How can $SN_G(D)=G$ if $S$ is not normal in $G$?
$begingroup$
Is there any theorem which says anything like $SN_G(D)=G$ where $S$ is a $p$-Sylow subgroup and $D$ is the intersection it has with some other subgroup?
I know the first that will probably spring to mind is the Frattini argument, but the thing is in the proof where I saw this the author is using this to show that $cap_{g in G}S^g$ is normal in $G$ (to get a contradiction as we assumed $G$ was simple) but then surely we can't use the Frattini argument as it would require $S$ to be normal.
Let G be a group of order $p^nq$ $n geq 0$ p and q are primes Then G is not simple.
Edit: To add more clarity here is the full argument of the section I'm stuck on .
Proof: Wlog assume $p neq q$ Suppose G is not simple
( NOTE: I'm going to skip the parts for when n = 1 and where $n>1$ but has trivial intersection as they are separate cases and their arguments don't play any role in the part of the proof I'm interested in.)
So suppose $n>1$ and pick any two Sylow subgroups $S neq P$ s.t. $Pcap S=D$ is largest possible.
Then $D<S Rightarrow D<N_S(D)<N_G(D)$
and also
$D<S Rightarrow D<N_P(D)<N_G(D)$
It follows that $N_G(D)$ can not be a p group since if so it lies in some P-sylow subgroup T and Then $Tcap P$ $geq N_G(D)$$geq N_P(D)>D$ $Rightarrow T=P$ But then similarly $Scap P=Scap T<D Rightarrow Leftarrow$
Thus a q sylow subgroup Q lives in $N_G(D)$ Then $SN_G(D)=G$ and so if we pick any g it will be of the form $g=sx,sin S, xin N_G(D)$
Then $S^g=S^{sx}=S^xgeq D^x=D$ and thus D lies in in every P sylow subgroup of G $Rightarrow 1<D leq cap_{gin G} S^g$ is normal in G which is a contradiction.
group-theory sylow-theory
asked Dec 23 '18 at 21:49
can'tcauchycan'tcauchy
989417
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is there any theorem which says anything like $SN_G(D)=G$ where $S$ is a $p$-Sylow subgroup and $D$ is the intersection it has with some other subgroup?
I know the first that will probably spring to mind is the Frattini argument, but the thing is in the proof where I saw this the author is using this to show that $cap_{g in G}S^g$ is normal in $G$ (to get a contradiction as we assumed $G$ was simple) but then surely we can't use the Frattini argument as it would require $S$ to be normal.
Let G be a group of order $p^nq$ $n geq 0$ p and q are primes Then G is not simple.
Edit: To add more clarity here is the full argument of the section I'm stuck on .
Proof: Wlog assume $p neq q$ Suppose G is not simple
( NOTE: I'm going to skip the parts for when n = 1 and where $n>1$ but has trivial intersection as they are separate cases and their arguments don't play any role in the part of the proof I'm interested in.)
So suppose $n>1$ and pick any two Sylow subgroups $S neq P$ s.t. $Pcap S=D$ is largest possible.
Then $D<S Rightarrow D<N_S(D)<N_G(D)$
and also
$D<S Rightarrow D<N_P(D)<N_G(D)$
It follows that $N_G(D)$ can not be a p group since if so it lies in some P-sylow subgroup T and Then $Tcap P$ $geq N_G(D)$$geq N_P(D)>D$ $Rightarrow T=P$ But then similarly $Scap P=Scap T<D Rightarrow Leftarrow$
Thus a q sylow subgroup Q lives in $N_G(D)$ Then $SN_G(D)=G$ and so if we pick any g it will be of the form $g=sx,sin S, xin N_G(D)$
Then $S^g=S^{sx}=S^xgeq D^x=D$ and thus D lies in in every P sylow subgroup of G $Rightarrow 1<D leq cap_{gin G} S^g$ is normal in G which is a contradiction.
group-theory sylow-theory
asked Dec 23 '18 at 21:49
can'tcauchycan'tcauchy
989417
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Why don't you write down the argument where you saw this used?
