The goal of this post is to collect a list of applications of the following theorem, which is perhaps the simplest example of a fixed point theorem.
Theorem: Let be a finite
-group acting on a finite set
. Let
denote the subset of
consisting of those elements fixed by
. Then
; in particular, if
then
has a fixed point.
Although this theorem is an elementary exercise, it has a surprising number of fundamental corollaries.
Proof
is a disjoint union of orbits for the action of
, all of which have the form
and hence all of which have cardinality divisible by
except for the trivial orbits corresponding to fixed points.
Some group-theoretic applications
Theorem: Let be a finite
-group. Then its center
is nontrivial.
Corollary: Every finite -group is nilpotent.
Proof. acts by conjugation on
. If
, this set has cardinality
, which is not divisible by
. Hence
has a fixed point, which is precisely a nontrivial central element.
Cauchy’s theorem: Let be a finite group. Suppose
is a prime dividing
. Then
has an element of order
.
Proof. acts by cyclic shifts on the set
since if then
. This set has cardinality
, which is not divisible by
, hence
has a fixed point, which is precisely a nontrivial element
such that
.
Some number-theoretic applications
Fermat’s little theorem: Let be a non-negative integer and
be a prime. Then
.
Proof. acts by cyclic shifts on the set
, where
; equivalently, on the set of strings of length
on
letters. (Orbits of this group action are sometimes called necklaces; see, for example, this previous blog post.) This set has cardinality
and its fixed point set has cardinality
, since a function is fixed if and only if it is constant.
Fermat’s little theorem for matrices: Let be a square matrix of non-negative integers and let
be a prime. Then
.
This result also appeared in this previous blog post.
Proof. Interpret as the adjacency matrix of a graph.
acts by cyclic shifts on the set of closed walks of length
on this graph. This set has cardinality
and its fixed point set has cardinality
, since a closed walk is fixed if and only if it consists of
repetitions of the same loop at a vertex.
In the same way that Fermat’s little theorem can be used to construct a primality test, the Fermat primality test, Fermat’s little theorem for matrices can also be used to construct a primality test, which doesn’t seem to have a name. For example, the Perrin pseudoprimes are the numbers that pass this test when
.
More generally, a stronger version of this test gives rise to the notion of Frobenius pseudoprime.
Wilson’s theorem: Let be a prime. Then
.
Proof. Consider the set of total orderings of the numbers modulo addition
; that is, we identify the total ordering
with the total ordering
where the addition occurs .
acts by cyclic shifts on this set. It has cardinality
and its fixed point set has cardinality
, since the fixed orderings are precisely the ones such that
for some
.
Lucas’ theorem: Let be non-negative integers and
be a prime. Suppose the base-
expansions of
are
respectively. Then
.
Proof. It suffices to show that
where , and then the desired result follows by induction. To see this, consider a set
of size
, and partition it into a block of size
together with
blocks of size
. Identify all of the
blocks of size
with each other in some way. Then
acts by cyclic shift on these blocks. This action extends to an action on the set of subsets of
of size
. A fixed point of this action consists of a subset of the block of size
together with
copies of a subset of any block of size
. Since the union of the
copies has size divisible by
, and since
, it follows that there must be
elements in the block of size
and
elements in each of the
blocks. Thus the set of subsets has cardinality
, and its fixed point set has cardinality
.
(It is also possible to prove this result directly by considering a more complicated -group action. The relevant
-group is the Sylow
-subgroup of the symmetric group of
. It is an iterated wreath product of the cyclic groups
, and describing how it acts on
requires recursively partitioning blocks in a way that is somewhat tedious to describe.)
The following proof is due to Don Zagier.
Fermat’s two-square theorem: Every prime is the sum of two squares.
Proof. Let be the set of all solutions
in the positive integers of the equation
. The involution
has the property that its fixed points correspond to solutions to the equation
. We will show that such fixed points exist by showing that there are an odd number of them; to do so, it suffices to show that
is odd, and to show that
is odd it suffices to exhibit any other involution on
which has an odd number of fixed points. (Notice that this is two applications of the
-group fixed point theorem.) We claim that
is an involution on with exactly one fixed point, which suffices to prove the desired claim. Verifying that it sends
to
is straightforward. If
is a fixed point, then since
are all assumed to be positive integers we cannot have
, so we are not in the first case. If we are in the second case, we conclude that
, but then
, and since
we conclude that
, which gives
. If we are in the third case, we conclude that
, then that
, but this contradicts
. Hence
is the unique fixed point as desired.
The following proof is due to V. Lebesgue.
Quadratic reciprocity: Let be odd primes. Let
denote the Legendre symbol. Then
.
Proof. Let be an odd prime and consider the set
.
For an odd prime, we will compute
in two different ways. The first way is to observe that
acts by cyclic shifts on
. The number of fixed points is the number of
such that
, hence
.
The second way is to find a recursive formula for which will end up being expressed in terms of
. The details are as follows.
