just a 'supplementary' fact? I mean that I think that if the mentioned proof had finished at the point of $g=g_1\dots g_n$ (i.e. without whole of the last paragraph), the proof is still complete. If not, why?

I really appreciate any clear simple explanations.

PS - Source: Abstract Algebra, Theory and Applications by Thomas W. Judson

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For question $2$, I think it would help to look at the fact that $$ \gcd(a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_n) = \gcd(a_1, \gcd(a_2, \gcd(\cdots, \gcd(a_{n-1}, a_n)\cdots))) $$ You can construct $\gcd(a_{n-1}, a_n)$ from a linear combination of $a_{n-1}$ and $a_n$. Then you can construct $\gcd(a_{n-2}, a_{n-1}, a_n) = \gcd(a_{n-2}, \gcd(a_{n-1}, a_n))$ with a linear combination of $a_{n-2}$ and $\gcd(a_{n-1}, a_n)$ (which is already a linear combination of $a_{n-1}$ and $a_n$). And so on. $\endgroup$ – Arthur Sep 11 '15 at 11:41
  1. They are relatively prime "on the whole", there exists no $d$ (non-trivial) such that $d$ divides all $a_i$'s.

  2. Take $a_1,...,a_s$ then in $\mathbb{Z}$ the ideal $(a_1,...,a_s)$ must be generated by one element (the ring $\mathbb{Z}$ is principal) let $d$ such that $(a_1,...,a_s)=(d)$, hence $d$ divides all $a_i$'s hence it must be $1$ (since they are relatively prime), in particular $1\in (a_1,...,a_s)$.

  3. I think this is as you say a "supplementary" fact, but it is interesting to see a short proof (like it is written here) of this since we usually use Sylow's theorem here (which is rather complicated).

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. Unfortunately I don't know "Sylow's theorem" and "ideal" and "ring" and "principal". They all come in much later chapters! Is there a way you please explain without the mention concepts? Thank you. $\endgroup$ – L.G. Sep 11 '15 at 11:34

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.