$f: G to mathbb{C}^*$ is a homomorphism. Show that the sum $sum f (g) = 0$ or $n$
$begingroup$
Let $ mathbb{C}^*$ be the multiplicative group of non-zero complex numbers. Let $G$ be an abelian group and suppose $f: G to mathbb{C}^*$ is a homomorphism. Prove that $sum_{g in G} f(g)=n$ or, $sum_{g in G} f(g)=0$, where $n =o(G)$
Proof attempt:
The case is evident for the trivial homomorphism; the sum adds up to $n$.
For the second part
We know, the only elements with finite order in the group $ mathbb{C}^*$ are $1$ and $-1$, with $o(-1)=2$.
Now, the only case when $f(g)$ can take $-1$ as a value is when $n$ is even.
Consider the subgroup $({1, -1}, .) = G'$ of the group $ mathbb{C}^*$. We have, from the Isomorphism Theorem, $ G/ ker( f ) simeq G' $ [since $f$ takes each value from $G'$].
As $o(G')=2$, $o(G/ ker( f ))=2$, i.e $o(ker (f))= n/2$. Hence, when summed, the resultant is $0$.
Edit: A foolish assumption has been taken. The finite ordered complex numbers in the said group is of the form $z^n=1$, so I have 'proved' a very restricted case, which is not at all desired.
abstract-algebra group-theory proof-verification finite-groups group-isomorphism
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $ mathbb{C}^*$ be the multiplicative group of non-zero complex numbers. Let $G$ be an abelian group and suppose $f: G to mathbb{C}^*$ is a homomorphism. Prove that $sum_{g in G} f(g)=n$ or, $sum_{g in G} f(g)=0$, where $n =o(G)$
Proof attempt:
The case is evident for the trivial homomorphism; the sum adds up to $n$.
For the second part
We know, the only elements with finite order in the group $ mathbb{C}^*$ are $1$ and $-1$, with $o(-1)=2$.
Now, the only case when $f(g)$ can take $-1$ as a value is when $n$ is even.
Consider the subgroup $({1, -1}, .) = G'$ of the group $ mathbb{C}^*$. We have, from the Isomorphism Theorem, $ G/ ker( f ) simeq G' $ [since $f$ takes each value from $G'$].
As $o(G')=2$, $o(G/ ker( f ))=2$, i.e $o(ker (f))= n/2$. Hence, when summed, the resultant is $0$.
Edit: A foolish assumption has been taken. The finite ordered complex numbers in the said group is of the form $z^n=1$, so I have 'proved' a very restricted case, which is not at all desired.
abstract-algebra group-theory proof-verification finite-groups group-isomorphism
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
What's the order of $i$ then?
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Jan 4 at 3:11
2
$begingroup$
Does G have to have finite order?
$endgroup$
– Joel Pereira
Jan 4 at 3:39
$begingroup$
@JoelPereira:. isn't that implied by the statements $sum f(g) = n$ and $n = o(G)$?
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 4 at 3:45
$begingroup$
@the_fox :( back to square one.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:41
1
$begingroup$
@RobertLewis no it's not implied. If G = the multiplicative group of $mathbb{R}^+$, we can still form the sum. In that case the sum would diverge.
$endgroup$
– Joel Pereira
Jan 4 at 15:33
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $ mathbb{C}^*$ be the multiplicative group of non-zero complex numbers. Let $G$ be an abelian group and suppose $f: G to mathbb{C}^*$ is a homomorphism. Prove that $sum_{g in G} f(g)=n$ or, $sum_{g in G} f(g)=0$, where $n =o(G)$
Proof attempt:
The case is evident for the trivial homomorphism; the sum adds up to $n$.
For the second part
We know, the only elements with finite order in the group $ mathbb{C}^*$ are $1$ and $-1$, with $o(-1)=2$.
Now, the only case when $f(g)$ can take $-1$ as a value is when $n$ is even.
