The same statement cannot be made for non-comutative groups.
Proof essence
Consider elements and of group , with orders as follows:
doesn't divide , as one prime is raised to a larger value. Commutativity allows us to create a new element that has an order whose prime factors are the maximum of those from and . This order must be larger than , so can't have maximal order.
In comparison, if is another element and , then this order divides , as all primes are raised to a smaller power in .
Proof
Proof.
Let and be elements of a group , with being an
element of maximal finite order. Proceed by contradiction: assume that
does not divide .
We can express and in terms of their prime
factorization:
If every prime of is raised to a lower corresponding power than
, then would divide . But by assumption it does not,
so there must be at least 1 prime that is raised to a higher power in
compared to . Denote this prime by . Focusing on this prime,
we can now express and as so:
Where and collect the other primes.
In a controlled way, we can create elements with smaller orders than
and . Consider first . The element has an order
that is times smaller than , . This
is so, as is a factor of . Complete this reduction by
considering the element , which is an element with order . We have found an element whose order is but with the prime
absent.
The same process can be repeated for , and we now consider the
element , which has order .
When we combine these two elements into a third element, the point of this
process becomes clear. The element has an order:
As , we have found an element with order larger than that of .
Importance of commutativity
The proof above doesn't specifically mention where commutativity comes in.
Can you spot it? Possibly surprisingly, implication requiring commutativity
is the statement:
Check Aluffi p49 (exercise 1.14) for an explation.