FPM quiz question on permutations

-

Here is another question and (partial) answer from my FPM Piazza forum last autumn, this time related to the "challenge question" from my First quiz on permutations.

First, here is a screenshot of the relevant quiz question. (You can click on the image to view it full size.)

PermutationChallenge

Challenge question from first FPM quiz on permutations

Student's question: Why in this question does \(12\) being divisible by \(3\) and \(4\) mean that \(\rho^{12}\) is the identity permutation?

[Joel notes: The identity permutation on a set is that very special permutation which doesn't move anything. So it is the map defined on your set by the rule \(x \mapsto x\).]

My response: I think some of you may still want to think about this, so I don't want to give the whole thing away at once. But I'll give you some things to think about.

Have a look at \(\rho = (1\,7\,2) (3\,6\,5\,4)\), and notice that this is a product of disjoint cycles, and disjoint cycles commute. Because of this,
     \(\rho^2=(1\,7\,2) (3\,6\,5\,4)(1 \,7\, 2)(3\, 6 \,5 \,4) = (1 \,7 \,2)^2 (3\, 6 \,5\, 4)^2\)
and then an easy induction shows that, for all natural numbers \(n\),
     \(\rho^n=(1 \,7\, 2)^n (3 \,6 \,5 \,4)^n\,.\)
Actually, I never defined \(\rho^1\), but you will be unsurprised to know that this is just defined to be \(\rho\). (Also, \(\rho^0\) is, by convention, the identity permutation.)
So your task now is to think about the permutations \((1 \,7\, 2)^n\) and \((3 \,6\, 5 \,4)^n\).
For which \(n\) is \((1 \,7\, 2)^n\) equal to the identity permutation?
For which \(n\) is \((3\, 6\, 5\, 4)^n\) equal to the identity permutation?
Best wishes,
Dr Feinstein

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An introduction to the Hahn-Banach extension theorem: Part VI

-
In this post we sketch a second proof of the Hahn-Banach Extension Theorem for continuous linear functionals on real normed spaces, this time using transfinite induction. We omit some of the details, which the reader can fill in. In particular, some of the details are similar to those involved in proving the claim made in Part V (when we obtained an upper bound for a chain). For a non-zero ordinal $\gamma$, recall that, with ordinal interval notation, we have $\gamma=[0,\gamma)$. That is, $\gamma$ is equal to the set of all ordinals which are strictly less than $\gamma$. However, we use ordinal interval notation throughout. If you prefer to use $\gamma$ instead of $[0,\gamma)$ that is fine, of course! Looking at the Wikipedia page on the Hahn-Banach Theorem , apparently both Hahn and Banach (independently) used transfinite induction in their proofs, rather than Zorn's Lemma. Theorem (Hahn-Banach Extension Theorem for linear functionals on normed spaces over $\R$)  Let $(E,\jnorm)$ ...
Read more

Discussion of the proof that the uniform norm really is a norm

-
In response to a request on Piazza, I gave a detailed proof that the uniform really is a norm, including some comments and warnings on possible pitfalls along the way. Here (essentially) is what I said. Let’s have a look at \(\|\cdot\|_\infty\) on the bounded, real-valued functions on \([0,1]\) (but you can also work with bounded functions on any non-empty set you like, and the same proof will work). We define \(\ell_\infty([0,1]) = \{f: f \textrm{ is a bounded, real-valued function on }[0,1]\,\}\,,\) and this is the set/space we will look at. So we set \(Y=\ell_\infty([0,1])\). Then you can check for yourselves that \(Y\) really is a vector space over \(\mathbb{R}\) (using the usual "pointwise" operations for functions). Note that the zero element in this vector space is the constant function \(0\) (from \([0,1]\) to \(\mathbb{R}\)), which I'll denote by \(\mathbf{0}\) here for clarity. (We also used \(Z\) for this function in one of the exercises.) I'll first give...
Read more

An introduction to the Weierstrass M-test: Part I

-
In order to make these posts accessible to first-year undergraduate students, I am going to be working with real-valued functions defined on intervals in $\R$. I'm also going to avoid focusing on uniform convergence for sequences of functions, and instead focus on absolute convergence of series of functions, and how this fits with continuity. I'll then start to look at differentiability. For those interested in my approach to teaching uniform convergence for sequences of functions, I have a video about this on YouTube (at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB4Yny0T3HA ). Students watching this video should be warned that my non-standard notion of " absorption " (intended to help students understand convergence of sequences properly) has not really caught on! Other lecturers are unlikely to know about this notion of absorption, and so you should avoid using that terminology unless you explain it locally. However, if you want to know more about my absorption approach, s...
Read more