Consider the subgroup $({1, -1}, .) = G'$ of the group $ mathbb{C}^*$. We have, from the Isomorphism Theorem, $ G/ ker( f ) simeq G' $ [since $f$ takes each value from $G'$].
As $o(G')=2$, $o(G/ ker( f ))=2$, i.e $o(ker (f))= n/2$. Hence, when summed, the resultant is $0$.
Edit: A foolish assumption has been taken. The finite ordered complex numbers in the said group is of the form $z^n=1$, so I have 'proved' a very restricted case, which is not at all desired.
abstract-algebra group-theory proof-verification finite-groups group-isomorphism
$endgroup$
Let $ mathbb{C}^*$ be the multiplicative group of non-zero complex numbers. Let $G$ be an abelian group and suppose $f: G to mathbb{C}^*$ is a homomorphism. Prove that $sum_{g in G} f(g)=n$ or, $sum_{g in G} f(g)=0$, where $n =o(G)$
Proof attempt:
The case is evident for the trivial homomorphism; the sum adds up to $n$.
For the second part
We know, the only elements with finite order in the group $ mathbb{C}^*$ are $1$ and $-1$, with $o(-1)=2$.
Now, the only case when $f(g)$ can take $-1$ as a value is when $n$ is even.
Consider the subgroup $({1, -1}, .) = G'$ of the group $ mathbb{C}^*$. We have, from the Isomorphism Theorem, $ G/ ker( f ) simeq G' $ [since $f$ takes each value from $G'$].
As $o(G')=2$, $o(G/ ker( f ))=2$, i.e $o(ker (f))= n/2$. Hence, when summed, the resultant is $0$.
Edit: A foolish assumption has been taken. The finite ordered complex numbers in the said group is of the form $z^n=1$, so I have 'proved' a very restricted case, which is not at all desired.
abstract-algebra group-theory proof-verification finite-groups group-isomorphism
abstract-algebra group-theory proof-verification finite-groups group-isomorphism
edited Jan 4 at 11:44
Subhasis Biswas
asked Jan 4 at 2:51
Subhasis BiswasSubhasis Biswas
512311
512311
6
$begingroup$
What's the order of $i$ then?
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Jan 4 at 3:11
2
$begingroup$
Does G have to have finite order?
$endgroup$
– Joel Pereira
Jan 4 at 3:39
$begingroup$
@JoelPereira:. isn't that implied by the statements $sum f(g) = n$ and $n = o(G)$?
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 4 at 3:45
$begingroup$
@the_fox :( back to square one.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:41
1
$begingroup$
@RobertLewis no it's not implied. If G = the multiplicative group of $mathbb{R}^+$, we can still form the sum. In that case the sum would diverge.
$endgroup$
– Joel Pereira
Jan 4 at 15:33
add a comment |
6
$begingroup$
What's the order of $i$ then?
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Jan 4 at 3:11
2
$begingroup$
Does G have to have finite order?
$endgroup$
– Joel Pereira
Jan 4 at 3:39
$begingroup$
@JoelPereira:. isn't that implied by the statements $sum f(g) = n$ and $n = o(G)$?
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 4 at 3:45
$begingroup$
@the_fox :( back to square one.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:41
1
$begingroup$
@RobertLewis no it's not implied. If G = the multiplicative group of $mathbb{R}^+$, we can still form the sum. In that case the sum would diverge.
$endgroup$
– Joel Pereira
Jan 4 at 15:33
6
6
$begingroup$
What's the order of $i$ then?
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Jan 4 at 3:11
$begingroup$
What's the order of $i$ then?
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Jan 4 at 3:11
2
2
$begingroup$
Does G have to have finite order?
$endgroup$
– Joel Pereira
Jan 4 at 3:39
$begingroup$
Does G have to have finite order?
$endgroup$
– Joel Pereira
Jan 4 at 3:39
$begingroup$
@JoelPereira:. isn't that implied by the statements $sum f(g) = n$ and $n = o(G)$?
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 4 at 3:45
$begingroup$
@JoelPereira:. isn't that implied by the statements $sum f(g) = n$ and $n = o(G)$?
