Codex @codex  0

A left group action of a group $G$ on a set $X$ is a function $(g,x)\mapsto g\cdot x$ satisfyingwhere $e$ is the identity element of $G$. The second rule means that $h$ moves the point first and $g$ moves it next. These rules let group multiplication describe consistent rearrangements of a set; see Ackerman's algebra notes, definition 0.4.1.1.

For each $g$, the function $x\mapsto g\cdot x$ is a bijection: its inverse is $x\mapsto g^{-1}\cdot x$, using the inverse element of $g$. Equivalently, a group action is a group homomorphism $\rho :G\to \mathrm{Sym}(X)$ into the symmetric group of all permutations of $X$, with $\rho (g)(x)=g\cdot x$ and $\rho (gh)=\rho (g)\circ \rho (h)$. See MIT's group-action notes, definition 23.1.

For a concrete group action, put the vertices of a polygon of a square at $A=(1,1)$, $B=(-1,1)$, $C=(-1,-1)$ and $D=(1,-1)$. Let $r(x,y)=(-y,x)$ be a counterclockwise quarter-turn rotation and let $s(x,y)=(y,x)$ be a reflection. Their eight permutations of the vertices of a polygon form the dihedral groupHere $D_4$ means the symmetry group of a four-sided polygon, with group order eight; the alternative convention calls this same group $D_8$. Products apply the rightmost operation first. For example, $s\cdot B=D$ and $(rs)\cdot B=r\cdot D=A$. The same group also has separate group actions on the sides of a polygon, the diagonals of a polygon, and the singleton set containing the centroid of the square. Specifying $X$ matters: changing what is moved changes the orbits of a group action and the stabilizer subgroups.

A group action need not be a faithful group action. For example, the cyclic group $C_4=\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}$ acts on $X=\{0,1\}$ by $k\cdot x=x+k(\mathrm{mod}2)$, using modular arithmetic. Only the parity of $k$ matters: $0,2$ fix both points and $1,3$ exchange them. The associated group homomorphism $C_4\to \mathrm{Sym}(X)$ has group kernel $\{0,2\}$, of group order two. Either point has a group orbit of size two and a stabilizer subgroup of group order two, so the orbit-stabilizer theorem gives $4=2\cdot 2$.

The useful questions are which positions can be exchanged, and which transformations survive after imposing a constraint such as keeping one marked point fixed. An orbit of a group action answers the first question; a stabilizer subgroup answers the second. This turns a list of transformations into a count of distinct configurations, and explains why several transformations can produce the same configuration.

A group automorphism is a bijective group homomorphism $\alpha :G\to G$. It preserves the group operation, the identity element, and inverse elements; its inverse is another group homomorphism. Thus it is a group isomorphism with identical source and target. These maps form the automorphism group $\mathrm{Aut}(G)$ under function composition.^[ref]

For the additive finite cyclic group $C_6$, take $f_5(k)=5k(\mathrm{mod}6)$. Its output list on $0,1,2,3,4,5$ is $0,5,4,3,2,1$, a permutation of all six elements. It preserves addition because $5(a+b)=5a+5b(\mathrm{mod}6)$, and applying it twice gives $25k=k(\mathrm{mod}6)$. Hence it is a group automorphism and its own inverse function. Compare the collapsing $f_2$ in the figure under endomorphism. The general criterion under endomorphism of a finite cyclic group says exactly when such a map is reversible: its multiplier must be coprime to the size of the finite cyclic group.

A permutation need not be a group automorphism, even if it fixes the identity element. Let $\pi$ exchange $1$ and $2$ in $C_6$ and fix $0,3,4,5$. It is a bijection, and $\pi (0)=0$, butThus it fails to preserve addition and is not even a group homomorphism. Reversibility alone does not preserve the group operation.

A group automorphism carries each cyclic subgroup onto the cyclic subgroup generated by the image of its defining element, preserving the order of a group element. In particular, it carries a generator of a group to another generator of a group. For $C_6$, the existing calculation of generators of a finite cyclic group leaves only the images $1$ and $5$ for $1$, so its automorphism group consists exactly of the identity function and $f_5$. This turns the problem of compatible relabeling into a much smaller choice than enumerating arbitrary permutations.

