Proof of Lagrange's Theorem
Theorem 1
If is a subgroup of a finite group , then is a divisor of .
Proof
Upon slight consideration, it’s logically inevitable and the proof is accordingly simple.
Each coset has the same number of elements. Since is also one of the cosets of , the cardinality of the cosets of is . As the cosets partition , summing the cardinalities of all cosets equals . Let the number of cosets of be , and denote this as . Thus, is a divisor of .
■
Corollary
If is a finite group and is a prime number, then is a cyclic group.
For example, for the prime number , is unmistakably a cyclic group.
Counterexample 2
The alternating group serves as a counterexample to the converse of Lagrange’s theorem.
Assuming the converse of Lagrange’s theorem holds, then for , there must exist a satisfying . Specifically, consists of three types, 12 kinds, of cyclic groups, hence, is formed of six of these cycles:
- The identity of length :
- Cycles of length , and -cycles:
- Products of transpositions of length , Klein four-group: These along with only the identity gathered form , which is isomorphic to the Klein four-group. In that sense, in this post, let’s just call them Klein four.
Looking into what relation has with these elements…
- As is a group, it must include the identity element , hence, technically one needs to choose cycles.
- Assuming Lagrange’s theorem holds, there must exist a cycle whose cardinality is , therefore, must include at least one Klein four.
- Since there are only three Klein fours, must include at least two -cycles.
- If , then it must be . However, since , if includes -cycles, it must have them in even numbers. It can’t have cycles given it must include the identity.
In summary, must have at least one Klein four and at least two -cycles, notably, the -cycles must be in even numbers, so the possible scenario is only whether the cycles are two or four. Let’s just consider the cases.
Case 1: Two -cycles, three Klein fours
Regardless of which cycle is included, since has all Klein fours, we obtain , and hence, is not closed under the product of cycles.Case 2: Four -cycles, one Klein four
Without loss of generality, let one of the -cycles in be , and the Klein four be . The point is that , not included in , exists in the Klein four. Therefore, must precisely have the -cycles . However, thus, is not closed under the product of cycles as well.
We have presented as a counterexample demonstrating that the converse of Lagrange’s theorem does not hold, confirming that cannot be a group.
■
Fraleigh. (2003). A first course in abstract algebra(7th Edition): p100. ↩︎
https://www.mathcounterexamples.net/converse-of-lagrange-theorem-does-not-hold/ ↩︎