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 4 at 3:45
$begingroup$
@the_fox :( back to square one.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:41
$begingroup$
@the_fox :( back to square one.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:41
1
1
$begingroup$
@RobertLewis no it's not implied. If G = the multiplicative group of $mathbb{R}^+$, we can still form the sum. In that case the sum would diverge.
$endgroup$
– Joel Pereira
Jan 4 at 15:33
$begingroup$
@RobertLewis no it's not implied. If G = the multiplicative group of $mathbb{R}^+$, we can still form the sum. In that case the sum would diverge.
$endgroup$
– Joel Pereira
Jan 4 at 15:33
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is not necessary that $G$ be abelian, to wit:
If
$f(g) = 1, ; forall g in G, tag 1$
then clearly
$displaystyle sum_{g in G} f(g) = n, tag 2$
since
$o(G) = n; tag 3$
if
$exists h in G, ; f(h) ne 1, tag 4$
then since
$hG = G, tag 5$
we have
$$begin{align}
sum_{g in G} f(g) &= sum_{g in G} f(hg) \
&= sum_{g in G} f(h)f(g) \
&= f(h)sum_{g in G} f(g); tag 6
end{align}$$
with $f(h) ne 1$ this forces
$displaystyle sum_{g in G} f(g) = 0. tag 7$
$OEDelta$.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
@Shaun: nice edit, thanks!
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 4 at 6:23
1
$begingroup$
Amazing. Just amazing.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:40
$begingroup$
Interesting. I wonder if they just assumed abelian so that students could use the fundamental theorem. It's very easy to prove for cyclic groups.
$endgroup$
– Cameron Williams
Jan 4 at 12:03
$begingroup$
@SubhasisBiswas: thank you for your kind words. If you really like my answer, you might consider "accepting" it. Cheers!
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 5 at 0:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is one novel way using representation theory. The homomorphism $f$ is a (1-dimensional) irreducible representation of a finite group $G$ and $sum_{g in G} f(g)$ is the sum of the character $chi_f$ over $g in G$, i.e. $chi_f = f$.
Since $sum_{g in G} chi_f(g) = lvert G rvertlangle chi_f, 1 rangle$, the sum is zero if and only if $1$ is not a direct summand of $f$. In that case, $f$ is trivial and the sum is $n$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Can you please verify mine?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 6:00
$begingroup$
the_fox in one of the earlier comments has already pointed out that a mistake in your proof is assuming the only elements with finite order in $mathbb{C}^*$ are $pm 1$, when in fact any complex $z$ such that $z^ell = 1$ for a nonzero integer $ell$, i.e. a root of unity, has finite order at most $ell$.
$endgroup$
– Riley
Jan 4 at 7:01
$begingroup$
$z^n=1$ does form a group. Now, can we somehow follow my approach to prove it?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 8:27
$begingroup$
I'm not sure if I can adapt your approach. I might give this a go later myself, but you might be able to adapt it by first using the structure theorem for finitely generated abelian groups to first decompose $G$ into finite cyclic groups $mathbb{Z}_{m}$. On the direct summand $mathbb{Z}_{m}$, if $g_i$ is a generator, so that $g_i^m = 1$, then if we let $z = f(g_i)$ then $z^m = 1$ and $1 + z + cdots + z^{m-1} = 0$ if $z neq 1$.
$endgroup$
– Riley
Jan 4 at 10:37
$begingroup$
I was thinking exactly along this line. Now, conversion of this into isomorphism theorem would be really nice. :)
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:40
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061265%2ff-g-to-mathbbc-is-a-homomorphism-show-that-the-sum-sum-f-g-0-or%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is not necessary that $G$ be abelian, to wit:
If
$f(g) = 1, ; forall g in G, tag 1$
then clearly
$displaystyle sum_{g in G} f(g) = n, tag 2$
since
$o(G) = n; tag 3$
if
$exists h in G, ; f(h) ne 1, tag 4$
then since
$hG = G, tag 5$
we have
$$begin{align}
sum_{g in G} f(g) &= sum_{g in G} f(hg) \
&= sum_{g in G} f(h)f(g) \
&= f(h)sum_{g in G} f(g); tag 6
end{align}$$
with $f(h) ne 1$ this forces
$displaystyle sum_{g in G} f(g) = 0. tag 7$
$OEDelta$.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
@Shaun: nice edit, thanks!
