The group is isomorphic to one of the groups

I will not address the first case, as it is already there in your post, but I will say that the second case is actually a special case of a more general result.In summary, the proposition is true for groups of order $2p$, with $p$ an odd prime, and the isomorphism classes are $\Bbb Z_{2p}$ and $D_p$.
  • #1
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
5,049
7
Hey! :eek:

I want to show that if $G$ is of order $2p$ with $p$ a prime, then $G\cong \mathbb{Z}_{2p}$ or $G\cong D_p$. I have done the following:

We have that $|G|=2p$, so there are $2$-Sylow and $p$-Sylow in $G$.
$$P\in \text{Syl}_p(G) , \ |P|=p \\ Q\in \text{Syl}_2(G) , \ |Q|=2$$

Let $x\in P$ and $y\in Q$, then $x^p=e$ and $y^2=e$.

Since the order of $x$ is $p$ and the order of $y$ is $2$, the subgroup that they generate has an order that divides the order of $G$, so it must be equal to the order of $G$.
Therefore, $G$ is generated by $x, y$.

Since $[G:\langle x\rangle ]=\frac{|G|}{|\langle x\rangle |}=\frac{2p}{p}=2$ we have that $\langle x\rangle \trianglelefteq G$.

Since $\langle x\rangle$ is a normal subgroup of $G$ we have that $$y^{-1}xy\in \langle x\rangle, \text{ where } y\in G \\ \Rightarrow y^{-1}xy=x^t, \text{ for some } 1\leq t\leq p-1$$

We have that $$x=e^{-1}xe=(y^2)^{-1}xy^2=y^{-1}(y^{-1}xy)y=y^{-1}x^ty=y^{-1}xyy^{-1}xy\cdots y^{-1}xy=(x^t)^t=x^{t^2}$$

So $x=x^{t^2} \Rightarrow e=x^{t^2-1}$.

Therefore, $p$ divides $t^2-1=(t-1)(t+1)$, so $p$ divides $t-1$ or $t+1$.

$$p\mid t-1 \Rightarrow t-1=0 \Rightarrow t=1 \\ p\mid t+1 \Rightarrow p=t+1 \Rightarrow t=p-1$$

Is this correct? (Wondering) When $t=1$ we have that $xy=yx$.
We want to show that $xy$ has order $2p$, so that the group is generated by $xy$, i.e. so that the group is cyclic, right? (Wondering)
We have that $(xy)^{2p} \overset{ xy=yx }{ = } x^{2p}y^{2p}=(x^p)^2(y^2)^p=e$.
Suppose that $2p$ is not the smallest power, then say $n$ is the smallest power such that $(xy)^n=e$. That means that $$n\mid 2p \Rightarrow n\mid 2 \text{ or } n\mid p \Rightarrow n\in \{1,2,p\}$$
If $n=1$, then $xy=e \Rightarrow x=y^{-1}=y$. Since the order of $y$ is $2$, we would have that the order $x$ is also $2$. That is not true, since the order $x$ is $p$. Or can $p$ take the value $2$ ? (Wondering)
If $n=2$ we have that $(xy)^2=e \Rightarrow x^2y^2=e \Rightarrow x^2=e$. That is only true when the order of $x$ is $2$, so when $p=2$.
If $n=p$ we have that $(xy)^p=e \Rightarrow x^py^p=e \Rightarrow y^p=e$. That is only true when the order of $y$ is $p$, so when $p=2$.

Is this correct? (Wondering) When $t=p−1$, we have that $x^p=e=y^2$ and $y^{−1}xy=x^{p−1}\Rightarrow yxy=x^{−1}$. So, $x$ and $y$ generate the dihedral group $D_p$, right? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
mathmari said:
Hey! :eek:

I want to show that if $G$ is of order $2p$ with $p$ a prime, then $G\cong \mathbb{Z}_{2p}$ or $G\cong D_p$. I have done the following:

We have that $|G|=2p$, so there are $2$-Sylow and $p$-Sylow in $G$.
$$P\in \text{Syl}_p(G) , \ |P|=p \\ Q\in \text{Syl}_2(G) , \ |Q|=2$$

Let $x\in P$ and $y\in Q$, then $x^p=e$ and $y^2=e$.