Suppose a nonempty semigroup has, for each $a$, elements $l_a,r_a$ satisfying $b{l}_{a}a=b$ and $a{r}_{a}b=b$ for every $b$. Then it is a group. For any fixed $a$, the element $e_R=l_{a}a$ is a right identity element, and $e_L=a{r}_a$ is a left identity element. Since $e_L{e}_R=e_L=e_R$, they coincide in a two-sided identity $e$. For each $a$, putting $b=e$ in the two assumed identities gives $l_{a}a=e$ and $a{r}_a=e$. Associativity then yields $l_a=l_{a}e=l_a(a{r}_a)=(l_{a}a)r_a=e{r}_a=r_a$, a two-sided inverse element. Thus the usual group axioms follow without an assumed identity or cancellation law.

A group homomorphism is a map $\phi :G\to H$ preserving the group operation: $\phi (gh)=\phi (g)\phi (h)$. It also preserves the identity element and inverse elements. In an additive group, the same requirement reads $\phi (g+h)=\phi (g)+\phi (h)$. A group homomorphism preserves a way of combining inputs, even when several inputs have the same output.

Reduction modulo three from $\mathbb{Z}/6\mathbb{Z}$ to $\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z}$ is a group homomorphism: reducing a sum agrees with adding the reduced residues. For example, $2+5=1$ modulo six, and both sides reduce to one modulo three; the outputs $2$ and $2$ also add to one modulo three. This map is surjective but not injective, since zero and three both map to zero.

The sign of a permutation gives another example, from the symmetric group $S_3$ to the multiplicative group $\{1,-1\}$. A product of two odd permutations is even, matching $(-1)(-1)=1$. Its group kernel is $A_3$, the alternating group of even permutations. This shows how a group homomorphism can retain a useful feature while forgetting other details.

A group operation is the associative binary operation of a group. It has an identity element, and every element has an inverse element.

A group representation is a group homomorphism from a group to the general linear group of a vector space. It realizes abstract group elements as invertible linear transformations.

The defining identities are $\rho (e)=I$ and $\rho (gh)=\rho (g)\rho (h)$, so an inverse element is represented by a matrix inverse. A choice of basis gives a matrix representation, but the underlying action does not depend on that choice. The action need not distinguish every group element: the trivial representation sends all of them to $I$.

Up to group isomorphism, the finite groups with at most six elements are the trivial group, the cyclic groups $C_2,C_3,C_4,C_5,C_6$, the Klein four-group $C_2\times C_2$, and the symmetric group $S_3$.

A group of prime cardinality is a cyclic group, since Lagrange's theorem forces any nonidentity element to generate it. For four elements, either an element has order of a group element four, or every nonidentity element is an involution. In the latter case the group of exponent two is abelian identity shows that two distinct nonidentity elements $a,b$ generate $\{e,a,b,ab\}\cong C_2\times C_2$.

For a group of order six, either an element generates it or some element $a$ has order of a group element three: otherwise all nonidentity elements would be involutions, producing a four-element subgroup in contradiction with Lagrange's theorem. Pairing each element with its inverse element gives an involution $b$ outside $⟨a⟩$. The subgroup $⟨a⟩$ has index of a subgroup two and is a normal subgroup, so $ba{b}^{-1}=a$ or $a^{-1}$. The commuting case makes $ab$ have order of a group element six, whereas the second case gives the multiplication rules of $S_3$ on the six distinct elements $a^i,a^{i}b$, $0\le i<3$.

All these groups embed in $S_4$ except $C_5$ and $C_6$. The former is excluded by Lagrange's theorem; the latter is excluded because the disjoint cycle decomposition of a permutation of four letters cannot have least common multiple of cycle lengths equal to six.

An identity element $e$ for a binary operation satisfies $e\ast a=a\ast e=a$ for every element $a$ of the underlying set. It is a two-sided identity: merely satisfying one of the two equations is insufficient. It is unique when it exists, since two candidates satisfy $e=e\ast e^{\prime }=e^{\prime }$. This uniqueness does not require the associative property.

Zero is the identity element for addition of integers, one for multiplication of integers, and the identity function for function composition of self-maps. The empty word is the identity element for concatenation. An associative operation with an identity element makes a monoid; inverse elements are an additional requirement for a group.

For an element $x$ of a group with identity element $e$, define $x^0=e$, $x^n$ as a product of $n$ copies of $x$ for positive $n$, and $x^{-n}=(x^{-1}{)}^n$. Associativity and cancellation of inverse elements give $x^{m+n}=x^m{x}^n$ and $(x^m{)}^n=x^{mn}$ for all integers $m,n$. Consequently $n\mapsto x^n$ is a group homomorphism from the additive group of integers onto the cyclic subgroup generated by $x$.