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 24 '18 at 2:04
$begingroup$
@the_fox I added the full argument there
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 24 '18 at 14:49
$begingroup$
Is this from Isaacs' FGT book?
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:05
$begingroup$
@the_fox no It's just from lecture notes
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 25 '18 at 2:27
$begingroup$
Just so it is more clear, let me post as an answer Isaacs' proof from his book. You can then comment on which part of it you don't understand. (I find it a little difficult to parse what you wrote.)
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is there any theorem which says anything like $SN_G(D)=G$ where $S$ is a $p$-Sylow subgroup and $D$ is the intersection it has with some other subgroup?
I know the first that will probably spring to mind is the Frattini argument, but the thing is in the proof where I saw this the author is using this to show that $cap_{g in G}S^g$ is normal in $G$ (to get a contradiction as we assumed $G$ was simple) but then surely we can't use the Frattini argument as it would require $S$ to be normal.
Let G be a group of order $p^nq$ $n geq 0$ p and q are primes Then G is not simple.
Edit: To add more clarity here is the full argument of the section I'm stuck on .
Proof: Wlog assume $p neq q$ Suppose G is not simple
( NOTE: I'm going to skip the parts for when n = 1 and where $n>1$ but has trivial intersection as they are separate cases and their arguments don't play any role in the part of the proof I'm interested in.)
So suppose $n>1$ and pick any two Sylow subgroups $S neq P$ s.t. $Pcap S=D$ is largest possible.
Then $D<S Rightarrow D<N_S(D)<N_G(D)$
and also
$D<S Rightarrow D<N_P(D)<N_G(D)$
It follows that $N_G(D)$ can not be a p group since if so it lies in some P-sylow subgroup T and Then $Tcap P$ $geq N_G(D)$$geq N_P(D)>D$ $Rightarrow T=P$ But then similarly $Scap P=Scap T<D Rightarrow Leftarrow$
Thus a q sylow subgroup Q lives in $N_G(D)$ Then $SN_G(D)=G$ and so if we pick any g it will be of the form $g=sx,sin S, xin N_G(D)$
Then $S^g=S^{sx}=S^xgeq D^x=D$ and thus D lies in in every P sylow subgroup of G $Rightarrow 1<D leq cap_{gin G} S^g$ is normal in G which is a contradiction.
group-theory sylow-theory
asked Dec 23 '18 at 21:49
can'tcauchycan'tcauchy
989417
$endgroup$
Is there any theorem which says anything like $SN_G(D)=G$ where $S$ is a $p$-Sylow subgroup and $D$ is the intersection it has with some other subgroup?
I know the first that will probably spring to mind is the Frattini argument, but the thing is in the proof where I saw this the author is using this to show that $cap_{g in G}S^g$ is normal in $G$ (to get a contradiction as we assumed $G$ was simple) but then surely we can't use the Frattini argument as it would require $S$ to be normal.
Let G be a group of order $p^nq$ $n geq 0$ p and q are primes Then G is not simple.
Edit: To add more clarity here is the full argument of the section I'm stuck on .
Proof: Wlog assume $p neq q$ Suppose G is not simple
( NOTE: I'm going to skip the parts for when n = 1 and where $n>1$ but has trivial intersection as they are separate cases and their arguments don't play any role in the part of the proof I'm interested in.)
So suppose $n>1$ and pick any two Sylow subgroups $S neq P$ s.t. $Pcap S=D$ is largest possible.
Then $D<S Rightarrow D<N_S(D)<N_G(D)$
and also
$D<S Rightarrow D<N_P(D)<N_G(D)$
It follows that $N_G(D)$ can not be a p group since if so it lies in some P-sylow subgroup T and Then $Tcap P$ $geq N_G(D)$$geq N_P(D)>D$ $Rightarrow T=P$ But then similarly $Scap P=Scap T<D Rightarrow Leftarrow$
Thus a q sylow subgroup Q lives in $N_G(D)$ Then $SN_G(D)=G$ and so if we pick any g it will be of the form $g=sx,sin S, xin N_G(D)$
Then $S^g=S^{sx}=S^xgeq D^x=D$ and thus D lies in in every P sylow subgroup of G $Rightarrow 1<D leq cap_{gin G} S^g$ is normal in G which is a contradiction.
