2

I'm looking for a conceptual proof of the following statement:

Lemma: Let $G$ be a finite abelian $p$-group. Let $a$ be an element of maximal order. Then $G=\langle a \rangle \times H$ for some subgroup $H\subseteq G$.

By a "conceptual" proof, I mean one that I can explain it to an undergraduate on a walk around the campus. I would like the proof to be from first principles, i.e., avoid relying on some other theorems about $p$-groups (e.g., Cauchy's theorem).

The standard way the lemma is proved is by finding an element $x\in G$ such that $\bar{a}\in G/\langle x\rangle$ is also of maximal order, and then using strong induction to decompose $G/\langle x\rangle$. However, I don't have a good conceptual explanation of how one finds the desired $x$. This is the only portion of the proof of structure theory for finite abelian groups for which I don't have a good "conceptual" reasoning.

Dr. Evil
  • 2,651
  • 1
    Have you looked through the answers here? – Carl-Fredrik Nyberg Brodda Mar 02 '23 at 09:45
  • 3
    «By a "conceptual" proof, I mean one that I can explain it to an undergraduate on a walk around the campus.» This is quite at odds with what I usually mean by conceptual. I've seen many times elementary proofs of results whose conceptual proof involves some machinery, which typically makes them uneasy to explain to somebody without background, but makes the proof natural and recoverable. Probably the word "elementary" better fits the given definition. – YCor Mar 02 '23 at 13:04
  • For the analogous case of Jordan normal form of a nilpotent endomorphism, my proof is here: http://www.ma.rhul.ac.uk/~uvah099/Maths/JNFfinal.pdf. The required `$x$' can be found by a linear algebra argument, taking a complement to the image of $pG$. – Mark Wildon Mar 02 '23 at 18:36
  • Thanks @Carl-FredrikNybergBrodda I hadn't seen that. Kuperberg's argument is beautiful! – Dr. Evil Mar 05 '23 at 23:19
  • @YCor Thanks for your comment. I guess conceptual may or may not be elementary. I like to keep "conceptual" as referring to proofs that can be described on a walk and "elementary" as referring to proofs that can be described to undergrads. The two sets are not the same, though they have nontrivial intersections. My question should therefore have been phrased as "finding conceptual and elementary proof..." – Dr. Evil Mar 05 '23 at 23:22

0 Answers0