Number of $p$-subgroups of finite group











up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1












Assume we have a finite group $G$, $|G|=p^cm$ where $pnotmid m$ is prime. Fix a subgroup $H$ of order $p^a$ and a number $ale ble c$. Prove that the number of subgroups of order $p^b$ which contain the subgroup $H$ is $equiv1pmod p$.



I tried to use Wielandt's proof of Sylow's theorem as in Wielandt's proof of Sylow's theorem., but if we set $S={Asubset G, |A|=p^b,Hsubset A}$, we can't have $G$ act on $S$ by right multiplication. How can I prove this statement?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • I have not thought this through, but you could try replacing the set of group elements in Wielandt's proof by the set $C$ of $p^{c-a}m$ right cosets of $H$ in $G$, and the set $S$ by the set of subsets of $C$ of size $p^{b-a}$.
    – Derek Holt
    Nov 8 at 8:06








  • 1




    See Theorem 7.9 in math.uconn.edu/~kconrad/blurbs/grouptheory/transitive.pdf.
    – KCd
    Nov 22 at 11:28















up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1












Assume we have a finite group $G$, $|G|=p^cm$ where $pnotmid m$ is prime. Fix a subgroup $H$ of order $p^a$ and a number $ale ble c$. Prove that the number of subgroups of order $p^b$ which contain the subgroup $H$ is $equiv1pmod p$.



I tried to use Wielandt's proof of Sylow's theorem as in Wielandt's proof of Sylow's theorem., but if we set $S={Asubset G, |A|=p^b,Hsubset A}$, we can't have $G$ act on $S$ by right multiplication. How can I prove this statement?










share|cite|improve this question
























  • I have not thought this through, but you could try replacing the set of group elements in Wielandt's proof by the set $C$ of $p^{c-a}m$ right cosets of $H$ in $G$, and the set $S$ by the set of subsets of $C$ of size $p^{b-a}$.
    – Derek Holt
    Nov 8 at 8:06








  • 1




    See Theorem 7.9 in math.uconn.edu/~kconrad/blurbs/grouptheory/transitive.pdf.
    – KCd
    Nov 22 at 11:28













up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
1
down vote

favorite
1






1





Assume we have a finite group $G$, $|G|=p^cm$ where $pnotmid m$ is prime. Fix a subgroup $H$ of order $p^a$ and a number $ale ble c$. Prove that the number of subgroups of order $p^b$ which contain the subgroup $H$ is $equiv1pmod p$.



I tried to use Wielandt's proof of Sylow's theorem as in Wielandt's proof of Sylow's theorem., but if we set $S={Asubset G, |A|=p^b,Hsubset A}$, we can't have $G$ act on $S$ by right multiplication. How can I prove this statement?










share|cite|improve this question















Assume we have a finite group $G$, $|G|=p^cm$ where $pnotmid m$ is prime. Fix a subgroup $H$ of order $p^a$ and a number $ale ble c$. Prove that the number of subgroups of order $p^b$ which contain the subgroup $H$ is $equiv1pmod p$.



I tried to use Wielandt's proof of Sylow's theorem as in Wielandt's proof of Sylow's theorem., but if we set $S={Asubset G, |A|=p^b,Hsubset A}$, we can't have $G$ act on $S$ by right multiplication. How can I prove this statement?







abstract-algebra group-theory finite-groups sylow-theory






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 22 at 11:11









the_fox

2,3191430




2,3191430










asked Nov 7 at 16:41









hctb

1,008410




1,008410












  • I have not thought this through, but you could try replacing the set of group elements in Wielandt's proof by the set $C$ of $p^{c-a}m$ right cosets of $H$ in $G$, and the set $S$ by the set of subsets of $C$ of size $p^{b-a}$.
    – Derek Holt
    Nov 8 at 8:06








  • 1




    See Theorem 7.9 in math.uconn.edu/~kconrad/blurbs/grouptheory/transitive.pdf.
    – KCd
    Nov 22 at 11:28


















