Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $G$ be a finite group of order $n$ and $\psi(G)$ be the sum of element orders of $G$. Then $\psi(G)\leq\psi(C_n)$, where $C_n$ is the cyclic group of order $n$ (see "Sums of element orders in finite groups", Comm. Algebra 37 (2009), 2978-2980). Is it true a similar inequality for the product of element orders of $G$?

share|improve this question
Have you checked it for small examples? I personally have no intuition otherwise for why this should/should not be true... –  Igor Rivin Dec 3 '11 at 10:40
Yes, it seems to be true. –  Marius Tarnauceanu Dec 3 '11 at 11:09
The sum of elements theorem was proved in 1991 - earlier than the 2009 paper cited here. Citation: Schmidt, F., Stong, R., & Lindsey, J. H. (1991). 6636. American Mathematical Monthly, 970-972. –  Benjamin Dickman Jun 12 at 7:33

1 Answer 1

up vote 25 down vote accepted

Denoting the order of $g$ by $o(g)$, you can show that for any decreasing function $f$ the following inequality holds $$\sum_{g\in G}f(o(g))\geq \sum_{g\in \mathbb Z/n\mathbb Z}f(o(g)).$$ This is because one can actually construct a bijection $\sigma:G\to\mathbb Z/n\mathbb Z$ which satisfies $$o(\sigma(g))\geq o(g)$$ for all $g\in G$. The main ingredient is a classical theorem of Frobenius saying that when $k$ divides the order of a group, the number of elements of order dividing $k$ is divisible by $k$, then proceed by induction. An application of this exact idea is for example problem 10775 on the American Math Monthly. For your question we just need $f(x)=-\log x$.

share|improve this answer
It's an interesting idea. I will try to give a complete proof. Thanks! –  Marius Tarnauceanu Dec 7 '11 at 8:03
The proof given in that Monthly solution seems to me to be at best incomplete. I agree (in the notation of that problem) that the sets S_d for divisors d of k do not consume too much of the set G_k, but what about sets S_d where d < k but d is not a divisor. Perhaps they involve some elements of G_k. Does anyone see a way to repair this problem? –  Marty Isaacs Jul 19 '12 at 19:52
The proof seems to only want to define $S_d$ for $d \le n$ with $d$ a divisor of $n$. Am I missing something? –  Aaron Meyerowitz Aug 9 '12 at 6:24
@Aaron: The problem is with the $S_d$ with $d < k$, $d$ not a divisor of $k$, but $\gcd(d,k) \neq 1$. Those $S_d$'s might have taken away too many elements of $G_k$, leaving less than $\phi(k)$ elements to build $S_k$. –  Tom De Medts Aug 9 '12 at 13:28

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.