group-theory sylow-theory
group-theory sylow-theory
asked Dec 23 '18 at 21:49
can'tcauchycan'tcauchy
989417
asked Dec 23 '18 at 21:49
can'tcauchycan'tcauchy
989417
edited Dec 26 '18 at 20:07
can'tcauchy
asked Dec 23 '18 at 21:49
can'tcauchycan'tcauchy
989417
asked Dec 23 '18 at 21:49
can'tcauchycan'tcauchy
989417
asked Dec 23 '18 at 21:49
can'tcauchycan'tcauchy
989417
989417
1
$begingroup$
Why don't you write down the argument where you saw this used?
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 24 '18 at 2:04
$begingroup$
@the_fox I added the full argument there
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 24 '18 at 14:49
$begingroup$
Is this from Isaacs' FGT book?
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:05
$begingroup$
@the_fox no It's just from lecture notes
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 25 '18 at 2:27
$begingroup$
Just so it is more clear, let me post as an answer Isaacs' proof from his book. You can then comment on which part of it you don't understand. (I find it a little difficult to parse what you wrote.)
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:32
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Why don't you write down the argument where you saw this used?
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 24 '18 at 2:04
$begingroup$
@the_fox I added the full argument there
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 24 '18 at 14:49
$begingroup$
Is this from Isaacs' FGT book?
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:05
$begingroup$
@the_fox no It's just from lecture notes
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 25 '18 at 2:27
$begingroup$
Just so it is more clear, let me post as an answer Isaacs' proof from his book. You can then comment on which part of it you don't understand. (I find it a little difficult to parse what you wrote.)
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:32
1
1
$begingroup$
Why don't you write down the argument where you saw this used?
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 24 '18 at 2:04
$begingroup$
Why don't you write down the argument where you saw this used?
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 24 '18 at 2:04
$begingroup$
@the_fox I added the full argument there
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 24 '18 at 14:49
$begingroup$
@the_fox I added the full argument there
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 24 '18 at 14:49
$begingroup$
Is this from Isaacs' FGT book?
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:05
$begingroup$
Is this from Isaacs' FGT book?
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:05
$begingroup$
@the_fox no It's just from lecture notes
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 25 '18 at 2:27
$begingroup$
@the_fox no It's just from lecture notes
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 25 '18 at 2:27
$begingroup$
Just so it is more clear, let me post as an answer Isaacs' proof from his book. You can then comment on which part of it you don't understand. (I find it a little difficult to parse what you wrote.)
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:32
$begingroup$
Just so it is more clear, let me post as an answer Isaacs' proof from his book. You can then comment on which part of it you don't understand. (I find it a little difficult to parse what you wrote.)
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:32
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
So, this is how Isaacs proves the theorem you mentioned. Strategy and notation look very similar to the proof in your notes, so this is likely where your teacher took it from.
answered Dec 25 '18 at 2:35
the_foxthe_fox
2,89021537
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This is great thank you so much, This does look quite similar alright but I can't read it properly right now I cant concentrate very well I've been studying for the past 15 hours XP. I'll give it a thorough read tomorrow though and let you know where I get confused. happy holidays by the way ..I'm quite relieved to have finally gotten an answer(and a detailed one at that) for this problem :)
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 25 '18 at 2:41
$begingroup$
Merry Christmas to you too :) I'm guessing that you have a little trouble with the last paragraph, but let me know when you have had a chance to look at it carefully.
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:46
$begingroup$
Just got a chance to really look over this just now . It seems like the only major difference between the proof in my notes and this one were (i) he doesn't assume that G is simple and aim for contradiction. (ii) rather than using the normaliser he just uses the Q group which lives in it .
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 26 '18 at 20:46
$begingroup$
My only questions are (a) we can easily start this proof by assuming that G is not simple and aim for contradiction without it interrupting any of the steps right ? ( I mean at the end we could just say so D is a subgroup of the core of S which is normal (FALSE) and then say so G must be simple because everything we've tried is false otherwise .) (b) I'm a tad confused as to why the fact $D<S cap N Subset s cap R$ implies that S=R . is it because the intersection of S and N lies in S and therefore R must be S ?