  • I have not thought this through, but you could try replacing the set of group elements in Wielandt's proof by the set $C$ of $p^{c-a}m$ right cosets of $H$ in $G$, and the set $S$ by the set of subsets of $C$ of size $p^{b-a}$.
    – Derek Holt
    Nov 8 at 8:06








  • 1




    See Theorem 7.9 in math.uconn.edu/~kconrad/blurbs/grouptheory/transitive.pdf.
    – KCd
    Nov 22 at 11:28
















I have not thought this through, but you could try replacing the set of group elements in Wielandt's proof by the set $C$ of $p^{c-a}m$ right cosets of $H$ in $G$, and the set $S$ by the set of subsets of $C$ of size $p^{b-a}$.
– Derek Holt
Nov 8 at 8:06






I have not thought this through, but you could try replacing the set of group elements in Wielandt's proof by the set $C$ of $p^{c-a}m$ right cosets of $H$ in $G$, and the set $S$ by the set of subsets of $C$ of size $p^{b-a}$.
– Derek Holt
Nov 8 at 8:06






1




1




See Theorem 7.9 in math.uconn.edu/~kconrad/blurbs/grouptheory/transitive.pdf.
– KCd
Nov 22 at 11:28




See Theorem 7.9 in math.uconn.edu/~kconrad/blurbs/grouptheory/transitive.pdf.
– KCd
Nov 22 at 11:28










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













I suspect that this is something well-known, but I am not aware
of any specific references. Anyway, here is a proof.



Theorem. Let $H$ be a $p$-subgroup of a group $G$, and suppose $p^t geq |H|$. Then the
number of subgroups $X leq G$ such that $H leq X$ and $|X|=p^t$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$.



Lemma 1. The theorem is true in the case where $p^t$ is the order of a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$.



Proof. Let $H leq P in operatorname{Syl}_p(G)$ and induct on $|P:H|$.
The result is trivial if $H=P$, so we can assume that $H < P$ and we let $N = N_P(H)$.
Conjugation by $N$ permutes the Sylow $p$-subgroups that contain $H$.
If $S$ is one of these and $N nleq S$, then $N$ does not normalise $S$,
and so the $N$-orbit of $S$ has size divisible by $p$.
Also, all members of this orbit fail to contain $N$,
so we need only count the Sylow $p$-subgroups of $G$ that contain $N$,
and since $N > H$, this number is congruent to $1 bmod p$ by the inductive hypothesis.



Lemma 2. The theorem is true in the case where $G$ is a $p$-group.



Proof. Induct on $|G:H|$. The result is trivial if $H=G$ so we can assume that $H<G$.
We can also assume that $p^t < |G|$.
Let $mathcal{X}$ and $mathcal{M}$, respectively, be the set of subgroups of order $p^t$ that contain $H$ and
the set of maximal subgroups that contain $H$.
We count in two ways the number $N$ of ordered pairs $(X,M)$ with
$X in mathcal{X}$, $M in mathcal{M}$ and $X leq M$.



First, $N$ is the sum over $X in mathcal{X}$ of the number of maximal subgroups that contain $X$.
Also, $N$ is the sum over $M in mathcal{M}$ of the number of members of $mathcal{X}$ that are contained in $M$.
It is easy to see that the number of maximal subgroups of $G$ that contain any given proper subgroup of $G$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$.
The first formula for $N$ gives $N equiv |mathcal{X}| bmod p$ because the number of $M in mathcal{M}$
containing any given member of $mathcal{X}$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$.
By the inductive hypothesis, the number of members of $mathcal{X}$ contained in any given member of $mathcal{M}$ is congruent to $1$, so the second formula for $N$ gives $$N equiv |mathcal{M}| equiv 1 bmod p.$$
Thus $$|mathcal{X}| equiv N equiv 1 bmod p,$$ as wanted.



Proof of Theorem. Let $mathcal{X}$ be the set of subgroups of order $p^t$ that contain $H$ and let $mathcal{P}$ be the set of $P in operatorname{Syl}_p(G)$ that contain $H$. We count the number $S$ of pairs $(X,P)$, where $X in mathcal{X}$, $P in mathcal{P}$ and $X leq P$.