First, it is clear that . For
nonzero, we claim that
is independent of
. First, observe that by the pigeonhole principle (there are
possible values of
and
possible values of
, hence at least one common value) we always have
. Second, observe that the map
is the norm map from
to
; in particular, it restricts to a homomorphism from the unit group of the former ring to the unit group of the latter ring, and we know that this homomorphism is surjective, so each fiber has the same size. The unit group of
has size
if
(since then we are looking at
) and size
if
(since then we are looking at
). Hence
for any nonzero . When
, the equation
always has the solution
. There are no nonzero solutions if
(since
does not have a square root) and
nonzero solutions if
(since for each of the
possible values of
there are
possible values of
). Hence
.
We will now compute inductively by rewriting
as
.
From this it follows that
.
We know that takes the value
for
possible values of
and takes any particular other value for
possible values of
. Hence we can write
But it’s clear that
since this is just the number of possible tuples . Hence
.
This gives a recursion which we can unwind into an explicit formula for as follows. Substituting the recursion into itself and canceling terms gives
.
This pattern continues, and by induction we can show that
.
Hence if is odd, we conclude that
.
Now let be an odd prime. Then
by Fermat’s little theorem and
by Euler’s criterion, so we we find that
.
On the other hand, we know that . We conclude that
and since the LHS and RHS are both equal to this equality holds on the nose.
This proof is in some sense a proof via Gauss sums in disguise; the numbers are closely related to Jacobi sums, which can be written in terms of Gauss sums. More generally, various kinds of exponential sums can be related to counting points on varieties over finite fields. The Weil conjectures give bounds on the latter which translate into bounds on the former, and this has various applications, for example the original proof of Zhang’s theorem on bounded gaps between primes (although my understanding is that this step is unnecessary just to establish the theorem).
Similar methods can be used to prove the second supplementary law, although strictly speaking we will use more than the -group fixed point theorem.
Quadratic reciprocity, second supplement: . Equivalently,
iff
.
Proof. We will compute in two different ways. The first is using the formula
we found earlier, which gives
.
The second is to observe that the dihedral group of order
acts on
by rotation and reflection (thinking of the points as being on the “circle” defined by
). Most orbits of this action have size
and hence are invisible
. The ones that are not invisible
correspond to points with some nontrivial stabilizer. Any stabilizer contains an element of order
, and there are five such elements in
, so the remaining possible orbits are as follows:
- Points stable under
. These are precisely the points
such that
, hence there are
of them.
- Points stable under
. These are precisely the points
such that
, hence there are
of them.
- Points stable under
. These are precisely the points
such that
, hence there are
of them.
- Points stable under
. There are no such points.
- Points stable under
. These are precisely the points
such that
, hence there are
of them.
In total, we conclude that
and the conclusion follows.
A general lesson of the above proofs is that it is a good idea to replace integers with sets because sets can be equipped with more structure, such as group actions, than integers. This is a simple form of categorification.
[…] -group fixed point theorem (PGFPT): If is a finite -group and is a finite set on which acts, then the subset of fixed […]
Here is one I like to use when I prove the Sylow theorems via Wielandt’s proof. If
, then
. The proof is let
be the subgroup of
of order
and have it act on the subsets of size
of
by translations. Then clearly the fixed points are the
cosets of
. The fixed point theorem gives the desired conclusion.
Now to get the Sylow theorems let
be a group of order
with
. Then
acts on the set
of its subsets of order
by translation. By the above paragraph,
does not divide the size of
and so not all stabilizers have index divisible by
. Let
be a subset of size
whose stabilizer
has index prime to
. Since
acts freely on
it follows the order of
is a
-power so we conclude
is a
-Sylow subgroup.
Can you explain why the last sentence implies the claim?
The last sentence of the proof of Wilson’s theorem? Apply the fixed point theorem.
for wilson theorem proof, why does cardinality of fixed point set equal cardinality of set itself?
It doesn’t. The claim is just that they’re equivalent
.
Perhaps the following deserves a mention? P.G. Anderson, A.T. Benjamin and J.A. Rouse “, ‘Combinatorial Proofs of Fermat’s, Lucas’s, and Wilson’s Theorems”, American Mathematical Monthly, 115, 2005, 266–268.
Thanks for the reference! I wasn’t aware of it. My understanding is that the Lucas proof is well-known (at least, it’s on the Wikipedia article) but I didn’t know a reference for the Fermat or Wilson proofs.
Since the application to the main law of quadratic reciprocity only requires the case of $S_n(a,p)$ for odd $n$, I think you should work out that case first and separately from the case of even $n$. After proving the main law of QR, come back and work out the formula for even $n$.
But don’t I need
to get the induction to work?
Yes, just $S_2$ among even-indexed cases is needed. You don’t need $S_n$ for even $n > 2$. I meant to suggest delaying the even case for $n > 2$.
also: mod p irreps of p-groups can only be trivial
Yes, this is a nice application too (the set of nonzero vectors in a finite-dimensional vector space over
has cardinality not divisible by
so any
-group representation on such a vector space has a fixed point, hence an eigenvector), and draws attention to an interesting analogy between finite
-groups and solvable linear algebraic groups in light of the Lie-Kolchin theorem.