8
$\begingroup$

This is what I have. Note: I'm not allowed Cauchy's theorem or Sylow theorems.

Let $|G| = 275$. So I know $275 = 5\times5\times11$. If I assume that $G$ is cyclic then there exists $x\in G$ such that $|x| = 275$. Then $|x^{55}| = 5$ and I'm done.

If $G$ is not cyclic then I assume it contains no elements of order $275$. Then all elements of $G$ have order $1,5,11,25,55$. It has an element of order $5$ then I stop because we're done. So I look at an element of order $|x| = 25 \text{ or } 55$ but then wouldn't $|x^{5 \text{ or } 11}| = 5$ so I'd be done here also. Thus I can say $G$ has elements of order $11$ only. So for each element of order $11$ I can look at $\langle x\rangle$ and this will have $|\langle x\rangle|=11$ for each distinct such subgroup I'll get $10$ distinct elements and so if there are k such subgroups I'll have $10k + 1$ elements and $275 = 10k+1 \iff 274 = 10k$ but $10$ doesn't divide $274$ so $G$ must have an element of order $5$.

Is this enough or do I need to show more and perhaps more importantly does this work?

(edit: spelling)

$\endgroup$
6
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Seems fine to me. $\endgroup$ – lhf Nov 5 '13 at 1:23
  • $\begingroup$ This is a direct result of the Cauchy's theorem or Sylow's theorem in case you have studied them. $\endgroup$ – user53970 Nov 5 '13 at 1:29
  • $\begingroup$ @user53970 , I know of them through independent study but they've not appeared in the course so I don't think I'n allowed to use them. $\endgroup$ – AvatarOfChronos Nov 5 '13 at 1:33
  • $\begingroup$ Your argument is correct. The only thing I think you should add is why $\langle x \rangle \cap \langle y \rangle = e $ for all $x,y \in G$. $\endgroup$ – user53970 Nov 5 '13 at 1:50
  • $\begingroup$ @user53970 , This is because if $h \in <x> \cap <y>$ then $h^n \in <x> \cap <y>$ and since $x,y$ have the same order we see either $<x> = <y>$ or $<x> \cap <y>= \{e\}$ right? Thus any two subgroups of order 11 has a trivial intersection or they are the same. $\endgroup$ – AvatarOfChronos Nov 5 '13 at 2:22
1
$\begingroup$

(CW to push this away from the unanswered list)

The argument is correct; possibly it should be added that subgroups of order $11$ either have intersection $\{e\}$ or are the same, so indeed $G$ must be the disjoint union of $\{e\}$ and pairwise disjoint ten element subsets.

The property is easy to prove: if $H_1$ and $H_2$ are subgroups of order $11$, then $H_1\cap H_2$ has order either $1$ or $11$, being a subgroup of $H_1$.

$\endgroup$

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.