If $|G|=p^2$, $p$ prime and $G$ is not cyslic $Gcong Bbb Z/pBbb Ztimes Bbb Z/pBbb Z $












2














Here is an incomplete proof:



If $Hle G$ is a subgroup, there are only three possibilities for its cardinal: $1,p$ or $p^2$ by Lagrange.



If $|H|=p^2$ then there exists $gin Hsubset G$ of order $p^2$ and so $G$ is cyclic.



If $|H|=1$ and there is no other proper subgroup then $G$ is cyclic.



So there must be a subgroup of order $p$, let $|H|=p$. Let $x$ be in $G$. We will show that $xHx^{-1}=H$ and so $Htriangleleft G.$ By contradiction let's suppose $xHx^{-1}ne H$.



$xHx^{-1}$ is a subgroup of $G$ because $$(xhx^{-1})^{-1}=xhx^{-1}in xHx^{-1} text{ and }~ xhx^{-1}xh'x^{-1}=xhh'x^{-1}in xHx^{-1}~forall h,h'in xHx^{-1}$$



There is a formula for the cardinality of a product of groups that says $$begin{align}|xHx^{-1}|cdot|H|&= |xHx^{-1}H|cdot|xHx^{-1}cap H|\ |(xHx^{-1})H| &= frac{|xHx^{-1}|cdot|H|}{|xHx^{-1}cap H|}=frac{pcdot p}{1}end{align}$$



And here I'm not sure how to show that $xHx^{-1}$ has cardinality $p$, I guess for the same reason as $H$.



And why is the intersection trivial?



If the equality above is true we get that $xHx^{-1}H=G$ so for any $xnotin H$ there exist some $h_1,h_2in H$ such that $x=xh_1x^{-1}h_2$



$$begin{align}e &=h_1x^{-1}h_2\ h_1^{-1}&= x^{-1}h_2\ h_1^{-1}h_2^{-1}&= x^{-1}implies xin H text{ (impossible)}end{align}$$



Once we arrive at a contradiction we have that $xHx^{-1}=H$ so $H$ is normal in $G$.



Then I have to show that there exists $Kle G$ such that $Kcap H={e}$ and $Ktriangleleft G$ and from this it will be easy to show that $Gcong Ktimes H$










share|cite|improve this question





























    2














    Here is an incomplete proof:



    If $Hle G$ is a subgroup, there are only three possibilities for its cardinal: $1,p$ or $p^2$ by Lagrange.



    If $|H|=p^2$ then there exists $gin Hsubset G$ of order $p^2$ and so $G$ is cyclic.



    If $|H|=1$ and there is no other proper subgroup then $G$ is cyclic.



    So there must be a subgroup of order $p$, let $|H|=p$. Let $x$ be in $G$. We will show that $xHx^{-1}=H$ and so $Htriangleleft G.$ By contradiction let's suppose $xHx^{-1}ne H$.



    $xHx^{-1}$ is a subgroup of $G$ because $$(xhx^{-1})^{-1}=xhx^{-1}in xHx^{-1} text{ and }~ xhx^{-1}xh'x^{-1}=xhh'x^{-1}in xHx^{-1}~forall h,h'in xHx^{-1}$$



    There is a formula for the cardinality of a product of groups that says $$begin{align}|xHx^{-1}|cdot|H|&= |xHx^{-1}H|cdot|xHx^{-1}cap H|\ |(xHx^{-1})H| &= frac{|xHx^{-1}|cdot|H|}{|xHx^{-1}cap H|}=frac{pcdot p}{1}end{align}$$



    And here I'm not sure how to show that $xHx^{-1}$ has cardinality $p$, I guess for the same reason as $H$.



    And why is the intersection trivial?



    If the equality above is true we get that $xHx^{-1}H=G$ so for any $xnotin H$ there exist some $h_1,h_2in H$ such that $x=xh_1x^{-1}h_2$



    $$begin{align}e &=h_1x^{-1}h_2\ h_1^{-1}&= x^{-1}h_2\ h_1^{-1}h_2^{-1}&= x^{-1}implies xin H text{ (impossible)}end{align}$$



    Once we arrive at a contradiction we have that $xHx^{-1}=H$ so $H$ is normal in $G$.