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 26 '18 at 20:47
$begingroup$
I did not quite understand (a). The goal is to prove that $G$ is not simple. Do you want to argue instead by contradiction? For (b) $S=R$ follows from the maximal choice of $D$ in the beginning. If $S neq R$ then we have found two Sylow $p$-subgroups with intersection greater than is possible.
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 27 '18 at 0:53
|
show 4 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3050731%2fhow-can-sn-gd-g-if-s-is-not-normal-in-g%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
So, this is how Isaacs proves the theorem you mentioned. Strategy and notation look very similar to the proof in your notes, so this is likely where your teacher took it from.
answered Dec 25 '18 at 2:35
the_foxthe_fox
2,89021537
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This is great thank you so much, This does look quite similar alright but I can't read it properly right now I cant concentrate very well I've been studying for the past 15 hours XP. I'll give it a thorough read tomorrow though and let you know where I get confused. happy holidays by the way ..I'm quite relieved to have finally gotten an answer(and a detailed one at that) for this problem :)
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 25 '18 at 2:41
$begingroup$
Merry Christmas to you too :) I'm guessing that you have a little trouble with the last paragraph, but let me know when you have had a chance to look at it carefully.
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:46
$begingroup$
Just got a chance to really look over this just now . It seems like the only major difference between the proof in my notes and this one were (i) he doesn't assume that G is simple and aim for contradiction. (ii) rather than using the normaliser he just uses the Q group which lives in it .
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 26 '18 at 20:46
$begingroup$
My only questions are (a) we can easily start this proof by assuming that G is not simple and aim for contradiction without it interrupting any of the steps right ? ( I mean at the end we could just say so D is a subgroup of the core of S which is normal (FALSE) and then say so G must be simple because everything we've tried is false otherwise .) (b) I'm a tad confused as to why the fact $D<S cap N Subset s cap R$ implies that S=R . is it because the intersection of S and N lies in S and therefore R must be S ?
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 26 '18 at 20:47
$begingroup$
I did not quite understand (a). The goal is to prove that $G$ is not simple. Do you want to argue instead by contradiction? For (b) $S=R$ follows from the maximal choice of $D$ in the beginning. If $S neq R$ then we have found two Sylow $p$-subgroups with intersection greater than is possible.
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 27 '18 at 0:53
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
So, this is how Isaacs proves the theorem you mentioned. Strategy and notation look very similar to the proof in your notes, so this is likely where your teacher took it from.
answered Dec 25 '18 at 2:35
the_foxthe_fox
2,89021537
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
This is great thank you so much, This does look quite similar alright but I can't read it properly right now I cant concentrate very well I've been studying for the past 15 hours XP. I'll give it a thorough read tomorrow though and let you know where I get confused. happy holidays by the way ..I'm quite relieved to have finally gotten an answer(and a detailed one at that) for this problem :)
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 25 '18 at 2:41
$begingroup$
Merry Christmas to you too :) I'm guessing that you have a little trouble with the last paragraph, but let me know when you have had a chance to look at it carefully.
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:46
$begingroup$
Just got a chance to really look over this just now . It seems like the only major difference between the proof in my notes and this one were (i) he doesn't assume that G is simple and aim for contradiction. (ii) rather than using the normaliser he just uses the Q group which lives in it .
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 26 '18 at 20:46
$begingroup$
My only questions are (a) we can easily start this proof by assuming that G is not simple and aim for contradiction without it interrupting any of the steps right ? ( I mean at the end we could just say so D is a subgroup of the core of S which is normal (FALSE) and then say so G must be simple because everything we've tried is false otherwise .) (b) I'm a tad confused as to why the fact $D<S cap N Subset s cap R$ implies that S=R . is it because the intersection of S and N lies in S and therefore R must be S ?