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 4 at 6:23
1
$begingroup$
Amazing. Just amazing.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:40
$begingroup$
Interesting. I wonder if they just assumed abelian so that students could use the fundamental theorem. It's very easy to prove for cyclic groups.
$endgroup$
– Cameron Williams
Jan 4 at 12:03
$begingroup$
@SubhasisBiswas: thank you for your kind words. If you really like my answer, you might consider "accepting" it. Cheers!
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 5 at 0:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is not necessary that $G$ be abelian, to wit:
If
$f(g) = 1, ; forall g in G, tag 1$
then clearly
$displaystyle sum_{g in G} f(g) = n, tag 2$
since
$o(G) = n; tag 3$
if
$exists h in G, ; f(h) ne 1, tag 4$
then since
$hG = G, tag 5$
we have
$$begin{align}
sum_{g in G} f(g) &= sum_{g in G} f(hg) \
&= sum_{g in G} f(h)f(g) \
&= f(h)sum_{g in G} f(g); tag 6
end{align}$$
with $f(h) ne 1$ this forces
$displaystyle sum_{g in G} f(g) = 0. tag 7$
$OEDelta$.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
@Shaun: nice edit, thanks!
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 4 at 6:23
1
$begingroup$
Amazing. Just amazing.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:40
$begingroup$
Interesting. I wonder if they just assumed abelian so that students could use the fundamental theorem. It's very easy to prove for cyclic groups.
$endgroup$
– Cameron Williams
Jan 4 at 12:03
$begingroup$
@SubhasisBiswas: thank you for your kind words. If you really like my answer, you might consider "accepting" it. Cheers!
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 5 at 0:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is not necessary that $G$ be abelian, to wit:
If
$f(g) = 1, ; forall g in G, tag 1$
then clearly
$displaystyle sum_{g in G} f(g) = n, tag 2$
since
$o(G) = n; tag 3$
if
$exists h in G, ; f(h) ne 1, tag 4$
then since
$hG = G, tag 5$
we have
$$begin{align}
sum_{g in G} f(g) &= sum_{g in G} f(hg) \
&= sum_{g in G} f(h)f(g) \
&= f(h)sum_{g in G} f(g); tag 6
end{align}$$
with $f(h) ne 1$ this forces
$displaystyle sum_{g in G} f(g) = 0. tag 7$
$OEDelta$.
$endgroup$
It is not necessary that $G$ be abelian, to wit:
If
$f(g) = 1, ; forall g in G, tag 1$
then clearly
$displaystyle sum_{g in G} f(g) = n, tag 2$
since
$o(G) = n; tag 3$
if
$exists h in G, ; f(h) ne 1, tag 4$
then since
$hG = G, tag 5$
we have
$$begin{align}
sum_{g in G} f(g) &= sum_{g in G} f(hg) \
&= sum_{g in G} f(h)f(g) \
&= f(h)sum_{g in G} f(g); tag 6
end{align}$$
with $f(h) ne 1$ this forces
$displaystyle sum_{g in G} f(g) = 0. tag 7$
$OEDelta$.
edited Jan 4 at 6:13
Shaun
9,406113684
9,406113684
answered Jan 4 at 3:58
Robert LewisRobert Lewis
48k23067
48k23067
1
$begingroup$
@Shaun: nice edit, thanks!
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 4 at 6:23
1
$begingroup$
Amazing. Just amazing.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:40
$begingroup$
Interesting. I wonder if they just assumed abelian so that students could use the fundamental theorem. It's very easy to prove for cyclic groups.