    Then I have to show that there exists $Kle G$ such that $Kcap H={e}$ and $Ktriangleleft G$ and from this it will be easy to show that $Gcong Ktimes H$










    share|cite|improve this question



























      2












      2








      2


      1





      Here is an incomplete proof:



      If $Hle G$ is a subgroup, there are only three possibilities for its cardinal: $1,p$ or $p^2$ by Lagrange.



      If $|H|=p^2$ then there exists $gin Hsubset G$ of order $p^2$ and so $G$ is cyclic.



      If $|H|=1$ and there is no other proper subgroup then $G$ is cyclic.



      So there must be a subgroup of order $p$, let $|H|=p$. Let $x$ be in $G$. We will show that $xHx^{-1}=H$ and so $Htriangleleft G.$ By contradiction let's suppose $xHx^{-1}ne H$.



      $xHx^{-1}$ is a subgroup of $G$ because $$(xhx^{-1})^{-1}=xhx^{-1}in xHx^{-1} text{ and }~ xhx^{-1}xh'x^{-1}=xhh'x^{-1}in xHx^{-1}~forall h,h'in xHx^{-1}$$



      There is a formula for the cardinality of a product of groups that says $$begin{align}|xHx^{-1}|cdot|H|&= |xHx^{-1}H|cdot|xHx^{-1}cap H|\ |(xHx^{-1})H| &= frac{|xHx^{-1}|cdot|H|}{|xHx^{-1}cap H|}=frac{pcdot p}{1}end{align}$$



      And here I'm not sure how to show that $xHx^{-1}$ has cardinality $p$, I guess for the same reason as $H$.



      And why is the intersection trivial?



      If the equality above is true we get that $xHx^{-1}H=G$ so for any $xnotin H$ there exist some $h_1,h_2in H$ such that $x=xh_1x^{-1}h_2$



      $$begin{align}e &=h_1x^{-1}h_2\ h_1^{-1}&= x^{-1}h_2\ h_1^{-1}h_2^{-1}&= x^{-1}implies xin H text{ (impossible)}end{align}$$



      Once we arrive at a contradiction we have that $xHx^{-1}=H$ so $H$ is normal in $G$.



      Then I have to show that there exists $Kle G$ such that $Kcap H={e}$ and $Ktriangleleft G$ and from this it will be easy to show that $Gcong Ktimes H$










      share|cite|improve this question















      Here is an incomplete proof:



      If $Hle G$ is a subgroup, there are only three possibilities for its cardinal: $1,p$ or $p^2$ by Lagrange.



      If $|H|=p^2$ then there exists $gin Hsubset G$ of order $p^2$ and so $G$ is cyclic.



      If $|H|=1$ and there is no other proper subgroup then $G$ is cyclic.



      So there must be a subgroup of order $p$, let $|H|=p$. Let $x$ be in $G$. We will show that $xHx^{-1}=H$ and so $Htriangleleft G.$ By contradiction let's suppose $xHx^{-1}ne H$.



      $xHx^{-1}$ is a subgroup of $G$ because $$(xhx^{-1})^{-1}=xhx^{-1}in xHx^{-1} text{ and }~ xhx^{-1}xh'x^{-1}=xhh'x^{-1}in xHx^{-1}~forall h,h'in xHx^{-1}$$



      There is a formula for the cardinality of a product of groups that says $$begin{align}|xHx^{-1}|cdot|H|&= |xHx^{-1}H|cdot|xHx^{-1}cap H|\ |(xHx^{-1})H| &= frac{|xHx^{-1}|cdot|H|}{|xHx^{-1}cap H|}=frac{pcdot p}{1}end{align}$$



      And here I'm not sure how to show that $xHx^{-1}$ has cardinality $p$, I guess for the same reason as $H$.



      And why is the intersection trivial?



      If the equality above is true we get that $xHx^{-1}H=G$ so for any $xnotin H$ there exist some $h_1,h_2in H$ such that $x=xh_1x^{-1}h_2$



      $$begin{align}e &=h_1x^{-1}h_2\ h_1^{-1}&= x^{-1}h_2\ h_1^{-1}h_2^{-1}&= x^{-1}implies xin H text{ (impossible)}end{align}$$



      Once we arrive at a contradiction we have that $xHx^{-1}=H$ so $H$ is normal in $G$.