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 26 '18 at 20:47
$begingroup$
I did not quite understand (a). The goal is to prove that $G$ is not simple. Do you want to argue instead by contradiction? For (b) $S=R$ follows from the maximal choice of $D$ in the beginning. If $S neq R$ then we have found two Sylow $p$-subgroups with intersection greater than is possible.
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 27 '18 at 0:53
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
So, this is how Isaacs proves the theorem you mentioned. Strategy and notation look very similar to the proof in your notes, so this is likely where your teacher took it from.
answered Dec 25 '18 at 2:35
the_foxthe_fox
2,89021537
$endgroup$
So, this is how Isaacs proves the theorem you mentioned. Strategy and notation look very similar to the proof in your notes, so this is likely where your teacher took it from.
answered Dec 25 '18 at 2:35
the_foxthe_fox
2,89021537
answered Dec 25 '18 at 2:35
the_foxthe_fox
2,89021537
answered Dec 25 '18 at 2:35
the_foxthe_fox
2,89021537
answered Dec 25 '18 at 2:35
the_foxthe_fox
2,89021537
2,89021537
$begingroup$
This is great thank you so much, This does look quite similar alright but I can't read it properly right now I cant concentrate very well I've been studying for the past 15 hours XP. I'll give it a thorough read tomorrow though and let you know where I get confused. happy holidays by the way ..I'm quite relieved to have finally gotten an answer(and a detailed one at that) for this problem :)
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 25 '18 at 2:41
$begingroup$
Merry Christmas to you too :) I'm guessing that you have a little trouble with the last paragraph, but let me know when you have had a chance to look at it carefully.
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:46
$begingroup$
Just got a chance to really look over this just now . It seems like the only major difference between the proof in my notes and this one were (i) he doesn't assume that G is simple and aim for contradiction. (ii) rather than using the normaliser he just uses the Q group which lives in it .
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 26 '18 at 20:46
$begingroup$
My only questions are (a) we can easily start this proof by assuming that G is not simple and aim for contradiction without it interrupting any of the steps right ? ( I mean at the end we could just say so D is a subgroup of the core of S which is normal (FALSE) and then say so G must be simple because everything we've tried is false otherwise .) (b) I'm a tad confused as to why the fact $D<S cap N Subset s cap R$ implies that S=R . is it because the intersection of S and N lies in S and therefore R must be S ?
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 26 '18 at 20:47
$begingroup$
I did not quite understand (a). The goal is to prove that $G$ is not simple. Do you want to argue instead by contradiction? For (b) $S=R$ follows from the maximal choice of $D$ in the beginning. If $S neq R$ then we have found two Sylow $p$-subgroups with intersection greater than is possible.
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 27 '18 at 0:53
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
This is great thank you so much, This does look quite similar alright but I can't read it properly right now I cant concentrate very well I've been studying for the past 15 hours XP. I'll give it a thorough read tomorrow though and let you know where I get confused. happy holidays by the way ..I'm quite relieved to have finally gotten an answer(and a detailed one at that) for this problem :)
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 25 '18 at 2:41
$begingroup$
Merry Christmas to you too :) I'm guessing that you have a little trouble with the last paragraph, but let me know when you have had a chance to look at it carefully.
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:46
$begingroup$
Just got a chance to really look over this just now . It seems like the only major difference between the proof in my notes and this one were (i) he doesn't assume that G is simple and aim for contradiction. (ii) rather than using the normaliser he just uses the Q group which lives in it .
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 26 '18 at 20:46
$begingroup$
My only questions are (a) we can easily start this proof by assuming that G is not simple and aim for contradiction without it interrupting any of the steps right ? ( I mean at the end we could just say so D is a subgroup of the core of S which is normal (FALSE) and then say so G must be simple because everything we've tried is false otherwise .) (b) I'm a tad confused as to why the fact $D<S cap N Subset s cap R$ implies that S=R . is it because the intersection of S and N lies in S and therefore R must be S ?
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 26 '18 at 20:47
$begingroup$
I did not quite understand (a). The goal is to prove that $G$ is not simple. Do you want to argue instead by contradiction? For (b) $S=R$ follows from the maximal choice of $D$ in the beginning. If $S neq R$ then we have found two Sylow $p$-subgroups with intersection greater than is possible.