First, $S$ is the sum over $X in mathcal{X}$ of the number of $P in mathcal{P}$ such that $X leq P$. Also, $S$ is the sum over $P in mathcal{P}$ of the number of $X in mathcal{X}$ such that $X leq P$. Since the number of $P$ containing a given $X$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$ by Lemma $mathbf{1}$, the first formula for $S$ yields $S equiv |mathcal{X}| bmod p$. The number of $X$ contained in a given $P$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$ by Lemma $mathbf{2}$, so the second formula for $S$ yields $S equiv |mathcal{P}| bmod p$.



Also, $$|mathcal{P}| equiv 1 bmod p$$ by Lemma $mathbf{1}$, so we get
$$|mathcal{X}| equiv S equiv 1 bmod p,$$
which concludes our proof.






share|cite|improve this answer























    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',
    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2988760%2fnumber-of-p-subgroups-of-finite-group%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








    up vote
    0
    down vote













    I suspect that this is something well-known, but I am not aware
    of any specific references. Anyway, here is a proof.



    Theorem. Let $H$ be a $p$-subgroup of a group $G$, and suppose $p^t geq |H|$. Then the
    number of subgroups $X leq G$ such that $H leq X$ and $|X|=p^t$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$.



    Lemma 1. The theorem is true in the case where $p^t$ is the order of a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$.



    Proof. Let $H leq P in operatorname{Syl}_p(G)$ and induct on $|P:H|$.
    The result is trivial if $H=P$, so we can assume that $H < P$ and we let $N = N_P(H)$.
    Conjugation by $N$ permutes the Sylow $p$-subgroups that contain $H$.
    If $S$ is one of these and $N nleq S$, then $N$ does not normalise $S$,
    and so the $N$-orbit of $S$ has size divisible by $p$.
    Also, all members of this orbit fail to contain $N$,
    so we need only count the Sylow $p$-subgroups of $G$ that contain $N$,
    and since $N > H$, this number is congruent to $1 bmod p$ by the inductive hypothesis.



    Lemma 2. The theorem is true in the case where $G$ is a $p$-group.



    Proof. Induct on $|G:H|$. The result is trivial if $H=G$ so we can assume that $H<G$.
    We can also assume that $p^t < |G|$.
    Let $mathcal{X}$ and $mathcal{M}$, respectively, be the set of subgroups of order $p^t$ that contain $H$ and
    the set of maximal subgroups that contain $H$.
    We count in two ways the number $N$ of ordered pairs $(X,M)$ with
    $X in mathcal{X}$, $M in mathcal{M}$ and $X leq M$.



    First, $N$ is the sum over $X in mathcal{X}$ of the number of maximal subgroups that contain $X$.
    Also, $N$ is the sum over $M in mathcal{M}$ of the number of members of $mathcal{X}$ that are contained in $M$.
    It is easy to see that the number of maximal subgroups of $G$ that contain any given proper subgroup of $G$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$.
    The first formula for $N$ gives $N equiv |mathcal{X}| bmod p$ because the number of $M in mathcal{M}$
    containing any given member of $mathcal{X}$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$.
    By the inductive hypothesis, the number of members of $mathcal{X}$ contained in any given member of $mathcal{M}$ is congruent to $1$, so the second formula for $N$ gives $$N equiv |mathcal{M}| equiv 1 bmod p.$$
    Thus $$|mathcal{X}| equiv N equiv 1 bmod p,$$ as wanted.



    Proof of Theorem. Let $mathcal{X}$ be the set of subgroups of order $p^t$ that contain $H$ and let $mathcal{P}$ be the set of $P in operatorname{Syl}_p(G)$ that contain $H$. We count the number $S$ of pairs $(X,P)$, where $X in mathcal{X}$, $P in mathcal{P}$ and $X leq P$.



