Definition. Let G and H be groups. The direct product of G and H is the set
of all ordered pairs
with the
operation
\overfullrule=0pt
Remarks. 1. In the definition, I've assumed
that G and H are using multiplication notation. In general, the
notation you use in depends on the notation in the
factors. Examples:
2. You can construct products of more than two groups in the same
way. For example, if ,
, and
are groups, then
Just as with the two-factor product, you multiply elements
componentwise.
Example. ( A product of
cyclic groups which is cyclic) Show that is cyclic.
Since and
,
If you take successive multiples of , you get
Since you can get the whole group by taking multiples of
, it follows that
is actually cyclic of
order 6 --- the same as
.
Example. ( A product of
cyclic groups which is not cyclic) Show that is not cyclic.
Since ,
Here's the operation table:
Note that this is not the same group as . Both groups
have 4 elements, but
is cyclic of order 4. In
, all the elements have order 2, so no
element generates the group.
is the same as the Klein 4-group V, which has the following operation
table:
If G and H are finite, then . (This is true for
sets G and H; it has nothing to do with G and H being
groups.) For example,
.
Lemma. The product of abelian groups is
abelian: If G and H are abelian, so is .
Proof. Suppose G and H are abelian. Let , where
and
. I have
This proves that is abelian.
Remark. If either G or H is not
abelian, then is not abelian. Suppose, for instance, that
G is not abelian. This means that there are elements
such that
Then
Since , it follows that
, so
is not abelian.
A similar argument works if H is not abelian.
Example. ( A product of an
abelian and a nonabelian group) Construct the multiplication
table for . (Recall that
is
the group of symmetries of an equilateral triangle.) The number of
elements is
Here's the multiplication table for :
The operation in is addition mod 2, while the
operation in
is written using multiplicative notation. When you
multiply two pairs, you add in
in the first
component and multiply in
in the second
component:
The identity is , since 0 is the identity in
, while id is the identity in
.
is not abelian, since
is
not abelian. A particular example:
Example. ( Using products to
construct groups) Use products to construct 3 different abelian
groups of order 8. The groups ,
, and
are abelian, since each is a product of abelian
groups.
is cyclic of order 8,
has an element of order 4 but is not
cyclic, and
has
only elements of order 2. It follows that these groups are distinct.
In fact, there are 5 distinct groups of order 8; the remaining two are nonabelian.
The group of symmetries of the square is a nonabelian group of
order 8.
The fifth (and last) group of order 8 is the group Q of the quaternions.
or Q are not that same as
,
, or
, since
,
, and
are abelian
while
or Q are not.
Finally, is not the same as Q.
has 5 elements of
order 2: The four reflections and rotation through
. Q has one element of order 2, namely -1.
I've shown that these five groups of order 8 are distinct; it takes
considerably more work to show that these are the only
groups of order 8.
Definition. Let m and n be positive integers.
The least common multiple
of m and n is the smallest positive integer divisible by m and n.
Remark. Since is divisible by m and n, the
set of positive multiples of m and n is nonempty. Hence, it has a
smallest element, by well-ordering. It follows that the least common
multiple of two positive integers is always defined. For example,
.
Lemma. If s is a common multiple of m and n,
then .
Proof. By the Division Algorithm,
Thus, . Since
and
, I have
. Since
and
, I have
. Therefore, r is a common
multiple of m and n. Since it's also less than the least common
multiple
, it can't be positive. Therefore,
, and
, i.e.
.
Remark. The lemma shows that the least common multiple is not just "least" in terms of size. It's also "least" in the sense that it divides every other common multiple.
Theorem. Let m and n be positive integers. Then
Proof. I'll prove that each side is greater than or equal to the other side.
Note that and
are
integers. Thus,
This shows that is a multiple of m and a multiple
of n. Therefore, it's a common multiple of m and n, so it must be
greater than or equal to the least common multiple. Hence,
Next, is a multiple of n, so
for some s.
Then
(Why is an integer? Well,
is
a common multiple of m and n, so by the previous lemma
.)
Similarly, is a multiple of m, so
for some t. Then
In other words, is a common divisor of m and n.
Therefore, it must be less than the greatest common divisor:
The two inequalities I've proved show that .
Example. Verify that if
and
.
,
, and
Proposition. The element has order
in
.
Proof.
The first component is 0, since it's divisible by m; the second
component is 0, since it's divisible by n. Hence, .
Next, I must show that is the smallest positive multiple
of
which equals the identity. Suppose
, so
. Consider the first
components.
in
means that
; likewise, the second components show that
. Since k is a common multiple of m and n, it must be
greater than or equal to the least common multiple
: that is,
. This proves that
is the order of
.
Example. Find the order of in
. Find the order of
.
The element has order
.
On the other hand, the element has order
. Since
has order 30, the group is cyclic; in fact,
.
Remark. More generally, consider , and suppose
has order
in
. (The
's need not be
cyclic.) Then
has order
.
Corollary. is cyclic of order
if and only if
.
Note: In the next proof, " " may mean either the
ordered pair
or the greatest common
divisor of a and b. You'll have to read carefully and determine
the meaning from the context.
Proof. If , then
. Thus, the order of
is
. But
has order
,
so
generates the group. Hence,
is cyclic.
Suppose on the other hand that . Since
, it follows that
. Since
is
a common multiple of m and n and since
is the
least common multiple, it follows that
.
Now consider an element .
Let p be the order of a in
and let q be
the order of b in
.
Since , I may write
for some j.
Since
, I may write
for some k.
Then
Hence, the order of is less than or equal to
. But
, so the order of
is less than (and not equal to)
.
Since was an arbitrary element of
, it follows that no element of
has order
. Therefore,
can't be cyclic of order
,
since a generator would have order
.
Remark. More generally, if ,
...,
are pairwise relatively prime, then
is cyclic of
order
.
Example. ( Orders of elements
in products) Find the order of .
2 has order 2 in , 4 has order 3 in
, and 4 has order 3 in
. Hence, the
order of
is
.
Example. ( A product of
cyclic groups which is not cyclic) Prove directly that is not cyclic of order 8.
If , then
Thus, every element of has order less
than or equal to 4. In particular, there can be no elements of order
8, i.e. no cyclic generators.
Copyright 2018 by Bruce Ikenaga