      Then I have to show that there exists $Kle G$ such that $Kcap H={e}$ and $Ktriangleleft G$ and from this it will be easy to show that $Gcong Ktimes H$







      group-theory proof-verification finite-groups cyclic-groups






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jan 4 at 17:13









      Lord Shark the Unknown

      102k959132




      102k959132










      asked Jan 4 at 16:50









      John CataldoJohn Cataldo

      1,0961216




      1,0961216






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          You can argue like this.



          If there were an element of $G$ if order $p^2$, then $G$ were cyclic, generated by this element; thus, every non-identity element of $G$ has order $p$. Fix arbitrarily a non-identity element $g_1in G$, and then an element $g_2in G$ not lying in the subgroup generated by $g_1$. For $iin{1,2}$, denote by $G_i$ the subgroup generated by $g_i$. Both these subgroups are cyclic; hence, generated by any of their non-identity elements. It follows that the intersection of $G_1$ and $G_2$ is trivial (any non-identity element of the intersection would generate both $G_1$ and $G_2$, but $G_1ne G_2$). It follows that all the $p^2$ products $h_1h_2$ with $h_1in G_1$ and $h_2in G_2$ are pairwise distinct. Thus, $G$ is exactly the set of all these products, as wanted.






          share|cite|improve this answer





























            1














            $H$ has cardinality $p$. The map $Hto xHx^{-1}$ defined by $hto xhx^{-1}$ is one to one and onto. I'll leave you to check that, it is very easy. Hence $xHx^{-1}$ must have the same cardinality. As for the intersection there are only two options: it is either of size 1 or $p$. If it has size $p$ then it means that $H$ and $xHx^{-1}$ is the same set which contradicts your assumption.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • Doesn't "one to one" imply $|H|=|xHx^{-1}|$? and why write one to on AND onto when on to one includes that property? one to one is "bijective" right?
              – John Cataldo
              Jan 4 at 17:18










            • As I know one to one only means injective. For example $f:mathbb{N}tomathbb{R}$ defined by $f(x)=x$ is injective, but it is not a bijection. Maybe there are also other definitions.
              – Mark
              Jan 4 at 17:21












            • I mean one to one is a pretty intuitive phrase for bijective... you can pair up all the elements
              – John Cataldo
              Jan 4 at 17:23










            • Well, as I know one to one means injective. Of course such a function is a bijection if you define the range to be the image of the function. So here you need to check that $xHx^{-1}$ is the image.
              – Mark
              Jan 4 at 17:27












            • "One to one" shouldn't mean bijective, but only injective. It doesn't say that every element of a set is uniquely paired to an element of another set, but that "one element is sent to one element." Compare it to "two to one", sometimes used in the context of double covering.
              – Ennar
              Jan 4 at 17:33



















            1














            What is $H$? Define your variables! I assume that what you mean is something along the lines of: take any non-identity element $h$ of $G$, and let $H$ be the subgroup that it generates.



            This subgroup is cyclic, so cannot be all of $G$, as $G$ is not cyclic, and is not trivial, as it contains $h$, so must have order $p$.



            Now take any $g in Gsetminus H$. Then $langle g, hrangle$ contains $H$, but is strictly larger than it, and is a subgroup of $G$, so must be all of $G$. Thus, $G$ is generated by $g$ and $h$. Now, the order of $g$ must also be $p$ (it must divide $p^2$, can't be $1$ since $g$ is not the identity, and can't be $p^2$ since $G$ is not cyclic). Let $K$ be the subgroup generated by $g$. Since $H$ and $K$ both have order $p$ and don't coincide, their intersection must be trivial. Thus, we merely need to show that both are normal in $G$. But given that we chose $H$ to be an arbitrary order-$p$ subgroup, it suffices to show it for $H$.



            This follows from your argument: $y mapsto xyx^{-1}$ is injective (if $xyx^{-1} = xzx^{-1}$, then multiplying that equation by $x^{-1}$ on the left and $x$ on the right gives $y = z$), and is surjective when restricted to map from $H$ to $xHx^{-1}$ by definition of the latter, so $|xHx^{-1}| = |H| = p$. The intersection is trivial since it's a subgroup of $H$, so has order $1$ or $p$, but isn't all of $H$, so can't have order $p$.