$endgroup$
– Cameron Williams
Jan 4 at 12:03
$begingroup$
@SubhasisBiswas: thank you for your kind words. If you really like my answer, you might consider "accepting" it. Cheers!
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 5 at 0:41
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
@Shaun: nice edit, thanks!
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 4 at 6:23
1
$begingroup$
Amazing. Just amazing.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:40
$begingroup$
Interesting. I wonder if they just assumed abelian so that students could use the fundamental theorem. It's very easy to prove for cyclic groups.
$endgroup$
– Cameron Williams
Jan 4 at 12:03
$begingroup$
@SubhasisBiswas: thank you for your kind words. If you really like my answer, you might consider "accepting" it. Cheers!
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 5 at 0:41
1
1
$begingroup$
@Shaun: nice edit, thanks!
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 4 at 6:23
$begingroup$
@Shaun: nice edit, thanks!
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 4 at 6:23
1
1
$begingroup$
Amazing. Just amazing.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:40
$begingroup$
Amazing. Just amazing.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:40
$begingroup$
Interesting. I wonder if they just assumed abelian so that students could use the fundamental theorem. It's very easy to prove for cyclic groups.
$endgroup$
– Cameron Williams
Jan 4 at 12:03
$begingroup$
Interesting. I wonder if they just assumed abelian so that students could use the fundamental theorem. It's very easy to prove for cyclic groups.
$endgroup$
– Cameron Williams
Jan 4 at 12:03
$begingroup$
@SubhasisBiswas: thank you for your kind words. If you really like my answer, you might consider "accepting" it. Cheers!
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 5 at 0:41
$begingroup$
@SubhasisBiswas: thank you for your kind words. If you really like my answer, you might consider "accepting" it. Cheers!
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 5 at 0:41
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is one novel way using representation theory. The homomorphism $f$ is a (1-dimensional) irreducible representation of a finite group $G$ and $sum_{g in G} f(g)$ is the sum of the character $chi_f$ over $g in G$, i.e. $chi_f = f$.
Since $sum_{g in G} chi_f(g) = lvert G rvertlangle chi_f, 1 rangle$, the sum is zero if and only if $1$ is not a direct summand of $f$. In that case, $f$ is trivial and the sum is $n$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Can you please verify mine?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 6:00
$begingroup$
the_fox in one of the earlier comments has already pointed out that a mistake in your proof is assuming the only elements with finite order in $mathbb{C}^*$ are $pm 1$, when in fact any complex $z$ such that $z^ell = 1$ for a nonzero integer $ell$, i.e. a root of unity, has finite order at most $ell$.
$endgroup$
– Riley
Jan 4 at 7:01
$begingroup$
$z^n=1$ does form a group. Now, can we somehow follow my approach to prove it?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 8:27
$begingroup$
I'm not sure if I can adapt your approach. I might give this a go later myself, but you might be able to adapt it by first using the structure theorem for finitely generated abelian groups to first decompose $G$ into finite cyclic groups $mathbb{Z}_{m}$. On the direct summand $mathbb{Z}_{m}$, if $g_i$ is a generator, so that $g_i^m = 1$, then if we let $z = f(g_i)$ then $z^m = 1$ and $1 + z + cdots + z^{m-1} = 0$ if $z neq 1$.
$endgroup$
– Riley
Jan 4 at 10:37
$begingroup$
I was thinking exactly along this line. Now, conversion of this into isomorphism theorem would be really nice. :)
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is one novel way using representation theory. The homomorphism $f$ is a (1-dimensional) irreducible representation of a finite group $G$ and $sum_{g in G} f(g)$ is the sum of the character $chi_f$ over $g in G$, i.e. $chi_f = f$.
