I'm reading "Contemporary Abstract Algebra," by Gallian.

This is Exercise 4.46.

Which of the following numbers could be the exact number of elements of order $21$ in a group: $21600, 21602, 21604$?

My Attempt:

Lemma: In a finite group, the number of elements of order $d$ is a multiple of $\varphi(d)$.

(This is a Corollary of Theorem 4.4 ibid.)

Since $\varphi(21)=12$ and $12\mid 21600$ but not the other two candidate numbers, the lemma above implies that $21600$ is the exact number of elements of order $21$ for some (finite) group.

I'm quite sure I got this right$^{\dagger}$. I intuited the result, having forgotten the Lemma (well, Corollary) above.

This question is just so I can make note of it, really, but I suppose I could use the post to ask the following:

Is the assumption that the group is finite necessary?

My guess is that it's not. I have a rough idea of using a presentation with some free generators in such a way that it has the required number of order $21$ elements all within some finite subgroup (and no other such elements in the group given by the presentation).

Please help :)

Here $\varphi$ is Euler's totient function.

$\dagger$ The Dunning-Kruger effect in action . . . It's the right number, yeah, but, as pointed out below, I didn't show that such a group actually exists.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't know if I'm being naive here, but if you had some infinite group $G$ and you were concerned about the possible precise number of elements of order $d$ that $G$ could have (given that the number of such elements is finite), could you not just consider $H$ to be the smallest subgroup of $G$ containing all elements of order $d$ (or even just the subgroup generated by the elements of order $d$) and then apply your lemma? $\endgroup$ – Adam Higgins Jan 15 at 15:03
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @AdamHiggins $H$ is not necessarily finite: for example, if we take the group with presentation $\langle a, b | a^{21}, b^{21}\rangle$, then no finite (indeed, no proper) subgroup contains both $a$ and $b$. $\endgroup$ – user3482749 Jan 15 at 15:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @AdamHiggins $H$ might still be infinite. $\endgroup$ – Lord Shark the Unknown Jan 15 at 15:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thanks all! My bad! $\endgroup$ – Adam Higgins Jan 15 at 15:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You also need to show an example to a group such that the number of elements of order $21$ is exactly $21600$. The lemma you cited only shows that the other two possibilities are wrong, it does not give you that the remaining one is surely right. $\endgroup$ – A. Pongrácz Jan 15 at 15:29

There is no need to assume that $G$ is finite. For an arbitrary group $G$, and some fixed $n >0$, let $G_n$ be the set of elements of $G$ of (finite) order $n$. Then you can show that, for $g,h \in G_n$, $g$ is a power of $h$ if and only if $h$ is a power of $g$, so "is a power of" is an equivalence relation on $G_n$, and all equivalence classes have size $\phi(n)$.

So, in particular, if $G_n$ is finite, then $|G_n|$ is a multiple of $\phi(n)$.

On the other hand, if $G_n$ is finite, then $C_G(G_n)$ has finite index in $G$, and I think that implies that $\langle G_n \rangle$ is finite.


The thing missing from your argument: there is a group such that there are exactly $21600$ elements of order $21$, and it is not so easy to find one.

Observe that $21600= 48\cdot 450$.

In $Z_7\times Z_7$, there are $48$ elements of order $7$.

In the nontrivial semidirect product $Z_{151}\rtimes Z_3$, the possible orders of elements are $1,3$ and $151$, as $151$ is a prime, and the group is not cyclic. There is such a nontrivial semidirect product as $151\equiv 1 \pmod 3$. Elements of order $1$ and $151$ are exactly those in the normal subgroup of order $151$. Thus there are exactly $3\cdot 150= 450$ elements of order $3$ in $Z_{151}\rtimes Z_3$.

Hence, in $(Z_7\times Z_7)\times (Z_{151}\rtimes Z_3)$, there are exactly $21600$ elements of order $21$. (Think about it.)

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It depends on which one is the normal subgroup. In my case, the thing on the left is the normal subgroup, so I had to use $\rtimes$. (The triangle points towards the normal subgroup.) $\endgroup$ – A. Pongrácz Jan 15 at 15:53
  • $\begingroup$ (Sorry: I deleted my last comment once I saw you'd edited your answer.) Yes, that's how I remember it too; I still get them mixed up every once in a while :) $\endgroup$ – Shaun Jan 15 at 15:54

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.