            Thus, $H$ and $K$ are normal, and $G = H times K$.






            share|cite|improve this answer





















            • Why do we need both subgroups to be normal? After all it's true that if for example only $H$ is normal $KH$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $KHconglangle K, Hrangle$
              – John Cataldo
              Jan 4 at 17:34












            • To force the group to be abelian. For a similar problem where you could get exactly that result, but the overall result is not true, consider the dihedral group with the obvious two generators.
              – user3482749
              Jan 4 at 17:42











            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061826%2fif-g-p2-p-prime-and-g-is-not-cyslic-g-cong-bbb-z-p-bbb-z-times-bbb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            1














            You can argue like this.



            If there were an element of $G$ if order $p^2$, then $G$ were cyclic, generated by this element; thus, every non-identity element of $G$ has order $p$. Fix arbitrarily a non-identity element $g_1in G$, and then an element $g_2in G$ not lying in the subgroup generated by $g_1$. For $iin{1,2}$, denote by $G_i$ the subgroup generated by $g_i$. Both these subgroups are cyclic; hence, generated by any of their non-identity elements. It follows that the intersection of $G_1$ and $G_2$ is trivial (any non-identity element of the intersection would generate both $G_1$ and $G_2$, but $G_1ne G_2$). It follows that all the $p^2$ products $h_1h_2$ with $h_1in G_1$ and $h_2in G_2$ are pairwise distinct. Thus, $G$ is exactly the set of all these products, as wanted.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              1














              You can argue like this.



              If there were an element of $G$ if order $p^2$, then $G$ were cyclic, generated by this element; thus, every non-identity element of $G$ has order $p$. Fix arbitrarily a non-identity element $g_1in G$, and then an element $g_2in G$ not lying in the subgroup generated by $g_1$. For $iin{1,2}$, denote by $G_i$ the subgroup generated by $g_i$. Both these subgroups are cyclic; hence, generated by any of their non-identity elements. It follows that the intersection of $G_1$ and $G_2$ is trivial (any non-identity element of the intersection would generate both $G_1$ and $G_2$, but $G_1ne G_2$). It follows that all the $p^2$ products $h_1h_2$ with $h_1in G_1$ and $h_2in G_2$ are pairwise distinct. Thus, $G$ is exactly the set of all these products, as wanted.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                1












                1








                1






                You can argue like this.



                If there were an element of $G$ if order $p^2$, then $G$ were cyclic, generated by this element; thus, every non-identity element of $G$ has order $p$. Fix arbitrarily a non-identity element $g_1in G$, and then an element $g_2in G$ not lying in the subgroup generated by $g_1$. For $iin{1,2}$, denote by $G_i$ the subgroup generated by $g_i$. Both these subgroups are cyclic; hence, generated by any of their non-identity elements. It follows that the intersection of $G_1$ and $G_2$ is trivial (any non-identity element of the intersection would generate both $G_1$ and $G_2$, but $G_1ne G_2$). It follows that all the $p^2$ products $h_1h_2$ with $h_1in G_1$ and $h_2in G_2$ are pairwise distinct. Thus, $G$ is exactly the set of all these products, as wanted.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                You can argue like this.



                If there were an element of $G$ if order $p^2$, then $G$ were cyclic, generated by this element; thus, every non-identity element of $G$ has order $p$. Fix arbitrarily a non-identity element $g_1in G$, and then an element $g_2in G$ not lying in the subgroup generated by $g_1$. For $iin{1,2}$, denote by $G_i$ the subgroup generated by $g_i$. Both these subgroups are cyclic; hence, generated by any of their non-identity elements. It follows that the intersection of $G_1$ and $G_2$ is trivial (any non-identity element of the intersection would generate both $G_1$ and $G_2$, but $G_1ne G_2$). It follows that all the $p^2$ products $h_1h_2$ with $h_1in G_1$ and $h_2in G_2$ are pairwise distinct. Thus, $G$ is exactly the set of all these products, as wanted.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Jan 4 at 17:11









                W-t-PW-t-P

                64559




                64559























                    1














                    $H$ has cardinality $p$. The map $Hto xHx^{-1}$ defined by $hto xhx^{-1}$ is one to one and onto. I'll leave you to check that, it is very easy. Hence $xHx^{-1}$ must have the same cardinality. As for the intersection there are only two options: it is either of size 1 or $p$. If it has size $p$ then it means that $H$ and $xHx^{-1}$ is the same set which contradicts your assumption.