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 27 '18 at 0:53
$begingroup$
This is great thank you so much, This does look quite similar alright but I can't read it properly right now I cant concentrate very well I've been studying for the past 15 hours XP. I'll give it a thorough read tomorrow though and let you know where I get confused. happy holidays by the way ..I'm quite relieved to have finally gotten an answer(and a detailed one at that) for this problem :)
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 25 '18 at 2:41
$begingroup$
This is great thank you so much, This does look quite similar alright but I can't read it properly right now I cant concentrate very well I've been studying for the past 15 hours XP. I'll give it a thorough read tomorrow though and let you know where I get confused. happy holidays by the way ..I'm quite relieved to have finally gotten an answer(and a detailed one at that) for this problem :)
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 25 '18 at 2:41
$begingroup$
Merry Christmas to you too :) I'm guessing that you have a little trouble with the last paragraph, but let me know when you have had a chance to look at it carefully.
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:46
$begingroup$
Merry Christmas to you too :) I'm guessing that you have a little trouble with the last paragraph, but let me know when you have had a chance to look at it carefully.
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:46
$begingroup$
Just got a chance to really look over this just now . It seems like the only major difference between the proof in my notes and this one were (i) he doesn't assume that G is simple and aim for contradiction. (ii) rather than using the normaliser he just uses the Q group which lives in it .
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 26 '18 at 20:46
$begingroup$
Just got a chance to really look over this just now . It seems like the only major difference between the proof in my notes and this one were (i) he doesn't assume that G is simple and aim for contradiction. (ii) rather than using the normaliser he just uses the Q group which lives in it .
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 26 '18 at 20:46
$begingroup$
My only questions are (a) we can easily start this proof by assuming that G is not simple and aim for contradiction without it interrupting any of the steps right ? ( I mean at the end we could just say so D is a subgroup of the core of S which is normal (FALSE) and then say so G must be simple because everything we've tried is false otherwise .) (b) I'm a tad confused as to why the fact $D<S cap N Subset s cap R$ implies that S=R . is it because the intersection of S and N lies in S and therefore R must be S ?
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 26 '18 at 20:47
$begingroup$
My only questions are (a) we can easily start this proof by assuming that G is not simple and aim for contradiction without it interrupting any of the steps right ? ( I mean at the end we could just say so D is a subgroup of the core of S which is normal (FALSE) and then say so G must be simple because everything we've tried is false otherwise .) (b) I'm a tad confused as to why the fact $D<S cap N Subset s cap R$ implies that S=R . is it because the intersection of S and N lies in S and therefore R must be S ?
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 26 '18 at 20:47
$begingroup$
I did not quite understand (a). The goal is to prove that $G$ is not simple. Do you want to argue instead by contradiction? For (b) $S=R$ follows from the maximal choice of $D$ in the beginning. If $S neq R$ then we have found two Sylow $p$-subgroups with intersection greater than is possible.
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 27 '18 at 0:53
$begingroup$
I did not quite understand (a). The goal is to prove that $G$ is not simple. Do you want to argue instead by contradiction? For (b) $S=R$ follows from the maximal choice of $D$ in the beginning. If $S neq R$ then we have found two Sylow $p$-subgroups with intersection greater than is possible.
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 27 '18 at 0:53
|
show 4 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3050731%2fhow-can-sn-gd-g-if-s-is-not-normal-in-g%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
Why don't you write down the argument where you saw this used?
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 24 '18 at 2:04
$begingroup$
@the_fox I added the full argument there
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 24 '18 at 14:49
$begingroup$
Is this from Isaacs' FGT book?
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:05
$begingroup$
@the_fox no It's just from lecture notes
$endgroup$
– can'tcauchy
Dec 25 '18 at 2:27
$begingroup$
Just so it is more clear, let me post as an answer Isaacs' proof from his book. You can then comment on which part of it you don't understand. (I find it a little difficult to parse what you wrote.)
$endgroup$
– the_fox
Dec 25 '18 at 2:32