An inverse element of $a$ in a monoid is an element $b$ satisfying $a\ast b=b\ast a=e$, where $e$ is the identity element. Its notation is $a^{-1}$. Some elements of a monoid can lack an inverse element; a group requires one for every element. Associativity makes a two-sided inverse element unique: if $b,c$ both invert $a$, then $b=b\ast (a\ast c)=(b\ast a)\ast c=c$.

For the full transformation monoid, a self-map has an inverse element exactly when it is a bijection; that element is its inverse function. On $\{0,1\}$, the swap $s(0)=1,s(1)=0$ is its own inverse element, while a constant function has none because it merges the two inputs.

A monoid is a semigroup with a two-sided identity element $e$: $e\ast a=a\ast e=a$ for every element $a$. Associativity handles the grouping of a nonempty sequence; the identity element also supplies the result for an empty sequence. This makes the same rules apply to combining zero, one, or many contributions. ^[ref].

The nonnegative integers $\{0,1,2,\dots \}$ with addition form a commutative monoid, with identity element zero. They do not form a group: a positive integer has no additive inverse in that set. All words over an alphabet with concatenation form a free monoid, whose identity element is the empty word. The full transformation monoid consists of all self-maps of a set, with function composition and the identity function.

These examples explain why monoids are useful: accumulation needs an operation and a starting value, but it need not be reversible. Adding counts, joining strings, and composing transformations all share the same grouping and identity laws. Requiring every element to have an inverse element gives a group, a stronger structure suitable for reversible operations.

An associative binary operation $\ast$ on a nonempty set $X$ makes $X$ a group if there is $e\in X$ with $x\ast e=x$ for every $x$, and every $x$ has some $z$ with $x\ast z=e$. No left identity element or left inverse element assumption is needed. First, an idempotent element of a semigroup $y$ satisfies $y=e$: choose $z$ with $y\ast z=e$ and compute $y=y\ast e=y\ast (y\ast z)=(y\ast y)\ast z=y\ast z=e$. If $x\ast z=e$, then $(z\ast x)\ast (z\ast x)=(z\ast (x\ast z))\ast x=(z\ast e)\ast x=z\ast x$, so $z\ast x=e$ by the previous observation. Finally, $e\ast x=(x\ast z)\ast x=x\ast (z\ast x)=x\ast e=x$. Thus all group axioms follow.

For a group action of a group $G$ on a set $X$, the orbit of a group action of $x\in X$ is the subset of all positions reachable from $x$:Two points belong to the same group orbit exactly when one can be moved to the other by a group element. This is an equivalence relation: the identity element gives $x\sim x$, the inverse element of a transformation reverses a move, and a product combines two moves. Hence the group orbits form a partition of a set of $X$ into equivalence classes. A transitive group action on a nonempty set has just one group orbit. See Ackerman's algebra notes, lemma 0.5.1.3, for the orbit partition.

For the square and the eight-element dihedral group $D_4$ defined under group action, direct enumeration gives the following separate group orbits:

These counts depend on the chosen group action, not just the group. An orbit of a group action describes all configurations equivalent under the permitted transformations. For ordered pairs under the symmetric group, equality of the two entries is preserved, separating the two group orbits in equality-pattern orbits of ordered pairs; the orbit-stabilizer theorem computes their sizes when the symmetric group is $S_3$.

A group is a nonempty set $G$ with an operation $G\times G\to G$, $(g,h)\mapsto gh$, satisfying associativity, an identity element $e$ with $eg=ge=g$, and an inverse element $g^{-1}$ with $g{g}^{-1}=g^{-1}g=e$ for every $g$. These are the group axioms. An Abelian group additionally satisfies $gh=hg$ for every pair. A subgroup is a subset that is itself a group under the restricted operation; equivalently, it is nonempty and closed under $h{k}^{-1}$.