                    share|cite|improve this answer





















                    • Doesn't "one to one" imply $|H|=|xHx^{-1}|$? and why write one to on AND onto when on to one includes that property? one to one is "bijective" right?
                      – John Cataldo
                      Jan 4 at 17:18










                    • As I know one to one only means injective. For example $f:mathbb{N}tomathbb{R}$ defined by $f(x)=x$ is injective, but it is not a bijection. Maybe there are also other definitions.
                      – Mark
                      Jan 4 at 17:21












                    • I mean one to one is a pretty intuitive phrase for bijective... you can pair up all the elements
                      – John Cataldo
                      Jan 4 at 17:23










                    • Well, as I know one to one means injective. Of course such a function is a bijection if you define the range to be the image of the function. So here you need to check that $xHx^{-1}$ is the image.
                      – Mark
                      Jan 4 at 17:27












                    • "One to one" shouldn't mean bijective, but only injective. It doesn't say that every element of a set is uniquely paired to an element of another set, but that "one element is sent to one element." Compare it to "two to one", sometimes used in the context of double covering.
                      – Ennar
                      Jan 4 at 17:33
















                    1














                    $H$ has cardinality $p$. The map $Hto xHx^{-1}$ defined by $hto xhx^{-1}$ is one to one and onto. I'll leave you to check that, it is very easy. Hence $xHx^{-1}$ must have the same cardinality. As for the intersection there are only two options: it is either of size 1 or $p$. If it has size $p$ then it means that $H$ and $xHx^{-1}$ is the same set which contradicts your assumption.






                    share|cite|improve this answer





















                    • Doesn't "one to one" imply $|H|=|xHx^{-1}|$? and why write one to on AND onto when on to one includes that property? one to one is "bijective" right?
                      – John Cataldo
                      Jan 4 at 17:18










                    • As I know one to one only means injective. For example $f:mathbb{N}tomathbb{R}$ defined by $f(x)=x$ is injective, but it is not a bijection. Maybe there are also other definitions.
                      – Mark
                      Jan 4 at 17:21












                    • I mean one to one is a pretty intuitive phrase for bijective... you can pair up all the elements
                      – John Cataldo
                      Jan 4 at 17:23










                    • Well, as I know one to one means injective. Of course such a function is a bijection if you define the range to be the image of the function. So here you need to check that $xHx^{-1}$ is the image.
                      – Mark
                      Jan 4 at 17:27












                    • "One to one" shouldn't mean bijective, but only injective. It doesn't say that every element of a set is uniquely paired to an element of another set, but that "one element is sent to one element." Compare it to "two to one", sometimes used in the context of double covering.
                      – Ennar
                      Jan 4 at 17:33














                    1












                    1








                    1






                    $H$ has cardinality $p$. The map $Hto xHx^{-1}$ defined by $hto xhx^{-1}$ is one to one and onto. I'll leave you to check that, it is very easy. Hence $xHx^{-1}$ must have the same cardinality. As for the intersection there are only two options: it is either of size 1 or $p$. If it has size $p$ then it means that $H$ and $xHx^{-1}$ is the same set which contradicts your assumption.






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    $H$ has cardinality $p$. The map $Hto xHx^{-1}$ defined by $hto xhx^{-1}$ is one to one and onto. I'll leave you to check that, it is very easy. Hence $xHx^{-1}$ must have the same cardinality. As for the intersection there are only two options: it is either of size 1 or $p$. If it has size $p$ then it means that $H$ and $xHx^{-1}$ is the same set which contradicts your assumption.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Jan 4 at 17:15









                    MarkMark

                    6,155416




                    6,155416












                    • Doesn't "one to one" imply $|H|=|xHx^{-1}|$? and why write one to on AND onto when on to one includes that property? one to one is "bijective" right?
                      – John Cataldo
                      Jan 4 at 17:18










                    • As I know one to one only means injective. For example $f:mathbb{N}tomathbb{R}$ defined by $f(x)=x$ is injective, but it is not a bijection. Maybe there are also other definitions.
                      – Mark
                      Jan 4 at 17:21












                    • I mean one to one is a pretty intuitive phrase for bijective... you can pair up all the elements
                      – John Cataldo
                      Jan 4 at 17:23