    First, $S$ is the sum over $X in mathcal{X}$ of the number of $P in mathcal{P}$ such that $X leq P$. Also, $S$ is the sum over $P in mathcal{P}$ of the number of $X in mathcal{X}$ such that $X leq P$. Since the number of $P$ containing a given $X$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$ by Lemma $mathbf{1}$, the first formula for $S$ yields $S equiv |mathcal{X}| bmod p$. The number of $X$ contained in a given $P$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$ by Lemma $mathbf{2}$, so the second formula for $S$ yields $S equiv |mathcal{P}| bmod p$.



    Also, $$|mathcal{P}| equiv 1 bmod p$$ by Lemma $mathbf{1}$, so we get
    $$|mathcal{X}| equiv S equiv 1 bmod p,$$
    which concludes our proof.






    share|cite|improve this answer



























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      I suspect that this is something well-known, but I am not aware
      of any specific references. Anyway, here is a proof.



      Theorem. Let $H$ be a $p$-subgroup of a group $G$, and suppose $p^t geq |H|$. Then the
      number of subgroups $X leq G$ such that $H leq X$ and $|X|=p^t$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$.



      Lemma 1. The theorem is true in the case where $p^t$ is the order of a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$.



      Proof. Let $H leq P in operatorname{Syl}_p(G)$ and induct on $|P:H|$.
      The result is trivial if $H=P$, so we can assume that $H < P$ and we let $N = N_P(H)$.
      Conjugation by $N$ permutes the Sylow $p$-subgroups that contain $H$.
      If $S$ is one of these and $N nleq S$, then $N$ does not normalise $S$,
      and so the $N$-orbit of $S$ has size divisible by $p$.
      Also, all members of this orbit fail to contain $N$,
      so we need only count the Sylow $p$-subgroups of $G$ that contain $N$,
      and since $N > H$, this number is congruent to $1 bmod p$ by the inductive hypothesis.



      Lemma 2. The theorem is true in the case where $G$ is a $p$-group.



      Proof. Induct on $|G:H|$. The result is trivial if $H=G$ so we can assume that $H<G$.
      We can also assume that $p^t < |G|$.
      Let $mathcal{X}$ and $mathcal{M}$, respectively, be the set of subgroups of order $p^t$ that contain $H$ and
      the set of maximal subgroups that contain $H$.
      We count in two ways the number $N$ of ordered pairs $(X,M)$ with
      $X in mathcal{X}$, $M in mathcal{M}$ and $X leq M$.



      First, $N$ is the sum over $X in mathcal{X}$ of the number of maximal subgroups that contain $X$.
      Also, $N$ is the sum over $M in mathcal{M}$ of the number of members of $mathcal{X}$ that are contained in $M$.
      It is easy to see that the number of maximal subgroups of $G$ that contain any given proper subgroup of $G$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$.
      The first formula for $N$ gives $N equiv |mathcal{X}| bmod p$ because the number of $M in mathcal{M}$
      containing any given member of $mathcal{X}$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$.
      By the inductive hypothesis, the number of members of $mathcal{X}$ contained in any given member of $mathcal{M}$ is congruent to $1$, so the second formula for $N$ gives $$N equiv |mathcal{M}| equiv 1 bmod p.$$
      Thus $$|mathcal{X}| equiv N equiv 1 bmod p,$$ as wanted.



      Proof of Theorem. Let $mathcal{X}$ be the set of subgroups of order $p^t$ that contain $H$ and let $mathcal{P}$ be the set of $P in operatorname{Syl}_p(G)$ that contain $H$. We count the number $S$ of pairs $(X,P)$, where $X in mathcal{X}$, $P in mathcal{P}$ and $X leq P$.



      First, $S$ is the sum over $X in mathcal{X}$ of the number of $P in mathcal{P}$ such that $X leq P$. Also, $S$ is the sum over $P in mathcal{P}$ of the number of $X in mathcal{X}$ such that $X leq P$. Since the number of $P$ containing a given $X$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$ by Lemma $mathbf{1}$, the first formula for $S$ yields $S equiv |mathcal{X}| bmod p$. The number of $X$ contained in a given $P$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$ by Lemma $mathbf{2}$, so the second formula for $S$ yields $S equiv |mathcal{P}| bmod p$.



