We wrote the October 2006 Stage 3 problems (Decoding
Transformations , Combining
Transformations and Simplifying
Transformations ) with some more advanced (and more general)
mathematics in mind; here, we shall try to introduce that maths
and explain how it relates to the problems. If you haven't
already tried the problems, I suggest that you look at them
now.
In the problems, you were introduced to four transformations:
$I$, $R$, $S$ and $T$. Here is a reminder of what they are.
In the course of tackling the three problems, we hope that you
will have discovered some important properties of the
transformations made up from $I$, $R$, $S$ and $T$. Here is a
summary.
\begin{itemize} \item[(i)] Doing two or more of these
transformations one after another gives another transformation.
\item[(ii)] If $A$, $B$ and $C$ are transformations then $(A
B)C=A(B C)$. That is, doing transformations one after another is
associative. \item[(iii)] If $A$ is a transformation, then $A
I=A=I A$. That is, $I$ is the \emph{identity transformation}.
\item[(iv)] Each transformation $A$ has a transformation $B$ that
undoes it, that is, with $A B=I=B A$. We say that $B$ is the
\emph{inverse} of $A$. \end{itemize}
We didn't really draw attention to properties (i) and (ii) in the
problems, as they are quite clear in this context - in fact, it
is probably harder to realise that they might not always be true
than it is to realise that they are true here!
Why are we interested in these properties? Well, there are lots
more contexts in which these properties hold. If we can prove a
theorem just assuming these properties, then we'll be able to
apply it to any situation with these properties. It turns out
that this is an extremely powerful idea - indeed, it underlies
much of the mathematics studied at university.
So let's try to make a formal definition of these properties.
We shall define a group
. A group is a set $G$ together with a binary operation $\bullet$
that satisfies three$^{(1)}$ axioms.
We've just used lots of scary words, so let's pause for a moment
to understand them.
A set is just a
collection of objects. For example, it could be the set of all
whole numbers, or the set of all fractions, or, as above, a set
of transformations.
A binary operation is a
rule for combining two members of the set to give another member
of the set.
Here are some examples of sets with binary operations.
\begin{itemize} \item[(a)] $G=$ set of all whole numbers,
$\bullet=$ addition, or $\bullet=$ multiplication. \item[(b)]
$G=$ set of all fractions, $\bullet=$ addition, or $\bullet=$
multiplication. \item[(c)] $G=$ set of all whole numbers,
$\bullet$ is defined by $a\bullet b=a^b$. \item[(d)] $G=$ set of
all positive whole numbers, $\bullet=$ addition. \item[(e)] $G=$
set of all transformations obtained by repeatedly doing $R$, $S$,
$T$ and their inverses (including $I$, of course), $\bullet=$
composition (so $R\bullet S=R$ followed by $S$ etc.).
\end{itemize}
Note that if $G$ is the set of all whole numbers then division is
not a binary operation:
whilst it takes two members of the set and combines them, it
doesn't always return a member of the set. (For example, 1
divided by 2 is $\frac{1}{2}$ - not a whole number!)
Now let's list the axioms. Here, ``axiom'' just means
``condition''. Remember that these are the conditions that a set
and binary operation have to satisfy in order to form a group.
\begin{itemize} \item[Axiom 1:] $\bullet$ is associative. That
is, $(a\bullet b)\bullet c=a\bullet (b\bullet c)$ for all $a$,
$b$ and $c$ in $G$. \item[Axiom 2:] There is some $e$ in $G$ such
that $e\bullet a=a =a\bullet e$ for all $a$ in $G$. (We call $e$
an identity for
$\bullet$.) \item[Axiom 3:] For each $a$ in $G$, there is a $b$
in $G$ such that $a\bullet b=e=b\bullet a$. (We call $b$ an
\emph{inverse} for $a$.) \end{itemize}
Let's go back to our examples to decide which of them are groups
(that is, which of them satisfy these conditions). You might like
to try this for yourself before reading on.
\begin{itemize} \item[(a)] $G=$ set of all whole numbers,
$\bullet=$ addition.
We have $a+(b+c)=(a+b)+c$ for all whole numbers $a$, $b$ and
$c$.
We have an identity, 0: $0+a=a=a+0$ for all whole numbers
$a$.
For each whole number $a$, we have an inverse, $-a$: $a+
-a=0=-a+a$.
So this is a group.
What about $\bullet=$ multiplication?
It's associative, and 1 is an identity here, but we don't always
have inverses.
For example, there is no whole number $b$ such that $2b=1$. So
this is not a group - the operation really does make a
difference.
\item[(b)] These are both groups; try to show this yourself.
\item[(c)] This is not a group: $\bullet$ here is not
associative. (It fails the other conditions too.)
