# Abelian implies nilpotent

DIRECT: The fact or result stated in this article has a trivial/direct/straightforward proof provided we use the correct definitions of the terms involved
View other results with direct proofs
VIEW FACTS USING THIS:
This article gives the statement and possibly, proof, of an implication relation between two group properties. That is, it states that every group satisfying the first group property (i.e., abelian group) must also satisfy the second group property (i.e., nilpotent group)
View all group property implications | View all group property non-implications

## Statement

### Verbal statement

Any abelian group is a nilpotent group. In fact, abelian groups are precisely the nilpotent groups of nilpotency class equal to 1.

## Definitions used

Term Definition used
abelian group A group is abelian if it satisfies the following equivalent conditions:
nilpotent group A group is nilpotent if it satisfies the following equivalent conditions:
• The upper central series terminates in finitely many steps, at the whole group. The number of steps is termed the nilpotence class.
• The lower central series terminates in finitely many steps, at the trivial subgroup. The number of steps is termed the nilpotence class.

## Proof

### Using upper central series

Given: An Abelian group $G$

To prove: The upper central series of $G$, terminates, after finitely many steps, at $G$

Proof: The first member $Z^{(1)}(G)$ of the upper central series is the center of $G$, which is the whole of $G$ since $G$ is Abelian. Thus the upper central series terminates in 1 step, and $G$ is nilpotent of nilpotence class 1.

### Using lower central series

Given: An abelian group $G$

To prove: The lower central series of $G$ terminates in finitely many steps at the trivial subgroup

Proof:The first member of the lower central series of $G$ is the derived subgroup of $G$, which is trivial because $G$ is abelian. Thus the upper central series terminates in 1 step, and $G$ is nilpotent of class 1.

## Converse

The converse of this statement is not true: nilpotent not implies abelian.