Re: Commuting p-cycles in Sn
Suggestion: Pick a small value of n and see if the statement is true.
Re: Commuting p-cycles in Sn
sketch of proof:
decompose σ in Sn into disjoint (non-trivial, that is, length > 1) cycles. now if |σ| = p, can any of these cycles have order < p or > p? why do disjoint cycles necesarily commute?
for a counter-example, consider (1 2)(3 4 5) in S6.
Re: Commuting p-cycles in Sn
(Answer to AlexMahone)
Good idea
Take n = 3
Consider the element
= (1 2 3) which is of order 3
Then it should follow that it cycle decomposes in two commuting 3-cycles.
But problems at this early stage - how to find them?
I know (1 2 3) = (1 3) o (1 2) ... and these are not even commuting ... 3-cycles??
How do I find the required 3-cycles in this case?
Peter
Re: Commuting p-cycles in Sn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bernhard
(Answer to AlexMahone)
Good idea
Take n = 3
Consider the element

= (1 2 3) which is of order 3
Then it should follow that it cycle decomposes in two commuting 3-cycles.
But problems at this early stage - how to find them?
I know (1 2 3) = (1 3) o (1 2) ... and these are not even commuting ... 3-cycles??
How do I find the required 3-cycles in this case?
Peter
In this case, (1 2 3) itself is the commutating 3-cycle.
Take n = 4.
Consider the element
, which has order 2.
, which is the product of commutating 2-cycles.
Re: Commuting p-cycles in Sn
(Answer to Deveno)
Let
be such that |
| = p where p is prime
Then |
| = p
|
| is a p-cycle (is that correct?)
Now every permutation
of a finite set can be expressed as a product of disjoint cycles and, further, disjoint cycles are commutative - they do not have an effect outside their own elements.
So
is a product of commuting disjoint cycles BUT!!
these cycles would be m-cycles where m is less than p (wouldn't they???)
Surely if we express a cycle in terms of the product of a number of cycles the cycles in the product would be smaller - wouldn't they?
Peter
Re: Commuting p-cycles in Sn
Thanks
I assumed (wrongly) that the 'product' had to involve at least two cycles - hence was thrown!
Peter
Re: Commuting p-cycles in Sn
I was quite wrong to say in the above post that
|
| = p
is a p-cycle
(I think I can make the claim that if a permutation can be expressed as a p-cycle then it has oder p)
So removing the erroneous statement from the argument we now have the following:
===============================================
Let
be such that |
| = p where p is prime
Then we may that
can be expressed as a product of commuting cycles since
(1) every permutation of a finite set can be expressed as a product of disjoint cycles
(2) disjoint cycles are commutative
But! Where to go from here??
It must be the case (as Deveno implies in a post above) that these commuting cycles are p-cycles - but WHY?
I have the intuition that each of the cycles must have order p - but ...
Can anyone help me further with this proof
(Thanks to Alexmahone and Deveno for help so far)
Peter
Re: Commuting p-cycles in Sn
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bernhard
(I think I can make the claim that if a permutation can be expressed as a p-cycle then it has oder p)
Assume that
where
are commutative p-cycles.
So, ^p=a^pb^pc^p...=e)
Now try proving the converse.
Re: Commuting p-cycles in Sn
the "missing bit" is this lemma, which you need to prove:
if we factor
as a product of r distinct cycles of lengths 
then
.
Re: Commuting p-cycles in Sn
OK, thanks for help.
Will try to put together the proof that:
has order p in
the cycle decomposition of
is a product of commuting p-cycles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So let
be such that |
| = p where p is prime
Then
can be expressed as a product of disjoint, and hence commuting cycles
Thus
=
...
where the
are commuting cycles of lengths, say,
,
, ... 
Then |
| = p = lcm(
,
, ...
)
Thus
| p,
| p, ...
| p
Thus
= 1 or p with at least one
= p since p prime
[If p was not prime a number of the cycles could have lengths less than p]
Thus cycle decomposition of
is a product of commuting p-cycles
Is that OK?
If so I now have to show that if the cycle decomposition of
is a product of commuting p-cycles then |
| = p
- but of course, reading through the posts again, Alexmahone has shown how to do this (thanks again!)
Peter