Let $G$ be a commutative group, and let $g \in G$ be an element of maximal finite order, that is, such that if $h \in G$ has finite order, then $|h| \leq|g|$. Prove that in fact $h$ has finite order in $G$, then $|h|$ divides $|g|$. (Hint: Argue by contradiction. If $|h|$ is finite but does not divide $|g|$, then there is a prime integer $p$ such that $|g|=p^r m,|h|=p^s n$, with $r$ and $s$ are relatively prime to $p$ and $m
Answer (2)
Assume ∣ h ∣ does not divide ∣ g ∣ , then ∣ g ∣ = p r m and ∣ h ∣ = p s n , where r < s .
Consider the element x = g m h p r and analyze its order.
Show that the order of x leads to a contradiction with the maximality of ∣ g ∣ .
Conclude that ∣ h ∣ must divide ∣ g ∣ .
Explanation
Problem Setup We are given that G is a commutative group and g e q 0 e q g e q 1 e q g is an element of maximal finite order. This means that if h e q 0 e q h e q 1 e q h e q g has finite order, then ∣ h ∣ ≤ ∣ g ∣ . We want to prove that if h has finite order in G , then ∣ h ∣ divides ∣ g ∣ . We will proceed by contradiction.
Assumption for Contradiction Assume, for the sake of contradiction, that ∣ h ∣ does not divide ∣ g ∣ . Then there exists a prime p such that ∣ g ∣ = p r m and ∣ h ∣ = p s n , where p does not divide m and n , and r < s .
Analyzing the Order of a Specific Element Consider the element x = g m h p r . Since G is commutative, the order of x is l c m ( ∣ g m ∣ , ∣ h p r ∣ ) . We have ∣ g m ∣ = f r a c ∣ g ∣ g c d ( ∣ g ∣ , m ) = f r a c p r m g c d ( p r m , m ) = p r and ∣ h p r ∣ = f r a c ∣ h ∣ g c d ( ∣ h ∣ , p r ) = f r a c p s n g c d ( p s n , p r ) = p s − r n . Thus, ∣ x ∣ = l c m ( p r , p s − r n ) = p s n . Since 1"> n > 1 , p^s"> ∣ x ∣ > p s .
Reaching a Contradiction Since g has maximal order, we must have ∣ x ∣ ≤ ∣ g ∣ . Thus, p s n ≤ p r m . However, we assumed that ∣ h ∣ ≤ ∣ g ∣ , so p s n ≤ p r m . Since r < s , we have p^r m"> p s n > p r m , which is a contradiction.
Analyzing Another Element Now, let's consider the element z = g m h p s . The order of g m is p r and the order of h p s is n . Since g c d ( p , n ) = 1 , we have 1"> n > 1 . Then ∣ z ∣ = l c m ( p r , n ) . Since 1"> n > 1 , p^r"> ∣ z ∣ > p r . But ∣ g ∣ = p r m , so ∣ z ∣ does not necessarily divide ∣ g ∣ .
Final Contradiction and Conclusion Since g has maximal order, we must have ∣ z ∣ ≤ ∣ g ∣ . Thus, l c m ( p r , n ) ≤ p r m . If m"> n > m , then p^r m = |g|"> l c m ( p r , n ) = p r n > p r m = ∣ g ∣ . Since ∣ h ∣ = p s n and ∣ g ∣ = p r m , if |g|"> ∣ h ∣ > ∣ g ∣ , then p^r m"> p s n > p r m .
Final Answer Therefore, our initial assumption that ∣ h ∣ does not divide ∣ g ∣ must be false. Hence, if h has finite order in G , then ∣ h ∣ divides ∣ g ∣ .
Examples
In cryptography, understanding the order of elements in a group is crucial for designing secure encryption algorithms. For instance, the Diffie-Hellman key exchange relies on the difficulty of computing discrete logarithms in a finite group. If an element's order doesn't divide the group's order, it can compromise the security of the key exchange. Similarly, in coding theory, the properties of group elements and their orders are used to construct error-correcting codes. Ensuring that the order of elements divides the group order helps in creating codes that can efficiently detect and correct errors during data transmission.
If an element h of finite order in a commutative group G does not divide the maximum order of another element g , it leads to a contradiction based on the properties of orders. Therefore, if h has finite order, then its order must divide the order of g . Thus, the proof establishes an important connection between the orders of elements in a group.
;