                    • Well, as I know one to one means injective. Of course such a function is a bijection if you define the range to be the image of the function. So here you need to check that $xHx^{-1}$ is the image.
                      – Mark
                      Jan 4 at 17:27












                    • "One to one" shouldn't mean bijective, but only injective. It doesn't say that every element of a set is uniquely paired to an element of another set, but that "one element is sent to one element." Compare it to "two to one", sometimes used in the context of double covering.
                      – Ennar
                      Jan 4 at 17:33


















                    • Doesn't "one to one" imply $|H|=|xHx^{-1}|$? and why write one to on AND onto when on to one includes that property? one to one is "bijective" right?
                      – John Cataldo
                      Jan 4 at 17:18










                    • As I know one to one only means injective. For example $f:mathbb{N}tomathbb{R}$ defined by $f(x)=x$ is injective, but it is not a bijection. Maybe there are also other definitions.
                      – Mark
                      Jan 4 at 17:21












                    • I mean one to one is a pretty intuitive phrase for bijective... you can pair up all the elements
                      – John Cataldo
                      Jan 4 at 17:23










                    • Well, as I know one to one means injective. Of course such a function is a bijection if you define the range to be the image of the function. So here you need to check that $xHx^{-1}$ is the image.
                      – Mark
                      Jan 4 at 17:27












                    • "One to one" shouldn't mean bijective, but only injective. It doesn't say that every element of a set is uniquely paired to an element of another set, but that "one element is sent to one element." Compare it to "two to one", sometimes used in the context of double covering.
                      – Ennar
                      Jan 4 at 17:33
















                    Doesn't "one to one" imply $|H|=|xHx^{-1}|$? and why write one to on AND onto when on to one includes that property? one to one is "bijective" right?
                    – John Cataldo
                    Jan 4 at 17:18




                    Doesn't "one to one" imply $|H|=|xHx^{-1}|$? and why write one to on AND onto when on to one includes that property? one to one is "bijective" right?
                    – John Cataldo
                    Jan 4 at 17:18












                    As I know one to one only means injective. For example $f:mathbb{N}tomathbb{R}$ defined by $f(x)=x$ is injective, but it is not a bijection. Maybe there are also other definitions.
                    – Mark
                    Jan 4 at 17:21






                    As I know one to one only means injective. For example $f:mathbb{N}tomathbb{R}$ defined by $f(x)=x$ is injective, but it is not a bijection. Maybe there are also other definitions.
                    – Mark
                    Jan 4 at 17:21














                    I mean one to one is a pretty intuitive phrase for bijective... you can pair up all the elements
                    – John Cataldo
                    Jan 4 at 17:23




                    I mean one to one is a pretty intuitive phrase for bijective... you can pair up all the elements
                    – John Cataldo
                    Jan 4 at 17:23












                    Well, as I know one to one means injective. Of course such a function is a bijection if you define the range to be the image of the function. So here you need to check that $xHx^{-1}$ is the image.
                    – Mark
                    Jan 4 at 17:27






                    Well, as I know one to one means injective. Of course such a function is a bijection if you define the range to be the image of the function. So here you need to check that $xHx^{-1}$ is the image.
                    – Mark
                    Jan 4 at 17:27














                    "One to one" shouldn't mean bijective, but only injective. It doesn't say that every element of a set is uniquely paired to an element of another set, but that "one element is sent to one element." Compare it to "two to one", sometimes used in the context of double covering.
                    – Ennar
                    Jan 4 at 17:33




                    "One to one" shouldn't mean bijective, but only injective. It doesn't say that every element of a set is uniquely paired to an element of another set, but that "one element is sent to one element." Compare it to "two to one", sometimes used in the context of double covering.
                    – Ennar
                    Jan 4 at 17:33











                    1














                    What is $H$? Define your variables! I assume that what you mean is something along the lines of: take any non-identity element $h$ of $G$, and let $H$ be the subgroup that it generates.



                    This subgroup is cyclic, so cannot be all of $G$, as $G$ is not cyclic, and is not trivial, as it contains $h$, so must have order $p$.



