There is a lemma that says if a group $G$ has no proper nontrivial subgroups, then $G$ is cyclic. And here is the proof of the lemma:

Suppose $G$ has no proper nontrivial subgroups. Take an element $a$ in $G$ for which $a$ is not equal to $e$. Consider the cyclic subgroup $\langle a \rangle$. This subgroup contains at least $e$ and $a$, so it is not trivial. But $G$ has no proper subgroups, so it must be that $\langle a \rangle = G$. Thus $G$ is cyclic, by definition of a cyclic group.

But here i do not understand the following: Why must $\langle a \rangle$ be a subgroup of $G$? For every single element $a$ in $G$, if $\langle a \rangle$ is a subgroup of $G$, then every group should have at least as many subgroups as the number of its elements. I would appreciate any help. Thanks

  • $\begingroup$ $\langle a \rangle$ is a subgroup by definition. Look up the definitions before reading proofs using them. $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Mar 17 '13 at 16:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ And the converse holds if and only if the order of $G$ is prime. So actually, $G$ has no nontrivial subgroups if and only if $G\simeq \mathbb{Z}_p$ for some prime $p$. $\endgroup$ – Julien Mar 17 '13 at 17:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Martin Bradenburg, yes the definition says it but i thought it doesn't need to be like that, but i was confused now i understood why. $\endgroup$ – Yasin Razlık Mar 17 '13 at 17:14
  • $\begingroup$ @julien, thanks $\endgroup$ – Yasin Razlık Mar 17 '13 at 17:15

Given $a\in G$, $\langle a\rangle$ is defined to be the smallest subgroup of $G$ containing $a$ as an element. Knowing that $\langle a\rangle=\langle b\rangle$ isn't enough to conclude that $a=b$, though. For example, we always have $\langle a\rangle=\langle a^{-1}\rangle,$ no matter the order of $a$.


Every element of a group $G$ does indeed generate a subgroup. But the subgroups generated by different elements are not necessarily equal.

If $a\in G$, $\langle a \rangle$ is the smallest subgroup containing $a$, and it is by definition, a cyclic subgroup. It's elements do indeed form cyclic subgroups of \langle a \rangle as well, but note that any given element may be in a number of subgroups.

That is, subgroups need not be disjoint, in fact, they can't be, since at the very least $e$ is an element in every subgroup, by the definition of a subgroup. So an element can indeed be in more than one subgroup.


Look at $\mathbb Z$ and compare some of its subgroups: $2\mathbb Z$, $4\mathbb Z$, $8\mathbb Z$, etc. We have $8\mathbb Z \leq 4\mathbb Z \leq 2\mathbb Z \leq \mathbb Z$

Note, e.g., $2\in \{2n\mathbb Z: n \in \mathbb N, n\geq 1\} \leq \mathbb Z$. Note that $8 = 4(2n) \in 2n\mathbb Z$, but $8$ is also in $\mathbb 4n\mathbb Z$ and it generates $8n\mathbb Z$.

For a finite example, look at $\mathbb Z_{4} = \langle 1 \rangle = \langle 3 \rangle$. While $2 \in \langle 1 \rangle,\;\; \langle 2 \rangle \neq \langle 1 \rangle.$ But $\langle 2 \rangle = \{0, 2\} \leq \langle 1 \rangle.$ And clearly, $\langle 0 \rangle = \{0\} \leq \langle 2 \rangle \leq \langle 1 \rangle$

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps you meant to say that "[...] But the subgroups generated by different elements are not necessarily different."? $\endgroup$ – Nicolas Miari Jun 23 '16 at 4:46

You mixed the one-element set $\{a\}$ and and the set $<a>$ of all powers of an element $a$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer, i see now. $\endgroup$ – Yasin Razlık Mar 17 '13 at 17:15

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.