I have already written this permutation as disjoint cycles: (12345)(678)

My attempt at a product of two cycles: (12)(23)(34)(45)(67)(78), but I don't really think this is right, and if it is right, I'm not sure why. It's just an honest guess.

  • $\begingroup$ Your answer looks correct to me. $\endgroup$ – jwc845 Sep 22 '18 at 23:57
  • $\begingroup$ Why don't you just work out the product of those six $2$-cycles and see what you get? Hint: it's correct. $\endgroup$ – bof Sep 22 '18 at 23:57

Indeed, your product of disjoint cycles correctly represent the given permutation. And also your transpositions from the disjoint cycles are spot on.

See also this answer for a more thorough discussion of ways to write the product of transpositions for disjoint permutations.

  • $\begingroup$ I've already seen that answer, but as I can't comment yet due to not having enough reputation, I figured it might be better to ask my own question. In that answer, I have no idea how they were able to get their answer in method 1. $\endgroup$ – Alexia Paskevicius Sep 23 '18 at 0:02

You are correct. In general we have $(x_1, x_2, x_3,...,x_k)=(x_1, x_2)(x_2, x_3)(x_3, x_4)...(x_{k-1}, x_k)$. Very easy to see why this is correct, just check where does each of the two permutations send each element.


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.