                    Now take any $g in Gsetminus H$. Then $langle g, hrangle$ contains $H$, but is strictly larger than it, and is a subgroup of $G$, so must be all of $G$. Thus, $G$ is generated by $g$ and $h$. Now, the order of $g$ must also be $p$ (it must divide $p^2$, can't be $1$ since $g$ is not the identity, and can't be $p^2$ since $G$ is not cyclic). Let $K$ be the subgroup generated by $g$. Since $H$ and $K$ both have order $p$ and don't coincide, their intersection must be trivial. Thus, we merely need to show that both are normal in $G$. But given that we chose $H$ to be an arbitrary order-$p$ subgroup, it suffices to show it for $H$.



                    This follows from your argument: $y mapsto xyx^{-1}$ is injective (if $xyx^{-1} = xzx^{-1}$, then multiplying that equation by $x^{-1}$ on the left and $x$ on the right gives $y = z$), and is surjective when restricted to map from $H$ to $xHx^{-1}$ by definition of the latter, so $|xHx^{-1}| = |H| = p$. The intersection is trivial since it's a subgroup of $H$, so has order $1$ or $p$, but isn't all of $H$, so can't have order $p$.



                    Thus, $H$ and $K$ are normal, and $G = H times K$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer





















                    • Why do we need both subgroups to be normal? After all it's true that if for example only $H$ is normal $KH$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $KHconglangle K, Hrangle$
                      – John Cataldo
                      Jan 4 at 17:34












                    • To force the group to be abelian. For a similar problem where you could get exactly that result, but the overall result is not true, consider the dihedral group with the obvious two generators.
                      – user3482749
                      Jan 4 at 17:42
















                    1














                    What is $H$? Define your variables! I assume that what you mean is something along the lines of: take any non-identity element $h$ of $G$, and let $H$ be the subgroup that it generates.



                    This subgroup is cyclic, so cannot be all of $G$, as $G$ is not cyclic, and is not trivial, as it contains $h$, so must have order $p$.



                    Now take any $g in Gsetminus H$. Then $langle g, hrangle$ contains $H$, but is strictly larger than it, and is a subgroup of $G$, so must be all of $G$. Thus, $G$ is generated by $g$ and $h$. Now, the order of $g$ must also be $p$ (it must divide $p^2$, can't be $1$ since $g$ is not the identity, and can't be $p^2$ since $G$ is not cyclic). Let $K$ be the subgroup generated by $g$. Since $H$ and $K$ both have order $p$ and don't coincide, their intersection must be trivial. Thus, we merely need to show that both are normal in $G$. But given that we chose $H$ to be an arbitrary order-$p$ subgroup, it suffices to show it for $H$.



                    This follows from your argument: $y mapsto xyx^{-1}$ is injective (if $xyx^{-1} = xzx^{-1}$, then multiplying that equation by $x^{-1}$ on the left and $x$ on the right gives $y = z$), and is surjective when restricted to map from $H$ to $xHx^{-1}$ by definition of the latter, so $|xHx^{-1}| = |H| = p$. The intersection is trivial since it's a subgroup of $H$, so has order $1$ or $p$, but isn't all of $H$, so can't have order $p$.



                    Thus, $H$ and $K$ are normal, and $G = H times K$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer





















                    • Why do we need both subgroups to be normal? After all it's true that if for example only $H$ is normal $KH$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $KHconglangle K, Hrangle$
                      – John Cataldo
                      Jan 4 at 17:34












                    • To force the group to be abelian. For a similar problem where you could get exactly that result, but the overall result is not true, consider the dihedral group with the obvious two generators.
                      – user3482749
                      Jan 4 at 17:42














                    1












                    1








                    1






                    What is $H$? Define your variables! I assume that what you mean is something along the lines of: take any non-identity element $h$ of $G$, and let $H$ be the subgroup that it generates.



                    This subgroup is cyclic, so cannot be all of $G$, as $G$ is not cyclic, and is not trivial, as it contains $h$, so must have order $p$.



                    Now take any $g in Gsetminus H$. Then $langle g, hrangle$ contains $H$, but is strictly larger than it, and is a subgroup of $G$, so must be all of $G$. Thus, $G$ is generated by $g$ and $h$. Now, the order of $g$ must also be $p$ (it must divide $p^2$, can't be $1$ since $g$ is not the identity, and can't be $p^2$ since $G$ is not cyclic). Let $K$ be the subgroup generated by $g$. Since $H$ and $K$ both have order $p$ and don't coincide, their intersection must be trivial. Thus, we merely need to show that both are normal in $G$. But given that we chose $H$ to be an arbitrary order-$p$ subgroup, it suffices to show it for $H$.