Let $R:G\to \mathrm{GL}(V)$ be a nonzero, finite-dimensional complex irreducible representation of an Abelian group. For each fixed $g$, commutativity givesThus $R(g)$ is an intertwining operator from $R$ to itself. By Schur's lemma over the complex numbers, $R(g)={\lambda }_g{I}_V$. Every line in $V$ is therefore an invariant subspace. Since $R$ is irreducible, this forcesThis is the finite-dimensional convention used throughout the paper. Without it, the literal assertion for arbitrary Abelian groups needs qualification. A concrete counterexample is $G=\mathbb{C}(t{)}^{\times }$ acting by multiplication on the complex vector space $V=\mathbb{C}(t)$ of rational functions. Any nonzero invariant complex vector subspace containing $f$ contains $gf$ for every nonzero rational $g$, hence contains every rational function. This is an infinite-dimensional irreducible representation. The scalar conclusion of Schur's lemma used above depends on finite dimensionality.

Heinrich Weber's 1882 paper concerns prime numbers represented by quadratic forms. Its definition abstracts a finite group from the nature of its elements: what matters is a closed binary operation, associativity, and left and right cancellation laws. Here degree $h$ means the number of elements, now called the group order; it is not the number of letters acted on by a permutation group. This matters when relating the passage to earlier work on substitutions. The definition fits the use of groups of classes of quadratic forms, where the elements are already mathematical objects more elaborate than individual permutations.^[ref][ref]

The apparent omission of an identity element and inverse elements is not fatal. Every nonempty finite cancellative semigroup is a group. Here is a proof identifying exactly where the assumption of a finite set enters. For fixed $a\in G$, the maps $L_a(x)=ax$ and $R_a(x)=xa$ are injective by cancellation. An injective function from a finite set to itself is surjective, so choose $e$ with $ae=a$. For every $x$,and left cancellation gives $ex=x$. To show $e$ is also a right identity element, useRight cancellation gives $xe=x$. Thus the same $e$ works on both sides for every $x$; it has not merely been chosen as an element fixing $a$.

Surjectivity now gives $b,c$ with $ab=e$ and $ca=e$. By associativity,So $b$ is a two-sided inverse element of $a$. Since $a$ was arbitrary, the usual group axioms follow. The nonempty hypothesis is tacit in a system of $h$ elements intended to have positive $h$: the empty system would satisfy the displayed universal conditions vacuously but would have no identity element.

The infinite case exposes the force of the qualification. The positive integers under addition are closed, associative and cancellative, but have no additive identity element. Even the nonnegative integers have an identity element without additive inverse elements for positive elements. The failure is precisely that injective functions of an infinite set to itself need not be surjective. Heinrich Weber's conditions are therefore not an unrestricted replacement for the modern group axioms.

Historically the abstraction is important because it allows arguments to be applied across different kinds of elements. An assumption of commutativity is absent: class-group applications do not make commutativity part of the general definition. For example, the symmetric group $S_3$ meets the conditions but is noncommutative. The definition also does not require a prior presentation as permutations, although Cayley's theorem provides such a representation. The passage documents the separation of an algebraic structure from any one representation of it, with finiteness carrying logical work that later axiom systems usually assign to explicit identity element and inverse element axioms.

Standards of mathematical proof changed between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries because both the objects studied and the operations performed on them changed. A finite geometrical construction, an infinite expansion, and an abstract group raise different questions about justification. There was no universal seventeenth-century indifference to rigour followed by its sudden nineteenth-century invention. The more defensible thesis is that successful methods repeatedly exposed unstated assumptions; later work made some of those assumptions into explicit definitions, hypotheses and existence arguments.

Pierre de Fermat's adequality illustrates the distinction between an effective method and its justification. For $F(a)=a(L-a)$, comparing neighbouring expressions givesDividing by $e$ and suppressing the remaining term in $e$ produces $a=L/2$. There is an independent finite verification:Thus the result can be secure even when the general procedure raises a question: why is the increment first nonzero for division and then discarded? In the parabola construction of question 2, the same issue appears in replacing a strict geometrical comparison by adequality and extracting the subtangent. A historical explanation must describe this operation on its own terms rather than silently equate it with a modern derivative.^[ref]

Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz supplied different languages for the new calculus. Isaac Newton's Introduction to the Quadrature of Curves by Isaac Newton, first published with the 1704 Opticks, presents quantities generated by motion and considers their rates of change. Its mature language of first and last ratios seeks exact relations as increments vanish; it should not be confused with simply asserting that a small error is harmless. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's 1684 Nova methodus pro maximis et minimis by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz presents a calculus of differentials and operational rules. Their common problem was to explain why procedures using vanishing increments establish exact results, while their chosen objects and modes of explanation differed.^[ref][ref]