Since the order of $x$ is $p$ and the order of $y$ is $2$, the subgroup that they generate has an order that divides the order of $G$, so it must be equal to the order of $G$.
Therefore, $G$ is generated by $x, y$.

Since $[G:\langle x\rangle ]=\frac{|G|}{|\langle x\rangle |}=\frac{2p}{p}=2$ we have that $\langle x\rangle \trianglelefteq G$.

Since $\langle x\rangle$ is a normal subgroup of $G$ we have that $$y^{-1}xy\in \langle x\rangle, \text{ where } y\in G \\ \Rightarrow y^{-1}xy=x^t, \text{ for some } 1\leq t\leq p-1$$

We have that $$x=e^{-1}xe=(y^2)^{-1}xy^2=y^{-1}(y^{-1}xy)y=y^{-1}x^ty=y^{-1}xyy^{-1}xy\cdots y^{-1}xy=(x^t)^t=x^{t^2}$$

So $x=x^{t^2} \Rightarrow e=x^{t^2-1}$.

Therefore, $p$ divides $t^2-1=(t-1)(t+1)$, so $p$ divides $t-1$ or $t+1$.

$$p\mid t-1 \Rightarrow t-1=0 \Rightarrow t=1 \\ p\mid t+1 \Rightarrow p=t+1 \Rightarrow t=p-1$$

Is this correct? (Wondering) When $t=1$ we have that $xy=yx$.
We want to show that $xy$ has order $2p$, so that the group is generated by $xy$, i.e. so that the group is cyclic, right? (Wondering)
We have that $(xy)^{2p} \overset{ xy=yx }{ = } x^{2p}y^{2p}=(x^p)^2(y^2)^p=e$.
Suppose that $2p$ is not the smallest power, then say $n$ is the smallest power such that $(xy)^n=e$. That means that $$n\mid 2p \Rightarrow n\mid 2 \text{ or } n\mid p \Rightarrow n\in \{1,2,p\}$$
If $n=1$, then $xy=e \Rightarrow x=y^{-1}=y$. Since the order of $y$ is $2$, we would have that the order $x$ is also $2$. That is not true, since the order $x$ is $p$. Or can $p$ take the value $2$ ? (Wondering)
If $n=2$ we have that $(xy)^2=e \Rightarrow x^2y^2=e \Rightarrow x^2=e$. That is only true when the order of $x$ is $2$, so when $p=2$.
If $n=p$ we have that $(xy)^p=e \Rightarrow x^py^p=e \Rightarrow y^p=e$. That is only true when the order of $y$ is $p$, so when $p=2$.

Is this correct? (Wondering) When $t=p−1$, we have that $x^p=e=y^2$ and $y^{−1}xy=x^{p−1}\Rightarrow yxy=x^{−1}$. So, $x$ and $y$ generate the dihedral group $D_p$, right? (Wondering)

What you have looks correct, but you can simplify it a bit.

First of all, you should recognize straight off the bat that $p = 2$ is a special case, and that treating it separately is beneficial. For groups of order $4$, the proposition is still true, as there are only two isomorphism classes:

$\Bbb Z_4$ and $\Bbb Z_2 \times \Bbb Z_2$ (the latter is sometimes considered a dihedral group).

As soon as you establish that either:

1) $yxy = x$ (so that $G$ is abelian), if $p$ is an ODD prime, it is immediate that the order of $xy$ is $\text{lcm}(2,p) = 2p$.

-OR-

2) $yxy = x^{p-1} = x^{-1}$, then $G$ is (isomorphic to) the dihedral group of order $2p$.

(I urge you to consider what happens if $x$ and $y$ are not distinct, perhaps this will make it clear why $p = 2$ should be handled separately).
 
  • #3
Deveno said:
First of all, you should recognize straight off the bat that $p = 2$ is a special case, and that treating it separately is beneficial. For groups of order $4$, the proposition is still true, as there are only two isomorphism classes:

$\Bbb Z_4$ and $\Bbb Z_2 \times \Bbb Z_2$ (the latter is sometimes considered a dihedral group).

Is it known that there are only these two or do we have to prove it? (Wondering)
Deveno said:
As soon as you establish that either:

1) $yxy = x$ (so that $G$ is abelian), if $p$ is an ODD prime, it is immediate that the order of $xy$ is $\text{lcm}(2,p) = 2p$.

-OR-

2) $yxy = x^{p-1} = x^{-1}$, then $G$ is (isomorphic to) the dihedral group of order $2p$.