For example, $2\bullet(3\bullet 4) =2\bullet 3^4=2\bullet
81=2^{81}$, but $(2\bullet 3)\bullet 4=2^3\bullet
4=(2^3)^4=2^{12}\neq 2^{81}$.
\item[(d)] This is not a group: there's no identity.
\item[(e)] This is a group - we talked about it earlier!
\end{itemize}
By the way, notice that we didn't require $\bullet$ to have the
property that $a\bullet b=b\bullet a$. (That is, we didn't
require $\bullet$ to be commutative.) In fact, the
transformations in our original example didn't have this
property. If $\bullet$ is commutative, then we say that the group
is abelian (named after
the Norwegian mathematician Niels Abel).
Groups don't have to be infinite. If you've come across modulo
arithmetic (or clock arithmetic), then you can show that the
numbers 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4 form a group under addition mod 5.
Going back to our transformations, the group of transformations
made up just from $R$ and $S$ (including $I$) is a finite group -
if you've solved the problem Simplifying
Transformations then you'll have seen that it has just 8
elements. We say that it has order 8.
We're going to spend the rest of this article thinking about a
result that we can prove for all finite groups - but first we're
going to think about it in the context of our group of
transformations made up from $R$ and $S$.
If you've done the problem Combining
Transformations then hopefully you've discovered that $R^2=I$
and $S^4=I$. That is, if you do $R$ or $S$ enough times then you
get the identity ($I$). Is this true of the other elements in the
group? Remember that combinations like $R S S R S R S R S S S R S
R S S R S S S$ can be simplified, so we can write the elements of
the group as $I$, $R S$, $S$, $R S^2$, $S^2$, $S R$, $S^3$ and
$R$. (Of course, there are other ways to write them, in some
cases just as simply.) Their effects on the upside-down 'L' shape
can be illustrated like this:
We'd like to show that if
is a transformation made from combining
and
then there is a positive whole number
such that
.
(That is, if we do
enough times then we get the identity.) We know that
we just need to check the cases when
is one of the eight
transformations listed (and pictured) above.
is easy, and we've
already done
and
(
and
).
From the diagram, we see that
is a reflection in the line
, and so
. (Algebraically, we have
, using the relation
introduced
in
Simplifying
Transformations.)
is a reflection in the
-axis, so
(algebraically,
).
Also,
is a rotation by
about the origin, so
.
If
then
is a reflection in the line
, so
.
Finally, if
then
is a rotation by
anticlockwise
about the origin, so
.
We have shown that if
is a transformation made from combining
and
then there is some positive integer
such that
.
Notice that this is certainly not true for
. We can do
as many
times as we like and we'll never get back to the identity. So there's an
important property of
and
that makes this true.
In fact, we can prove the result for any finite group, and this is
precisely what we shall do next. We'll keep referring back to our favourite
group of transformations (those made from
and
). For
convenience, let's call this group
.
Theorem
Let
be a finite group (where the binary operation is
) with identity element
.
Let
be an element of
. Write
for
.
Then there is some positive whole number
such that
. That is,
if we do
enough times then we get back to the identity.
(Hopefully you can see how this generalises what we have shown about
transformations. Of course, in the case of transformations,
) Proof
Suppose that
has
elements.
(We know that
(the group of transformations made up from
and
)
has 8 elements.)
We can think about
,
,
, ..., and
. There are
things
in this list, and they
are all in
. So two of them must be the same, say
and
.
That is,
,
where
. We may as well assume that
(if not, switch the labels).
(In the case of
, we could think about
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
and
, for example. There are 9 things here, and
only has 8 elements, so two of them must be the same. For example, we know
that
. (Of course, we know some other pairs are equal too.)
So in this example we have
and
.)
We can apply
(the inverse of
) to both sides, to get
, that is,
. In fact, we can apply
to both sides
times, to get
.
(Since
, we may refer to
as
.)
Now
is a positive whole number with
, so there is indeed
a positive whole number
with
, namely
. Notice
that we have shown this for any finite group, and any
element within that group - that seems pretty remarkable to me!
(In our example, we can apply
to both sides of
, to get
. Applying
twice, we get
,
and we know that
(that's what
means). So
. Of course,
this isn't a surprise, but we could have used any element of
(rather than
) and this argument would have worked. In the general
case, we aren't able to identify which powers of
are equal, we just know
that some two are, which is why we have to use algebra.)
There are lots more things that can be shown about groups. In fact,
there's a whole branch of maths about it - called Group Theory! People
who study maths at university usually do some group theory in their
first year. There are some other articles on NRICH about group theory.
One is
Small Groups,
and another is
An
Introduction to Mathematical Structure.
Note to those who have studied groups before: some people require
four axioms. Observant people will notice that we have included the fourth in
our definition of a binary operation.