A permutation is a product of disjoint transpositions iff its order is $1$ or $2$ 
Prove that a permutation in $S_n$ can be written as the product of disjoint transpositions if and only if it is of order $1$ or $2$.

What I did so far:

$\leftarrow$ if $s \in S_n$ is of order $1$ then that means $s=I$ and therefore it can be written as $(11)(22)...(nn)$, which are disjoint transpositions. If it is of order $2$ then it is made up of $1$-cycles and $2$-cycles (since the $lcm$ is the order). 

And there is where I had problems. If it is of order $2$ then how can I write it as disjoint transpositions? Also, I am having a hard-time with the other direction.
 A: Facts: 


*

*Every permutation can be written (essentially uniquely) as a product of disjoint cycles (of different lengths).

*The order of a permutation is the lcm of the lengths of those cycles in this representation.
If $\sigma$ is a permutation of order 1 or 2, then $\sigma = c_1 c_2 \ldots c_k$, as a disjoint product of cycles. If one of the lengths of $c_i$ is $>2$, so is the lcm of their orders (it's a multiple of each of those lengths), and so the order of $\sigma$ would be $>2$, which cannot be. So all lengths of cycles $c_i$ are 1 or 2. If all are we have the identity, otherwise a product of disjoint transpositions (we have at least one of order 2). We can leave out the 1-cycles, as is customary.
This is basically the whole argument. The other way round, if $\sigma$ is a product of involutions (at least one non-trivial), the order is clearly 2 (as the lcm of 1's and 2's is just 2).
A: The order of a product of disjoint cycle is the least common multiple of the lengths of the factors.. This is because disjoint cycles commute.
So $(C_1C_2\dots C_n)^k=C_1^kC_2^k\dots C_n^k$. In your case the least common multiple of a bunch of twos is two.
A: I will answer without making reference to least common multiple (See Proofwiki Order of Product of Disjoint Permutations) but still making use of that the length of a cycle is equal to its order. Therefore, I do not know any formula for the order of a permutation. I will still be able to answer because I know what the order of a permutation is not.
Proof:
Let $p$ be a permutation in $S_n$. If $p$ is identity, then its order is obviously 1. If $p$ is not identity and a product of disjoint transpositions, then its order is obviously $2$. Conversely, if $p$ has order 1, then $p$ is obviously identity, an empty product of disjoint transpositions. Suppose $p$ has order 2. If $p$ is not a transposition (product of 1 transposition) or a product of disjoint transpositions, then $p$ is:


*

*a product of intersecting transpositions, where we have that not all its transpositions are the same with each other.

*$p$ is a cycle of length greater than 2.

*$p$ is a product containing a cycle of length greater than 2.
Case 2 contradicts our assumption that $p$ has order 2 because of the length of $p$ is its order, which we know.
In Case 3, while we don't know what the order of $p$ is, we know $p^2 \ne 1$ so the order cannot be 2, another contradiction.
In Case 1, intersecting transpositions will give us a cycle of length greater than 2, which reduces to Case 3. That intersecting transpositions will give us a cycle of length greater than 2 follows from the more general fact that $$(a_1\cdots a_k)=(a_1\cdots a_i)(a_{i}\cdots a_k)$$
Since both that the more general fact in Case 1 and that in Case 2 our deduction the order $p$ is not 2 do not make use of the order of a permutation's being related to a least common multiple, I have proved the result without knowing a formula for the order of a permutation is.