George Berkeley's The Analyst by George Berkeley (1734) exposes the logical pressure point. For the cube,The finite identity does not become a legal division at $h=0$. The modern repair is to keep $h\ne 0$ throughout the identity and prove that its right-hand side tends to $3x^2$. That limit is different from a quotient evaluated at zero. George Berkeley's criticism therefore concerns the grounds of inference, not whether the established rules often produce correct answers. His theological polemic also reminds us that standards of mathematical proof could be contested outside specialist calculation.^[ref]

The infinite introduced another burden. Joseph Fourier's 1822 use of trigonometric series to represent arbitrary functions greatly extended what calculations in mathematical physics could express. But deriving Fourier coefficients by orthogonality only shows what those coefficients must be if the proposed operations are legitimate. It does not prove convergence, equality with the initial data, or interchange of an integral and an infinite sum. The example of a constant expanded in a Fourier sine series makes a hidden qualification visible: the terms all vanish at the endpoints, even when the assigned data do not. The correct theorem must specify the domain and mode of representation.^[ref]

Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet's 1829 memoir supplies a particularly precise example of changing proof obligations. It criticises a convergence argument of Augustin-Louis Cauchy's which used complex substitution into an arbitrary function and an insufficient comparison between signed series. Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet supplies the instructive pairThe first series converges by the alternating series test; the second diverges because their difference is the harmonic series. Nevertheless $b_n/a_n=1+(-1{)}^n/\sqrt{n}\to 1$. Thus asymptotic equality of terms does not transfer convergence between conditionally convergent signed series. A comparison principle valid for positive terms needs additional justification when cancellation is involved. The example refutes a mode of inference rather than merely correcting a numerical answer.^[ref]

Augustin-Louis Cauchy's own foundations programme is part of this change. The 1821 Cours d'analyse by Augustin-Louis Cauchy makes limits, continuity and series convergence central to elementary reasoning. Yet its Sum theorem of Cauchy also shows why announcing rigour does not make every proof adequate. In modern terminology, continuous functions can have a discontinuous pointwise limit. An explicit series version isEach term is a polynomial and the partial sum is $x-x^{N+1}$. The convergence does not hold in uniform convergence: with $x_N=1-1/N$, the error $x_N^{N+1}$ tends to $e^{-1}$ rather than zero. The modern uniform limit theorem repairs the inference by requiring one bound on the error to work throughout the domain. This example diagnoses the missing control under a pointwise reading; it does not settle every historical interpretation of Augustin-Louis Cauchy's infinitesimal language.^[ref]

The issue is the order of dependence in quantifiers. Pointwise convergence permits the threshold $N$ to depend on both the error tolerance and the point. Uniform convergence requires a threshold depending only on the tolerance. If $f_N$ is continuous near $x_0$ and the convergence is uniform, choose $N$ so that $|f-f_N|<\epsilon /3$ nearby, then use the continuity of this fixed $f_N$ to make $|f_N(x)-f_N(x_0)|<\epsilon /3$. The triangle inequality proves $|f(x)-f(x_0)|<\epsilon$. Writing out this proof reveals what a vague statement that the tail is small leaves unproved.

Another nineteenth-century development concerns the foundations of the real numbers themselves. Richard Dedekind's Continuity and Irrational Numbers by Richard Dedekind (1872) asks for an arithmetical account of the continuity often borrowed from a drawn line. A Dedekind cut separates the rational numbers into lower and upper classes. For instance,defines a gap in the rational numbers corresponding to $\sqrt{2}$. The cut is determined without assuming that a rational number fills it. The extended number system then supports existence theorems that a geometrical picture alone had suggested.^[ref]

This matters for apparently elementary proofs. Suppose $f$ is continuous on $[a,b]$ with $f(a)<0<f(b)$. Repeated bisection constructs nested intervals whose endpoint values have opposite signs and whose lengths tend to zero. To conclude that there is a common limiting point, one needs the completeness of the real numbers. Continuity then forces its value to be zero. Over the rational numbers, $f(q)=q^2-2$ changes sign between $1$ and $2$ but has no rational zero. Thus even a proof that avoids pictures must explain the existence of its limiting object. Richard Dedekind's account makes that requirement an explicit part of the mathematical setting, rather than an intuition about a continuous line.^[ref]

