Math 2.0

Group theory and generalizations Foundations Theorem

Lagrange's theorem

Builds on Group

Statement

Let GG be a finite group and let HH be a subgroup of GG. Then the order of HH divides the order of GG.

Remarks

The quotient ∣G∣/∣H∣|G| / |H| is the number of left cosets of HH in GG.

Going deeper

For a student

Lagrange's theorem gives a strong limit on the subgroups of a finite group. The order of each subgroup is a divisor of the order of the group.

The idea of the proof is to count cosets:

  1. The left cosets aHaH of HH partition GG.
  2. Each left coset has exactly ∣H∣|H| elements, because h↦ahh \mapsto ah is a bijection from HH to aHaH.
  3. If there are kk cosets, then ∣G∣=k ∣H∣|G| = k\,|H|.

The number kk is the index [G:H][G : H]. Thus ∣G∣=[G:H]⋅∣H∣|G| = [G : H] \cdot |H|.

A worked example with G=ℤ/12ℤG = \mathbb{Z}/12\mathbb{Z} and H={0,4,8}H = \{0, 4, 8\}:

  1. HH is a subgroup of order 33.
  2. The cosets are HH, 1+H={1,5,9}1 + H = \{1, 5, 9\}, 2+H={2,6,10}2 + H = \{2, 6, 10\} and 3+H={3,7,11}3 + H = \{3, 7, 11\}.
  3. There are 44 cosets of 33 elements each, and 4⋅3=124 \cdot 3 = 12.

Two standard consequences are that the order of each element divides ∣G∣|G|, and that a group of prime order is cyclic.

A common error is to believe the converse. A divisor dd of ∣G∣|G| need not be the order of a subgroup. The alternating group A4A_4 has order 1212, but it has no subgroup of order 66. The converse is true for some classes of groups, for example for cyclic groups and for groups of prime power order.

The theorem needs GG to be finite. For an infinite group the index can still be finite, as for 2ℤ2\mathbb{Z} in ℤ\mathbb{Z}, but the orders are not numbers.

Reading path

To understand this page from the ground up, read these 35 pages in order. The foundations come first. The path takes the proof Proof of Lagrange's theorem.

Show the path as a graph
Element, definition, no evidence levelElementdefinitionGroup, concept, no evidence levelGroupconceptLeft coset, concept, no evidence levelLeft cosetconceptProposition, concept, no evidence levelPropositionconceptSet, definition, no evidence levelSetdefinitionSubgroup, definition, no evidence levelSubgroupdefinitionConjunction, definition, no evidence levelConjunctiondefinitionDisjunction, definition, no evidence levelDisjunctiondefinitionImplication, definition, no evidence levelImplicationdefinitionPredicate, definition, no evidence levelPredicatedefinitionEmpty set, object, no evidence levelEmpty setobjectFamily of sets, definition, no evidence levelFamily of setsdefinitionOrdered pair, definition, no evidence levelOrdered pairdefinitionIntersection, definition, no evidence levelIntersectiondefinitionLeft coset, definition, no evidence levelLeft cosetdefinitionRight coset, definition, no evidence levelRight cosetdefinitionUnion, definition, no evidence levelUniondefinitionSet-builder notation, concept, no evidence levelSet-builder notationconceptExistential quantifier, definition, no evidence levelExistential quantifierdefinitionUniversal quantifier, definition, no evidence levelUniversal quantifierdefinitionDisjoint sets, definition, no evidence levelDisjoint setsdefinitionCartesian product, definition, no evidence levelCartesian productdefinitionSubset, definition, no evidence levelSubsetdefinitionCosets have the same cardinality as the subgroup, statement, no evidence levelCosets have the same …statementUnion of a family of sets, definition, no evidence levelUnion of a family of …definitionBinary relation, definition, no evidence levelBinary relationdefinitionPartition of a set, definition, no evidence levelPartition of a setdefinitionReflexive relation, definition, no evidence levelReflexive relationdefinitionSymmetric relation, definition, no evidence levelSymmetric relationdefinitionTransitive relation, definition, no evidence levelTransitive relationdefinitionEquivalence relation, definition, no evidence levelEquivalence relationdefinitionEquivalence class, definition, no evidence levelEquivalence classdefinitionEquivalence classes form a partition, statement, no evidence levelEquivalence classes f…statementProof of Lagrange's theorem, proof, no evidence levelProof of Lagrange's t…proofLagrange's theorem, statement, no evidence levelLagrange's theoremstatement
Each page uses the pages above it. The colour of the bar on a box shows how strong the evidence is, and the box also gives it as text. The list has the same pages.
  • no evidence level
  1. Element definition
  2. Group concept
  3. Left coset concept
  4. Proposition concept
  5. Set definition
  6. Subgroup definition
  7. Conjunction definition
  8. Disjunction definition
  9. Implication definition
  10. Predicate definition
  11. Empty set object
  12. Family of sets definition
  13. Ordered pair definition
  14. Intersection definition
  15. Left coset definition
  16. Right coset definition
  17. Union definition
  18. Set-builder notation concept
  19. Existential quantifier definition
  20. Universal quantifier definition
  21. Disjoint sets definition
  22. Cartesian product definition
  23. Subset definition
  24. Cosets have the same cardinality as the subgroup statement
  25. Union of a family of sets definition
  26. Binary relation definition
  27. Partition of a set definition
  28. Reflexive relation definition
  29. Symmetric relation definition
  30. Transitive relation definition
  31. Equivalence relation definition
  32. Equivalence class definition
  33. Equivalence classes form a partition statement
  34. Proof of Lagrange's theorem proof
  35. Lagrange's theorem statement

Where this leads

27 pages build on this one.

Further reading

  1. Book isbn:9780471433347, Section 3.2, Theorem 8
About this page
Tag3C53TD
URIm2://3C53TD
Kindstatement, theorem
WritingW2 usable
MSC20D60
StatusThis copy of the site has no build data. Run m2 status 3C53TD.
AboutGroup, Subgroup, Left coset, Order of a group
UsesGroup
Formal
Subgroup.card_subgroup_dvd_card lean4, stronger match

Markdown · JSON · Edit on GitHub

What this page needs for W3

  • section History: who stated it first and who proved it first (0 of 1)
  • explanations for the audience (2 of 3)
  • a person confirmed each agent-written section: rule P04 (0 of 1)

The writing levels say how complete the text of a page is. They do not measure its truth.

What links here

Used by

Examples

Proofs