Algebra by Michael Artin Prop 2.4.2

Here is the statement and the proof:

enter image description here

I split Prop 2.4.2(c) into Parts I, II and III respectively:

Part I: There is some positive integer $n$ s.t. $S=\mathbb Zn$

Part II: $$\langle x \rangle = \{1,x,x^2,...,x^{n-1}\}$$

Part III: order of $\langle x \rangle$ is n.

I would like to alternatively prove Part II as follows:


By definition of $\langle x \rangle$,

$$\langle x \rangle := \{...,x^{-n}, x^{-n+1},...,x^{-2},x^{-1},1,x,x^2,...,x^{n-1},x^n,...\} \tag{1}$$

Because $S = \mathbb Zn$ (Prop 2.4.2(c) Part I), $x^n$ is killed (I think this is the term used in Chapter 3 or 11), i.e. $x^{mn}=1=x^{-mn}$ for all integers $m$, and thus elements to the right of $x^n$ and to the left of $x^{-n}$ become repeats of the ones in between them. Hence,

$$\langle x \rangle = \{... x^{-n+1},...,x^{-2},x^{-1},1, x^{-n+1},...,x^{-2},x^{-1},$$

$$1,x,x^2,...,x^{n-1},1,x,x^2,...,x^{n-1}... \} \tag{2}$$

$$ = \{ x^{-n+1},...,x^{-2},x^{-1},1,x,x^2,...,x^{n-1} \} \tag{3}$$

Now $x^n = x^{n-1}x$, whence $x^{-1}=x^{n-1}$. Similarly, $x^{-a}=x^{n-a}$ for all $a = 0,1,...,n-1$. This implies

$$\langle x \rangle = \{ 1,x,x^2,...,x^{n-1} \}. \tag{4}$$


To recap:

$(1) \to (2)$: Elements beyond and including $x^n$ or $x^{-n}$ are repeats.

$(2) \to (3)$: Elements beyond and including $x^n$ or $x^{-n}$ are repeats of the ones inside.

$(3) \to (4)$: Elements with negative exponents are repeats of elements with positive exponents.


$(4) \to (4)$: I just realised that I have given no reason to conclude that the representation of $\langle x \rangle$ in $(4)$ is indeed of $n$ distinct elements. If I use Part III, this is circular unless I somehow prove Part III without Part II.

How might I argue, at this stage of learning, that the elements of $\{ 1,x,x^2,...,x^{n-1} \}$ are indeed distinct besides the ways listed below?

  • Artin's $k=nq+r$.

  • Proving Part III without Part II and then using Part III to prove Part II.

'Seems no other way' is an answer.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I guess you need to take care about how you prove that $S=\mathbb Zn$ for some $n$. The proof is essentially proving an isomorphism with $\mathbb Zn$ for some $n$. $\endgroup$ Aug 27 '18 at 7:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MarkBennet What do you mean? $S=\mathbb Zn$ follows from (a) right? Also, how's the answer below please? Thanks! $\endgroup$
    – BCLC
    Aug 27 '18 at 9:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I mean how do you show that the only proper subgroups of $\mathbb Z$ are of the form $\mathbb Z n$? $\endgroup$ Aug 27 '18 at 13:37
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MarkBennet it is proved in Thm2.3.3. the proof has n=qa+r in it similar to Artin's use of k=nq+r here. Soooo....? $\endgroup$
    – BCLC
    Aug 27 '18 at 13:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Well, if the result you want to avoid is hidden in the proof of a theorem on which you rely then you haven't really avoided it, you've just hidden it. $\endgroup$ Aug 28 '18 at 5:53

Okay, I thought of one: Not using $k=nq+r$ but has similar flavour.

Observe that $n$ is is the smallest positive integer of $S=\mathbb Zn$, i.e. $n=\min (S \cap \mathbb N \cap \{0\}^c)$. Now suppose on the contrary that there are distinct exponents $k_1, k_2$ (i.e. $k_1 \ne k_2$) in the set of $n$ exponents $\{0,1,...,n-1\}$ s.t. $x^{k_1}=x^{k_2}$. Then $x^{|k_2-k_1|}=1$, where $|k_2-k_1|$ is the absolute value of the difference of the two exponents. However, $|k_2-k_1|$ is also in $\{0,1,...,n-1\}$. This contradicts $n=\min (S \cap \mathbb N \cap \{0\}^c)$. ↯ QED


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.