(I urge you to consider what happens if $x$ and $y$ are not distinct, perhaps this will make it clear why $p = 2$ should be handled separately).

If $p$ is an odd prime we have the following:

We have that $|G|=2p$, so there are $2$-Sylow and $p$-Sylow in $G$.
$$P\in \text{Syl}_p(G) , \ |P|=p \\ Q\in \text{Syl}_2(G) , \ |Q|=2$$

Let $x\in P$ and $y\in Q$, then $x^p=e$ and $y^2=e$.

Since the order of $x$ is $p$ and the order of $y$ is $2$, the subgroup that they generate has an order that divides the order of $G$, so it must be equal to the order of $G$.
Therefore, $G$ is generated by $x, y$.

Since $[G:\langle x\rangle ]=\frac{|G|}{|\langle x\rangle |}=\frac{2p}{p}=2$ we have that $\langle x\rangle \trianglelefteq G$.

Since $\langle x\rangle$ is a normal subgroup of $G$ we have that $$y^{-1}xy\in \langle x\rangle, \text{ where } y\in G \\ \Rightarrow y^{-1}xy=x^t, \text{ for some } 1\leq t\leq p-1$$

We have that $$x=e^{-1}xe=(y^2)^{-1}xy^2=y^{-1}(y^{-1}xy)y=y^{-1}x^ty=y^{-1}xyy^{-1}xy\cdots y^{-1}xy=(x^t)^t=x^{t^2}$$

So $x=x^{t^2} \Rightarrow e=x^{t^2-1}$.

Therefore, $p$ divides $t^2-1=(t-1)(t+1)$, so $p$ divides $t-1$ or $t+1$.

$$p\mid t-1 \Rightarrow t-1=0 \Rightarrow t=1 \\ p\mid t+1 \Rightarrow p=t+1 \Rightarrow t=p-1$$

  • When $t=1$, we have that $xy=yx$.
    We have that that the order of $xy$ is $\text{lcm}(2,p) = 2p$.
    Therefore, we have a cyclic abelian group of order $2p$. So, it is isomorphic to the cyclic group $\mathbb{Z}_{2p}$, right? (Wondering)

    Does it always hold that when the order of $x$ is $m$ and the order of $y$ is $n$ then the order of $xy$ is $\text{lcm}(m,n)$ ? (Wondering)
  • When $t=p−1$, we have that $x^p=e=y^2$ and $y^{−1}xy=x^{p−1}\Rightarrow yxy=x^{−1}$. So, $x$ and $y$ generate the dihedral group $D_p$, right? (Wondering)
Is the case when $p$ is an odd prime correct? (Wondering)
 
  • #4
mathmari said:
Is it known that there are only these two or do we have to prove it? (Wondering)

It's not hard to prove. A "high-level" proof goes something like this:

Let $|G| = 4$.

$4 = p^2$, for the prime $p = 2$. Therefore, any group of order $4$ is abelian. For if not, then, being a $p$-group, it has a non-trivial center. But then $G/Z$ has order 2, and is cyclic, and thus G is abelian, contradiction.

By the structure theorem for finitely-generated abelian groups:

$G \cong \Bbb Z_4$, or $G \cong \Bbb Z_2 \times \Bbb Z_2$, as the only two ways to write 4 as a product of powers of two are:

$4 = 2^2$
$4 = 2\cdot 2$

(This "high-level" proof works for ANY prime $p$, showing there are just two non-isomorphic groups of order $p^2$).

A "low-level" proof goes something like this: Let $G = \{e,a,b,c\}$. The possible orders for $a$ are 2, and 4. If the order of $a$ is 4, $G$ is cyclic, and isomorphic to $\Bbb Z_4$. A similar argument holds if the order of $b$ is 4.

So assume that $a^2 = b^2 = e$. Can $G$ still be cyclic? No, because a cyclic group of order 4 (with generator $x$) has two elements of order 4, $x$ and $x^{-1} = x^3$. So it must be that $c^2 = e$, as well.

Now by closure, $ab \in G$, but:

$ab = e \implies b = a^{-1}$ and $a = a^{-1}$, and inverses are unique, so this cannot be.
$ab = a \implies b = e$, contradiction.
$ab = b \implies a = e$, contradiction.

Hence $c = ab$.

