3
$\begingroup$

It is well known that every group of exponent $n=2$ is abelian. I remember having seen that this is also the case for $n=3$. (can someone give a proof). How does this generalize to any $n$ or to any prime $p$.

$\endgroup$
18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not sure I agree with your claim about exponent 3. See mathoverflow.net/questions/31797/… in particular the comments of Pete Clark and the answer of Francesco Polizzi $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Jul 16 '10 at 5:43
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Wadim, "exponent" and "order" are not synonyms in finite group theory. The order of a finite group is its cardinality, while the exponent is the least $n$ with $x^n$ the identity for all $x$ in the group. $\endgroup$ Jul 16 '10 at 7:20
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ The group $G$ of upper triangular matrices over $\mathbb{F}_3$ with diagonal $(1,1,1)$ is of exponent $3$. $\endgroup$ Jul 16 '10 at 8:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @marwalix: The result you "remember having seen" for n=3 might have been Jacobson's result for rings, not groups. See mathoverflow.net/questions/29590/… $\endgroup$ Jul 16 '10 at 12:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @marwalix: For every finite group of exponent $3$, $3$ divides the order of $G$. So what you say is true but vacuous. @everybody: I am frankly surprised at the number of comments on this question: there's no research-level math issue here. $\endgroup$ Jul 17 '10 at 0:33
16
$\begingroup$

The group defined by $\langle x,y,z; x^3 = y^3 = z^3 = 1, yz = zyx, xy = yx, xz = zx\rangle$ has order 27, exponent 3 and is non-abelian.

(Checking exponent 3 basically comes down to ensuring that $(yz)^3 = (y^2z)^3 = (yx^2)^3 = 1$. Or by using Gap.)

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ See also the comments at mathoverflow.net/questions/31797/… $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Jul 16 '10 at 17:12
  • $\begingroup$ I should probably point out that this can be generalised to every $p>2$. That is, there always exists a group of order $p^{2n+1}$ with exponent $p$ such that $|Z(G)| = p$. Look up the classification of Extra-special $p$-groups for more details. $\endgroup$
    – ADL
    Jul 21 '10 at 8:18
6
$\begingroup$

Well, any finitely generated group G of exponent 3 is finite by a classical theorem of Burnside. And since the order of every element is 3, the order of G must be a power of 3 by Cauchy's theorem. It follows that G is a finite nilpotent group. A similar argument shows that the same is true for any finitely generated group of exponent 4. This is unknown for 5, and false for 6.

Correction: it seems (see the answer of Primoz above) that any group of exponent 3 is nilpotent, altough it can be infinite if it not finitely generated.

$\endgroup$
1
5
$\begingroup$

Every group of exponent 3 is nilpotent of class at most 3, and this bound is best possible. The question whether finitely generated groups of exponent $n$ are finite is also known as the Burnside problem. There is an excellent historical overview of this problem, along with a list of relevant references.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The result I have seen is that every finite group $G$ of exponent $3$ such as $3$ does not divide $o(G)$ is abelian.

It generalises the following way : every n-abelian group (such as $(xy)^n=x^n y^n$) that has got no element (other than $1$) whose order divides $n(n-1)$ is abelian. One can refer to J.L Alperin A classification of n-abelian groups in Canadian Journal of Mathematics (1969)

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I do not understand the sentence "every finite group $G$ of exponent $3$ such as $3$ does not divide $o(G)$". If $G$ is a finite group of exponent $3$ then it has order $3^n$, and so $3$ divides $o(G)$, so no groups satisfy this condition. Right? (I realise this is over 10 years old, so sorry for dredging it up!) $\endgroup$
    – ADL
    Jul 22 at 8:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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