Since $sum_{g in G} chi_f(g) = lvert G rvertlangle chi_f, 1 rangle$, the sum is zero if and only if $1$ is not a direct summand of $f$. In that case, $f$ is trivial and the sum is $n$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Can you please verify mine?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 6:00
$begingroup$
the_fox in one of the earlier comments has already pointed out that a mistake in your proof is assuming the only elements with finite order in $mathbb{C}^*$ are $pm 1$, when in fact any complex $z$ such that $z^ell = 1$ for a nonzero integer $ell$, i.e. a root of unity, has finite order at most $ell$.
$endgroup$
– Riley
Jan 4 at 7:01
$begingroup$
$z^n=1$ does form a group. Now, can we somehow follow my approach to prove it?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 8:27
$begingroup$
I'm not sure if I can adapt your approach. I might give this a go later myself, but you might be able to adapt it by first using the structure theorem for finitely generated abelian groups to first decompose $G$ into finite cyclic groups $mathbb{Z}_{m}$. On the direct summand $mathbb{Z}_{m}$, if $g_i$ is a generator, so that $g_i^m = 1$, then if we let $z = f(g_i)$ then $z^m = 1$ and $1 + z + cdots + z^{m-1} = 0$ if $z neq 1$.
$endgroup$
– Riley
Jan 4 at 10:37
$begingroup$
I was thinking exactly along this line. Now, conversion of this into isomorphism theorem would be really nice. :)
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is one novel way using representation theory. The homomorphism $f$ is a (1-dimensional) irreducible representation of a finite group $G$ and $sum_{g in G} f(g)$ is the sum of the character $chi_f$ over $g in G$, i.e. $chi_f = f$.
Since $sum_{g in G} chi_f(g) = lvert G rvertlangle chi_f, 1 rangle$, the sum is zero if and only if $1$ is not a direct summand of $f$. In that case, $f$ is trivial and the sum is $n$.
$endgroup$
Here is one novel way using representation theory. The homomorphism $f$ is a (1-dimensional) irreducible representation of a finite group $G$ and $sum_{g in G} f(g)$ is the sum of the character $chi_f$ over $g in G$, i.e. $chi_f = f$.
Since $sum_{g in G} chi_f(g) = lvert G rvertlangle chi_f, 1 rangle$, the sum is zero if and only if $1$ is not a direct summand of $f$. In that case, $f$ is trivial and the sum is $n$.
answered Jan 4 at 4:16
RileyRiley
1825
1825
$begingroup$
Can you please verify mine?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 6:00
$begingroup$
the_fox in one of the earlier comments has already pointed out that a mistake in your proof is assuming the only elements with finite order in $mathbb{C}^*$ are $pm 1$, when in fact any complex $z$ such that $z^ell = 1$ for a nonzero integer $ell$, i.e. a root of unity, has finite order at most $ell$.
$endgroup$
– Riley
Jan 4 at 7:01
$begingroup$
$z^n=1$ does form a group. Now, can we somehow follow my approach to prove it?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 8:27
$begingroup$
I'm not sure if I can adapt your approach. I might give this a go later myself, but you might be able to adapt it by first using the structure theorem for finitely generated abelian groups to first decompose $G$ into finite cyclic groups $mathbb{Z}_{m}$. On the direct summand $mathbb{Z}_{m}$, if $g_i$ is a generator, so that $g_i^m = 1$, then if we let $z = f(g_i)$ then $z^m = 1$ and $1 + z + cdots + z^{m-1} = 0$ if $z neq 1$.
$endgroup$
– Riley
Jan 4 at 10:37
$begingroup$
I was thinking exactly along this line. Now, conversion of this into isomorphism theorem would be really nice. :)
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:40
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Can you please verify mine?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 6:00
$begingroup$
the_fox in one of the earlier comments has already pointed out that a mistake in your proof is assuming the only elements with finite order in $mathbb{C}^*$ are $pm 1$, when in fact any complex $z$ such that $z^ell = 1$ for a nonzero integer $ell$, i.e. a root of unity, has finite order at most $ell$.
