5
$\begingroup$

The book "A First Course in Abstract Algebra" by Fraleigh says

If $G$ is a finite subgroup of the multiplicative group $\langle F^*,\cdot\rangle$ of a field $F$, then $G$ is cyclic. In particular, the multiplicative group of all nonzero elements of a finite field is cyclic.

I wonder why that is. Take $a,b\in F$ such that $a^2=b^2=1$. Then $\{1,a,b,ab\}$ is a non-cyclic subgroup of $F$. Where am I going wrong?

Thanks in advance!

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How are you concluding that $\{1,a,b,ab\}$ is non-cyclic? What if $a=b$? What if $F=\mathbb{R}$, $a = 1$, $b = -1$? Then $\{1,a,b,ab\} = \{1,-1\}$ is certainly cyclic. $\endgroup$ – Amit Kumar Gupta Jan 27 '14 at 5:08
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ The quadratic $\,x^2-1\,$ cannot have $\,4\,$ distinct roots $\{1,a,b,ab\}$ in a field. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Jan 27 '14 at 5:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Your error is in presuming each element of $\{1,a,b,ab\}$ is distinct from the other three. $\endgroup$ – anon Jan 27 '14 at 5:10
  • $\begingroup$ My initial assumption (which I realised I haven't mentioned) is that $a\neq b$. $\endgroup$ – fierydemon Jan 27 '14 at 5:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ayush, you just asked why $1$ has to be a root of $x^2-1$. Surely that's obvious... $\endgroup$ – anon Jan 27 '14 at 5:27
8
$\begingroup$

The quadratic $\,x^2-1\,$ cannot have $\,4\,$ distinct roots $\{1,a,b,ab\}$ in a field. This property of fields plays a key role in the proof - see below.

Theorem $\ $ A finite subgroup $\rm\:G\:$ of the multiplicative group of a field is cyclic.

Proof $\ $ The proposition below yields, with $\rm\,m = maxord(G) = expt(G),\,$ that $\rm\, x^m = 1\,$ has $\rm\:\#G\:$ roots. Since a polynomial $\rm\:f\:$ over a field satisfies $\rm\:\#roots\ f \le deg\ f\:$ we infer that $\rm\: \#G \le m.\:$ But maxorder $\rm\:m \le \#G\:$ since $\rm\:g^{\#G} = 1\:$ for all $\rm\:g \in G\:$ (Lagrange). $\:$ Thus $\rm\:m = \#G = maxord(G),\:$ therefore $\rm\:G\:$ has an element of order $\rm\#G,\:$ hence $\rm\:G\:$ is cyclic.

$\begin{eqnarray}\rm{\bf Proposition}\quad maxord(G) \!&\,=\,&\rm expt(G)\ \text{ for a finite abelian group}\ G,\ i.e.\\ \\ \rm max\ \{ ord(g) : \: g \in G\} \!&\,=\,&\rm min\ \{ n>0 : \: g^n = 1\ \ \forall\ g \in G\}\end{eqnarray}$

Proof $\ $ By the lemma below, $\rm\: S\, =\, \{ ord(g) : \:g \in G \}$ is a finite set of naturals closed under$\rm\ lcm$.

Hence every $\rm\ s \in S\:$ is a divisor of the max elt $\rm m\ $ [else $\rm\: lcm(s,m) > m\,$],$\ $ so $\rm\ m = expt(G)$.

Lemma $\ $ A finite abelian group $\rm\:G\:$ has an lcm-closed order set, i.e. with $\rm\: o(X) = $ order of $\rm\: X$

$$\rm X,Y \in G\ \Rightarrow\ \exists\ Z \in G:\ o(Z) = lcm(o(X),o(Y))$$

Proof $\ \ $ By induction on $\rm\: o(X)\, o(Y).\ $ If it's $\:1\:$ then trivially $\rm\:Z = 1$. $\ $ Otherwise

write $\rm\ o(X) =\: AP,\: \ o(Y) = BP',\ \ P'|\,P = p^m > 1,\ $ prime $\rm\: p\:$ coprime to $\rm\: A,B.$

