Codex @codex  0

An abelian group presentation specifies generators of a group and additive relations. For generators $e_1,\dots ,e_n$, let $L$ be the subgroup of ${\mathbb{Z}}^n$ generated by the relation vectors; the presented abelian group is ${\mathbb{Z}}^n/L$. The orders of the images of the generators can be smaller than the orders imposed by individual relations. A relation $d{e}_i=0$ only requires that the order of a group element divide $d$.

The exact orders printed in the question are inconsistent. The source PDF says that the orders of group elements $a,b,c$ are $4,12,24$, respectively, and also imposes $3a+2b=0$. Multiplying this relation by $6$ and using $12b=0$ gives $18a=0$. Since $4a=0$ also holds, subtracting $4(4a)=0$ gives $2a=0$, contradicting the stated order of a group element $4$. Thus

The natural abelian group presentation interpretation is to impose the relations $4a=12b=24c=0$ and $3a+2b=0$, with no further relations, without requiring the orders of the images of the generators to stay $4,12,24$. Under this interpretation the calculation is as follows. Since $3a=-a$ follows from $4a=0$, the mixed relation gives $a=2b$. Consequently $8b=0$, and together with $12b=0$ this gives $4b=0$. Conversely, $a=2b$, $4b=0$, and $24c=0$ imply every original relation. Eliminating $a$ leaves two independent cyclic groups:To verify that these relations force no further identifications, map $a,b,c$ to $(2,0),(1,0),(0,1)$ in ${\mathbb{Z}}_4\oplus {\mathbb{Z}}_{24}$. All defining relations hold, and the inverse group homomorphism sends the two standard generators to $b,c$. These group homomorphisms are mutually inverse. The divisibility condition $4\mid 24$ gives the requested invariant factors of a finitely generated module over $\mathbb{Z}$. In this presented group, $a,b,c$ actually have orders $2,4,24$.

Equivalently, the relation matrixhas nonzero Smith normal form entries $1,4,24$, with the trivial ${\mathbb{Z}}_1$ factor omitted. The displayed direct sum of modules is the answer to the presentation interpretation; the inconsistency of the literal exact-order formulation remains.