Since $(ab)^2 = c^2 = e = ee = a^2b^2$, we have $ab = ba$, which is enough to show $G = \{e,a,b,ab\}$ is abelian.

Define $\phi: G \to \Bbb Z_2 \times \Bbb Z_2$ by:

$\phi(e) = (0,0)$
$\phi(a) = (1,0)$
$\phi(b) = (0,1)$
$\phi(ab) = (1,1)$.

It is straight-forward to verify that $\phi$ is a homomorphism by computing all 16 possible products in $G$, and evaluating $\phi$ at each one. Clearly, $\phi$ is bijective, and thus $G \cong Z_2 \times Z_2$.
If $p$ is an odd prime we have the following:

We have that $|G|=2p$, so there are $2$-Sylow and $p$-Sylow in $G$.
$$P\in \text{Syl}_p(G) , \ |P|=p \\ Q\in \text{Syl}_2(G) , \ |Q|=2$$

Let $x\in P$ and $y\in Q$, then $x^p=e$ and $y^2=e$.

Since the order of $x$ is $p$ and the order of $y$ is $2$, the subgroup that they generate has an order that divides the order of $G$, so it must be equal to the order of $G$.
Therefore, $G$ is generated by $x, y$.

If $P$ is a Sylow $p$-subgroup, and $Q$ is a Sylow 2-subgroup, we have $|PQ| = \dfrac{|P||Q|}{|P \cap Q|} = \dfrac{2p}{1} = |G|$, so we can conclude $G = PQ$, so if $x$ is a generator of $P$ and $y$ a generator of $Q$, $x$ and $y$ generate $G$. The important difference between what I wrote and what you wrote, is that my way of phrasing things precludes either of $x,y$ being the identity.
Since $[G:\langle x\rangle ]=\frac{|G|}{|\langle x\rangle |}=\frac{2p}{p}=2$ we have that $\langle x\rangle \trianglelefteq G$.

It's probably simpler just to say $P$ is normal because it is of index 2.

Since $\langle x\rangle$ is a normal subgroup of $G$ we have that $$y^{-1}xy\in \langle x\rangle, \text{ where } y\in G \\ \Rightarrow y^{-1}xy=x^t, \text{ for some } 1\leq t\leq p-1$$

We have that $$x=e^{-1}xe=(y^2)^{-1}xy^2=y^{-1}(y^{-1}xy)y=y^{-1}x^ty=y^{-1}xyy^{-1}xy\cdots y^{-1}xy=(x^t)^t=x^{t^2}$$

So $x=x^{t^2} \Rightarrow e=x^{t^2-1}$.

Therefore, $p$ divides $t^2-1=(t-1)(t+1)$, so $p$ divides $t-1$ or $t+1$.

$$p\mid t-1 \Rightarrow t-1=0 \Rightarrow t=1 \\ p\mid t+1 \Rightarrow p=t+1 \Rightarrow t=p-1$$

This is the heart of your argument, and is very nice.

When $t=1$, we have that $xy=yx$.
We have that that the order of $xy$ is $\text{lcm}(2,p) = 2p$.
Therefore, we have a cyclic abelian group of order $2p$. So, it is isomorphic to the cyclic group $\mathbb{Z}_{2p}$, right? (Wondering)

Yes, if there exists an element $a$ in a group $G$ with order $|G|$, then $G$ is generated by $a$, and is necessarily cyclic, and thus isomorphic to $\Bbb Z_{|G|}$ ($a^k \mapsto k$ gives the explicit isomorphism).

Does it always hold that when the order of $x$ is $m$ and the order of $y$ is $n$ then the order of $xy$ is $\text{lcm}(m,n)$ ? (Wondering)

Interestingly enough, no. In fact, it isn't even true if $G$ is abelian (suppose $y = x^{-1}$?). It is true when the orders are co-prime, *and* $G$ is abelian.
When $t=p−1$, we have that $x^p=e=y^2$ and $y^{−1}xy=x^{p−1}\Rightarrow yxy=x^{−1}$. So, $x$ and $y$ generate the dihedral group $D_p$, right? (Wondering)
Is the case when $p$ is an odd prime correct? (Wondering)

Yep. It's a bit wordy, but it gets the job done.
 
