Sylow Groups
Lemma: Let be an abelian group. If is a prime factor of
then contains at least one element of order .
Proof: The lemma is trivial when , which we shall use to
start an induction. Assume is composite. Then contains a proper
subgroup. Choose a proper subgroup of maximum order.
If then by induction contains an element of order , so
assume . Then take some element . Let
be the order of . Consider the group .
Since is
abelian, we have thus
is a group. But since it strictly contains , we have by
maximality of .
Now contains elements
where . Thus . Since
the divides the left-hand side, and , we must have ,
and is an element of order .
Let be the highest prime power dividing the order of a group for some
prime . Any subgroup of of order is called a Sylow -group.
Sylow’s First Theorem: Every group possesses at least one Sylow -group
for each prime factor of .
Proof:
The theorem is immediate when , which we shall use to start an
induction. Write where . Decompose into classes
of conjugate elements, and pick elements from each class.
Recall if denotes the size of the class containing we have
. Also recall the normalizer of satisfies
. We have two cases:
Case 1: Suppose there exists with and . Then
is less than and divisible by . By inductive hypothesis,
possesses a subgroup of order which is the Sylow group
corresponding to .
Case 2: For all , we have or . We have for
self-conjugate elements, and we must have at least one of these since is
self-conjugate. Let be the number of self-conjugate elements. Then
for some integer , hence . Thus the order of
the center is divisible by . Since it is abelian, by the lemma it
contains at least one element that commutes with all elements
and has order . Then is a normal subgroup of
and has order . By the inductive
hypothesis contains a Sylow group of order , which we
write where is a subgroup of . Then , thus
and is a Sylow group of corresponding to .
Theorem: [Cauchy] Let be a group.
If is a prime factor of then contains at least one element of
order
Proof: Let be a Sylow group of of order . If
then the order of is for some . Then
has order .
All subgroups conjugate to a Sylow group are themselves Sylow groups.
It turns out the converse is true.
Sylow’s Second Theorem: All Sylow -groups for a prime are conjugates.
Proof: Let be subgroups of of order . Recall
we can decompose relative to and :
where is the size of .
We have and where . Thus dividing
by gives
Now , hence is some nonnegative power of
and is at most . Since , we must have
for some , in other words . Then has
the same order as and is contained in , thus
and similarly . Hence
implying that are conjugate.
Corollary: A Sylow group is unique if and only if it is a normal
subgroup.
Sylow’s Third Theorem: Let be the number of Sylow -groups of a group
. Then and divides .
Proof: We know that the number of distinct Sylow groups is equal
to the number of distinct conjugates. Let be some Sylow group
corresponding to and let be the normalizer of . Recall
thus divides .
Every satisfies thus , Hence
. Thus where .
Decompose as the disjoint sets
where is the order
of the group .
Without loss of generality
assume , hence . Now dividing by gives
Now suppose for some .
Then , implying
. Now possesses a Sylow group of order ,
and we have already found two: . But is normal in
thus must be the unique Sylow group, hence . Since
is the normalizer of we must have and hence
, which is impossible unless .
Thus all terms in the above summation are divisble by except for the
first term which is equal to one.
Theorem: Any group of order for primes satisfying
and is abelian.
Proof: We have already shown this for
so assume . Let be a Sylow -group of .
The number of such subgroups is a divisor of
and also equal to modulo . Also . Then since the
number of such subgroups
cannot be equal to , it must be equal to one.
By the above corollary we have that is normal in of order .
Similarly we can find a group
normal in of order .
A prime power group is a group whose order is a power of
a prime. [It seems that nowadays they are referred to as -groups.]
All Sylow groups are prime power groups. Recall that a
group of order for a prime has
at least one nontrivial self-conjugate
element, thus we can find a self-conjugate element of order .
Let be such an element. Then for any , and
is a normal subgroup of order . In general:
Theorem: A group of order for a prime contains
at least one normal subgroup of order for any .
Proof: The theorem is true for because in this case
the group
is abelian. We shall use this case to base an induction.
Suppose is a group of order for . Then let be
a normal subgroup of of order . Then has order which
by inductive assumption has an invariant subgroup of order
which has the form for some normal subgroup in with
order .
Corollary: All prime power groups are soluble.
Proof:
A group of order has a normal subgroup
of order which
in turn contains a normal subgroup of order , and so on. Thus
we can construct the composition series
Example: There is no simple group of order 200.
Let be a group of order with Sylow 5-groups of
order 25. Then and . Thus which forces . Hence there exists a unique normal Sylow 5-group of order 25, and the group
is not simple.
Example: There is no simple group of order 30.
Suppose there is such a group. Then none of its Sylow groups are unique,
implying Sylow 5-groups, hence there are elements
of order , and similarly Sylow 3-groups, thus
the total number of elements is greater than 30, a contradiction.
We can now supply an alternative proof that is simple for :
Proposition: If and has more than one Sylow 5-group
then is simple.
Proof: Suppose and contains more than one Sylow
5-group, but there exists a proper normal subgroup. Then we must
have exactly 6 Sylow 5-groups. Let be such a group. Then
the normalizer of has order 10 since its index is .
If then contains a Sylow 5-group of and since is
normal it contains all conjugates of this subgroup, hence
hence we must have . But by the previous
example, must have a unique Sylow 5-group, a contradiction, thus
5 does not divide .
If is 6 or 12 then has a normal Sylow subgroup of order 2,3, or 4,
which is also normal in , and we may replace by this. Hence
or . Then by previous results, has a normal subgroup
of order . Its preimage under the natural map is a normal subgroup whose
order is a multiple of 5, which we have previously shown to be a contradiction.
Proof: The subgroups
and are distinct Sylow 5-groups.
Theorem: is simple for all .
Proof: Let . Suppose is a proper normal subgroup of , and
let .
For let be the
permutations that leave fixed in place. Then and
is isomorphic to . By inductive assumption, each is simple.
First suppose there exists an such that . Then is
non-trivial and a normal subgroup of . Since is simple, we have , thus is a subgroup of .
For any , since
implies :
The left-hand side is a subgroup of , so by choosing
appropriately we have for all .
Recall any element of can be written as an even number of transpositions.
Since , the product of any two transpositions must leave at least one
item unpermuted, hence lies in for some . Therefore:
implying , a contradiction.
Suppose the cycle decomposition of contains a cycle of a length 3
or more. We relabel so that:
Since , we have nonidentity element
that fixes 1, a contradiction.
Thus the cycle decomposition of contains only transpositions.
Since and no element is fixed by there are at least 3
transpositions. Relabel so that:
hence , which as above is a contradiction.
Ben Lynn blynn@cs.stanford.edu 💡