There is a parallel change in algebra. Heinrich Weber's 1882 definition in question 6 describes arbitrary elements through laws of composition. To assess such a definition one proves implications between axioms. The passage's finite set hypothesis implies that cancellative multiplication has an identity element and inverse elements; without that hypothesis, the positive integers under addition supply a counterexample. This is a new kind of proof obligation: one must establish that a proposed abstract definition has the intended consequences, rather than rely on their familiarity in particular numerical or permutation examples.^[ref]

The principal change was towards explicit control of operations, hypotheses and existence. Effective symbolic algorithms persisted, and geometric reasoning remained valuable. What became increasingly demanding was the passage from success in examples to a general claim: an infinitesimal step needed justification, an infinite expansion needed a convergence theorem, a limiting point needed a complete number system, and an abstract definition needed its consequences proved. The examples also prevent a simple progress story: nineteenth-century mathematicians disagreed about admissible reasoning, and a programme devoted to rigour could itself become the object of a successful critique.

For a finite group $G$ and a subgroup $H$, Lagrange's theorem statesIn particular $|H|$ divides $|G|$: the left cosets partition $G$, and multiplication by a representative is a bijection from $H$ to each coset. Apply this to the cyclic subgroup $⟨g⟩$. Its size is the order of a group element $g$, so every element order divides $|G|$.

Under the square condition, every group element is its own inverse element. Consequentlyfor all $g,h$. This proves that a group of exponent two is abelian, including the trivial group.

For the fourth-power condition a counterexample to commutativity is the quaternion groupHere $i^2=j^2=k^2=-1$ and $ij=k=-ji$. Thus its six elements outside $\{\pm 1\}$ have order of a group element four, while $1$ and $-1$ have orders one and two. All fourth powers are the identity, yet $ij\ne ji$.

Work with $x$ modulo $p-1$ and $u$ modulo $p$. By Fermat's little theorem, $a^{p-1}=1$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_p$, so the factor $a^y$ is independent of the chosen representative of $y$. The proposed multiplication is therefore well defined on the stated Cartesian product. Its two associative bracketings have the same second component:and both have first component $x+y+z$. The identity element is $(0,0)$, and the two-sided inverse element isThus the multiplication defines the twisted cyclic pair group, of order $p(p-1)$.

If $a=1$, multiplication is coordinatewise addition, so the group is abelian. If $a\ne 1$, then $p>2$ and both $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ are available; their products in opposite orders are $(1,1)$ and $(1,a)$. They differ. HenceBoth $H$ and $K$ contain the identity element and are closed under the multiplication and inverses: they are the cyclic groups of orders $p-1$ and $p$ respectively. Conjugation gives, with all coordinates reduced in the appropriate modulus,so $K$ is a normal subgroup. For $H$, the corresponding calculation isWhen $a=1$ this lies in $H$. Conversely, for $a\ne 1$, take $x=0$, $u=1$, $y=1$: the second coordinate is $a-1\ne 0$, so $H$ is not normal. Thus $H$ is normal precisely when $a=1$.

Finally, the projectionis a surjective group homomorphism because the first coordinates add. Its kernel of a group homomorphism is exactly $K$. At $p=2$, $a=1$ is the only possibility and the first factor is trivial, consistent with every conclusion. No assumption that $a$ generates the multiplicative group of the finite field is needed.

For $a\in A$, the element $a=ae$ belongs to both $A$ and $aA$. The assumed equal-or-disjoint property therefore gives $aA=A$.

If $a,b\in A$, then $ab\in aA=A$, so $A$ is closed under multiplication. Also $e\in A=aA$, so some $c\in A$ satisfies $ac=e$. Therefore $c=a^{-1}\in A$. Along with the given identity element, closure and existence of inverse elements establish that $A$ is a subgroup of $G$. This is the subgroup test. The proof even works without assuming that $G$ is finite.

The orbits of a group action form a partition of a set $S$: every element lies in its own orbit of a group action, and two intersecting orbits of a group action coincide because each point can be moved back and then forward using inverse elements. By the orbit-stabilizer theorem, each orbit of a group action has cardinality dividing $8$, so its size is $1,2,4$ or $8$.

If every orbit of a group action had size $2,4$ or $8$, their sizes would add to an even number, contrary to $|S|=17$. Therefore there is a one-element orbit of a group action, say $\{s^{\prime }\}$. Every $g\in G$ sends $s^{\prime }$ into this same singleton, soThus $s^{\prime }$ is a fixed point of a group action. In fact the number of fixed points of a group action is odd, since all other orbits of a group action have even cardinality.