  • #5
Deveno said:
Interestingly enough, no. In fact, it isn't even true if $G$ is abelian (suppose $y = x^{-1}$?). It is true when the orders are co-prime, *and* $G$ is abelian.

How can we prove that it holds when the orders are co-prime and $G$ is abelian? Maybe as follows? (Wondering)

Suppose that the order of $x$ is $m$ and the order of $y$ is $n$, with $\gcd (m,n)=1$.
The order of $xy$ is the smallest power, say $i$, such that $(xy)^i=1$.
Since $G$ is abelian we have that $x^iy^i=1$.
This $i$ must be the smallest integer that is a multiple of both $m$ and $n$, so it must be $\text{lcm} (m,n)$.
 
  • #6
mathmari said:
How can we prove that it holds when the orders are co-prime and $G$ is abelian? Maybe as follows? (Wondering)

Suppose that the order of $x$ is $m$ and the order of $y$ is $n$, with $\gcd (m,n)=1$.
The order of $xy$ is the smallest power, say $i$, such that $(xy)^i=1$.
Since $G$ is abelian we have that $x^iy^i=1$.
This $i$ must be the smallest integer that is a multiple of both $m$ and $n$, so it must be $\text{lcm} (m,n)$.

Yep.
 
  • #7
Deveno said:
For groups of order $4$, the proposition is still true, as there are only two isomorphism classes:

$\Bbb Z_4$ and $\Bbb Z_2 \times \Bbb Z_2$ (the latter is sometimes considered a dihedral group).

Why is $\Bbb Z_2 \times \Bbb Z_2$ considered a dihedral group? (Wondering)
 
  • #8
mathmari said:
Why is $\Bbb Z_2 \times \Bbb Z_2$ considered a dihedral group? (Wondering)

It's (isomorphic to) the symmetry group of a "di-gon" (a line segment).
 
  • #9
Deveno said:
It's (isomorphic to) the symmetry group of a "di-gon" (a line segment).

Why does this hold? (Wondering)
I got stuck right now...
 
  • #10
mathmari said:
Why does this hold? (Wondering)
I got stuck right now...

It's the group $\langle r,s : r^2 = s^2 = e; rs = sr\rangle$ where $s$ is a reflection, and $r$ is a rotation of 180 degrees.

Here, we also have $srs = r^{-1}$, but $r^{-1} = r$, so $srs = r$, that is: $sr = srss = rs$.

In this "degenerate" dihedral group, (and no other) we have that our generating reflection (which we could take to be about the $x$-axis, or the $y$-axis) commutes with our generating rotation.

We can also represent this as a group of 2x2 matrices:

$I = \begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&1\end{bmatrix}$

$R_{180} = \begin{bmatrix}-1&0\\0&-1\end{bmatrix}$

$S = \begin{bmatrix}1&0\\0&-1\end{bmatrix}$

$R_{180}S = \begin{bmatrix}-1&0\\0&1\end{bmatrix}$

(sometimes $S$ is called $H$ for "horizontal flip" and $R_{180}S$ is called $V$ for "vertical flip").
 

FAQ: The group is isomorphic to one of the groups

What does it mean for a group to be isomorphic to another group?

When two groups are isomorphic, it means that they have the same structure or pattern, even though their elements may be different. This means that there exists a one-to-one correspondence between the two groups, preserving the group operation and the identity element.

How can you prove that two groups are isomorphic?

To prove that two groups are isomorphic, you can show that there exists a bijective function (a one-to-one and onto function) between the two groups that preserves the group operation and the identity element. This function is called an isomorphism, and it serves as the bridge between the two groups.

Can a group be isomorphic to itself?

Yes, a group can be isomorphic to itself. This is known as the trivial isomorphism, where the identity function serves as the isomorphism between the group and itself. In this case, the group has the same structure and elements as itself, so it is isomorphic to itself.

Are all groups isomorphic to each other?

No, not all groups are isomorphic to each other. In order for two groups to be isomorphic, they must have the same structure or pattern. This means that their elements must have the same relationships with each other, and their group operations must be the same. If these conditions are not met, the groups are not isomorphic.

How does isomorphism relate to group theory?

Isomorphism is an important concept in group theory, as it allows us to compare and classify different groups. By showing that two groups are isomorphic, we can say that they have the same properties and structure, even if their elements are different. This allows us to study groups more efficiently by focusing on their structures rather than their individual elements.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
951
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Back
Top