$endgroup$
– Riley
Jan 4 at 7:01
$begingroup$
$z^n=1$ does form a group. Now, can we somehow follow my approach to prove it?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 8:27
$begingroup$
I'm not sure if I can adapt your approach. I might give this a go later myself, but you might be able to adapt it by first using the structure theorem for finitely generated abelian groups to first decompose $G$ into finite cyclic groups $mathbb{Z}_{m}$. On the direct summand $mathbb{Z}_{m}$, if $g_i$ is a generator, so that $g_i^m = 1$, then if we let $z = f(g_i)$ then $z^m = 1$ and $1 + z + cdots + z^{m-1} = 0$ if $z neq 1$.
$endgroup$
– Riley
Jan 4 at 10:37
$begingroup$
I was thinking exactly along this line. Now, conversion of this into isomorphism theorem would be really nice. :)
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:40
$begingroup$
Can you please verify mine?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 6:00
$begingroup$
Can you please verify mine?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 6:00
$begingroup$
the_fox in one of the earlier comments has already pointed out that a mistake in your proof is assuming the only elements with finite order in $mathbb{C}^*$ are $pm 1$, when in fact any complex $z$ such that $z^ell = 1$ for a nonzero integer $ell$, i.e. a root of unity, has finite order at most $ell$.
$endgroup$
– Riley
Jan 4 at 7:01
$begingroup$
the_fox in one of the earlier comments has already pointed out that a mistake in your proof is assuming the only elements with finite order in $mathbb{C}^*$ are $pm 1$, when in fact any complex $z$ such that $z^ell = 1$ for a nonzero integer $ell$, i.e. a root of unity, has finite order at most $ell$.
$endgroup$
– Riley
Jan 4 at 7:01
$begingroup$
$z^n=1$ does form a group. Now, can we somehow follow my approach to prove it?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 8:27
$begingroup$
$z^n=1$ does form a group. Now, can we somehow follow my approach to prove it?
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 8:27
$begingroup$
I'm not sure if I can adapt your approach. I might give this a go later myself, but you might be able to adapt it by first using the structure theorem for finitely generated abelian groups to first decompose $G$ into finite cyclic groups $mathbb{Z}_{m}$. On the direct summand $mathbb{Z}_{m}$, if $g_i$ is a generator, so that $g_i^m = 1$, then if we let $z = f(g_i)$ then $z^m = 1$ and $1 + z + cdots + z^{m-1} = 0$ if $z neq 1$.
$endgroup$
– Riley
Jan 4 at 10:37
$begingroup$
I'm not sure if I can adapt your approach. I might give this a go later myself, but you might be able to adapt it by first using the structure theorem for finitely generated abelian groups to first decompose $G$ into finite cyclic groups $mathbb{Z}_{m}$. On the direct summand $mathbb{Z}_{m}$, if $g_i$ is a generator, so that $g_i^m = 1$, then if we let $z = f(g_i)$ then $z^m = 1$ and $1 + z + cdots + z^{m-1} = 0$ if $z neq 1$.
$endgroup$
– Riley
Jan 4 at 10:37
$begingroup$
I was thinking exactly along this line. Now, conversion of this into isomorphism theorem would be really nice. :)
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:40
$begingroup$
I was thinking exactly along this line. Now, conversion of this into isomorphism theorem would be really nice. :)
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:40
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3061265%2ff-g-to-mathbbc-is-a-homomorphism-show-that-the-sum-sum-f-g-0-or%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
6
$begingroup$
What's the order of $i$ then?
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Jan 4 at 3:11
2
$begingroup$
Does G have to have finite order?
$endgroup$
– Joel Pereira
Jan 4 at 3:39
$begingroup$
@JoelPereira:. isn't that implied by the statements $sum f(g) = n$ and $n = o(G)$?
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Jan 4 at 3:45
$begingroup$
@the_fox :( back to square one.
$endgroup$
– Subhasis Biswas
Jan 4 at 11:41
1
$begingroup$
@RobertLewis no it's not implied. If G = the multiplicative group of $mathbb{R}^+$, we can still form the sum. In that case the sum would diverge.
$endgroup$
– Joel Pereira
Jan 4 at 15:33