Then $\rm\: o(X^P) = A,\ o(Y^{P'}) = B.\ $ By induction there's a $\rm\: Z\:$ with $\rm \: o(Z) = lcm(A,B)$

so $\rm\ o(X^A\: Z)\: =\: P\ lcm(A,B)\: =\: lcm(AP,BP')\: =\: lcm(o(X),o(Y)).$

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If you leave some details for the OP to work out on his own then you get essentially the same proof as in my answer. :) $\endgroup$ – Amit Kumar Gupta Jan 27 '14 at 5:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Amit The point of my comment was to help readers understand the relationship between the answers - nothing more. Otherwise, in threads with many related answers, a student might expend much effort before realizing that many answers are essentially duplicates. Here a reader can decide on a sketch or a complete proof, whatever works best. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Jan 27 '14 at 5:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes I know, just being snarky. $\endgroup$ – Amit Kumar Gupta Jan 27 '14 at 5:57
3
$\begingroup$

Let $G < \langle F^\ast, \cdot\rangle$ be a finite subgroup. It suffices to show that $\mathrm{ord}(x) = |G|$ for some $x \in G$, since such an $x$ can be taken to be a generator for $G$.

Suppose not, and that the maximum order of any element of $G$ is some $n < |G|$. It's easy to see that $x^n = 1$ for all $x \in G$, indeed, $n$ must be the least common multiple of the orders of the elements of $G$ (this fact doesn't rely on the assumption $n < |G|$). Thus every element of $G$ is a solution to $x^n = 1$, of which there are at most $n$ in the field $F$. So

$$\left|G\right| \leq \left|\{x\in F : x^n = 1\}\right| \leq n < \left|G\right|$$

contradiction.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If you complete the omitted parts then you get essentially the same proof as in my answer. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Jan 27 '14 at 5:27
  • $\begingroup$ Finally a clear answer : ) $\endgroup$ – Psylex Jun 1 at 20:41
1
$\begingroup$

Sketch: $F$ a field implies $F[x]$ a Euclidean domain implies $F[x]$ a UFD. Since $F$ is a field, all the $F$ are the units in $F[x]$, so no degree zero polynomial is an irreducible in $F[x]$. It is an exercise to show degree 1 irreducible polynomials have a single root in $F$. It is an exercise to show that degree $\geq$2 irreducible polynomials have no roots in $F$.

Consider a polynomial of degree $d$ in $F[x]$. This polynomial is the product of a unit and powers of irreducibles in $F[x]$. The sum of the polynomial degrees of the unit (i.e. zero) and the irreducibles (counted with multiplicity) is the degree of the polynomial because $F[x]$ is a Euclidean domain. Therefore, the polynomial has $\leq d$ roots in $F$.

Let $n = |G|$ and $m = \gcd(\{|g| \, \mid \, g \in G\})$. By Lagrange, every element's order divides $n$. The least number divided by every element's order is $m$, so $m \leq n$. Consider now the polynomial $P(x) = x^m-1$, which has degree $m$ and therefore has $\leq m$ roots in $F$. Since every element of $G$ satisfies the equation $P(x)=0$, $n \leq m$. Therefore $n = m$.

(One variant of this argument uses Euler's totient here. I think this is usually attributed to Serre. Can anyone confirm/deny that?)

Let $p$ range over the primes dividing $n$ such that $p^k$ exactly divides $n$ and let $\mathrm{Syl}_p$ be a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$. If $\mathrm{Syl}_p$ is not cyclic, then every element of $\mathrm{Syl}_p$ has order $\leq p^{k-1}$. But then the maximum power of $p$ in the factorization of $m$ is $p^{k-1}$ and that in $n$ is $p^k$. Since $m=n$, $\mathrm{Syl}_p$ is cyclic. For distinct primes $p$, $q$, let $g_p, g_q$ generate $\mathrm{Syl}_p$,$\mathrm{Syl}_q$, respectively. We find that $(|g_p|,|g_q|)=1$ so $g_p g_q$ generates a cyclic group with order the product of the orders of $\mathrm{Syl}_p$ and $\mathrm{Syl}_q$. Since $F$ is a field, $G$ is abelian so $G$ is the direct product of its Sylow subgroups. By a quick induction, the product of a set of generators, one each from the Sylow $p$-subgroups as $p$ ranges over primes dividing $n$, generates $G$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I vaguely recall seeing the totient version credited to someone besides Serre, but I cannot recall who at the moment. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Jan 27 '14 at 6:06
  • $\begingroup$ That $\gcd$ expression was a little surprising, I think because I confused the \mid in the set comprehension with the bars on the order-of-$g$ notation. But I wasn't sure what I would have preferred. Then I wondered about $$\gcd_{g\in G}(\lvert g\rvert).$$ $\endgroup$ – MJD Jan 27 '14 at 6:19
0
$\begingroup$

Hint A finite abelian group is cyclic iff its order equals its exponent.

$\endgroup$

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.