                    This follows from your argument: $y mapsto xyx^{-1}$ is injective (if $xyx^{-1} = xzx^{-1}$, then multiplying that equation by $x^{-1}$ on the left and $x$ on the right gives $y = z$), and is surjective when restricted to map from $H$ to $xHx^{-1}$ by definition of the latter, so $|xHx^{-1}| = |H| = p$. The intersection is trivial since it's a subgroup of $H$, so has order $1$ or $p$, but isn't all of $H$, so can't have order $p$.



                    Thus, $H$ and $K$ are normal, and $G = H times K$.






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    What is $H$? Define your variables! I assume that what you mean is something along the lines of: take any non-identity element $h$ of $G$, and let $H$ be the subgroup that it generates.



                    This subgroup is cyclic, so cannot be all of $G$, as $G$ is not cyclic, and is not trivial, as it contains $h$, so must have order $p$.



                    Now take any $g in Gsetminus H$. Then $langle g, hrangle$ contains $H$, but is strictly larger than it, and is a subgroup of $G$, so must be all of $G$. Thus, $G$ is generated by $g$ and $h$. Now, the order of $g$ must also be $p$ (it must divide $p^2$, can't be $1$ since $g$ is not the identity, and can't be $p^2$ since $G$ is not cyclic). Let $K$ be the subgroup generated by $g$. Since $H$ and $K$ both have order $p$ and don't coincide, their intersection must be trivial. Thus, we merely need to show that both are normal in $G$. But given that we chose $H$ to be an arbitrary order-$p$ subgroup, it suffices to show it for $H$.



                    This follows from your argument: $y mapsto xyx^{-1}$ is injective (if $xyx^{-1} = xzx^{-1}$, then multiplying that equation by $x^{-1}$ on the left and $x$ on the right gives $y = z$), and is surjective when restricted to map from $H$ to $xHx^{-1}$ by definition of the latter, so $|xHx^{-1}| = |H| = p$. The intersection is trivial since it's a subgroup of $H$, so has order $1$ or $p$, but isn't all of $H$, so can't have order $p$.



                    Thus, $H$ and $K$ are normal, and $G = H times K$.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Jan 4 at 17:21









                    user3482749user3482749

                    2,964414




                    2,964414












                    • Why do we need both subgroups to be normal? After all it's true that if for example only $H$ is normal $KH$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $KHconglangle K, Hrangle$
                      – John Cataldo
                      Jan 4 at 17:34












                    • To force the group to be abelian. For a similar problem where you could get exactly that result, but the overall result is not true, consider the dihedral group with the obvious two generators.
                      – user3482749
                      Jan 4 at 17:42


















                    • Why do we need both subgroups to be normal? After all it's true that if for example only $H$ is normal $KH$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $KHconglangle K, Hrangle$
                      – John Cataldo
                      Jan 4 at 17:34












                    • To force the group to be abelian. For a similar problem where you could get exactly that result, but the overall result is not true, consider the dihedral group with the obvious two generators.
                      – user3482749
                      Jan 4 at 17:42
















                    Why do we need both subgroups to be normal? After all it's true that if for example only $H$ is normal $KH$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $KHconglangle K, Hrangle$
                    – John Cataldo
                    Jan 4 at 17:34






                    Why do we need both subgroups to be normal? After all it's true that if for example only $H$ is normal $KH$ is a subgroup of $G$ and $KHconglangle K, Hrangle$
                    – John Cataldo
                    Jan 4 at 17:34














                    To force the group to be abelian. For a similar problem where you could get exactly that result, but the overall result is not true, consider the dihedral group with the obvious two generators.
                    – user3482749
                    Jan 4 at 17:42




                    To force the group to be abelian. For a similar problem where you could get exactly that result, but the overall result is not true, consider the dihedral group with the obvious two generators.
                    – user3482749
                    Jan 4 at 17:42


















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061826%2fif-g-p2-p-prime-and-g-is-not-cyslic-g-cong-bbb-z-p-bbb-z-times-bbb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    1300-talet

                    1300-talet

                    Has there ever been an instance of an active nuclear power plant within or near a war zone?