      Also, $$|mathcal{P}| equiv 1 bmod p$$ by Lemma $mathbf{1}$, so we get
      $$|mathcal{X}| equiv S equiv 1 bmod p,$$
      which concludes our proof.






      share|cite|improve this answer

























        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        I suspect that this is something well-known, but I am not aware
        of any specific references. Anyway, here is a proof.



        Theorem. Let $H$ be a $p$-subgroup of a group $G$, and suppose $p^t geq |H|$. Then the
        number of subgroups $X leq G$ such that $H leq X$ and $|X|=p^t$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$.



        Lemma 1. The theorem is true in the case where $p^t$ is the order of a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$.



        Proof. Let $H leq P in operatorname{Syl}_p(G)$ and induct on $|P:H|$.
        The result is trivial if $H=P$, so we can assume that $H < P$ and we let $N = N_P(H)$.
        Conjugation by $N$ permutes the Sylow $p$-subgroups that contain $H$.
        If $S$ is one of these and $N nleq S$, then $N$ does not normalise $S$,
        and so the $N$-orbit of $S$ has size divisible by $p$.
        Also, all members of this orbit fail to contain $N$,
        so we need only count the Sylow $p$-subgroups of $G$ that contain $N$,
        and since $N > H$, this number is congruent to $1 bmod p$ by the inductive hypothesis.



        Lemma 2. The theorem is true in the case where $G$ is a $p$-group.



        Proof. Induct on $|G:H|$. The result is trivial if $H=G$ so we can assume that $H<G$.
        We can also assume that $p^t < |G|$.
        Let $mathcal{X}$ and $mathcal{M}$, respectively, be the set of subgroups of order $p^t$ that contain $H$ and
        the set of maximal subgroups that contain $H$.
        We count in two ways the number $N$ of ordered pairs $(X,M)$ with
        $X in mathcal{X}$, $M in mathcal{M}$ and $X leq M$.



        First, $N$ is the sum over $X in mathcal{X}$ of the number of maximal subgroups that contain $X$.
        Also, $N$ is the sum over $M in mathcal{M}$ of the number of members of $mathcal{X}$ that are contained in $M$.
        It is easy to see that the number of maximal subgroups of $G$ that contain any given proper subgroup of $G$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$.
        The first formula for $N$ gives $N equiv |mathcal{X}| bmod p$ because the number of $M in mathcal{M}$
        containing any given member of $mathcal{X}$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$.
        By the inductive hypothesis, the number of members of $mathcal{X}$ contained in any given member of $mathcal{M}$ is congruent to $1$, so the second formula for $N$ gives $$N equiv |mathcal{M}| equiv 1 bmod p.$$
        Thus $$|mathcal{X}| equiv N equiv 1 bmod p,$$ as wanted.



        Proof of Theorem. Let $mathcal{X}$ be the set of subgroups of order $p^t$ that contain $H$ and let $mathcal{P}$ be the set of $P in operatorname{Syl}_p(G)$ that contain $H$. We count the number $S$ of pairs $(X,P)$, where $X in mathcal{X}$, $P in mathcal{P}$ and $X leq P$.



        First, $S$ is the sum over $X in mathcal{X}$ of the number of $P in mathcal{P}$ such that $X leq P$. Also, $S$ is the sum over $P in mathcal{P}$ of the number of $X in mathcal{X}$ such that $X leq P$. Since the number of $P$ containing a given $X$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$ by Lemma $mathbf{1}$, the first formula for $S$ yields $S equiv |mathcal{X}| bmod p$. The number of $X$ contained in a given $P$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$ by Lemma $mathbf{2}$, so the second formula for $S$ yields $S equiv |mathcal{P}| bmod p$.



        Also, $$|mathcal{P}| equiv 1 bmod p$$ by Lemma $mathbf{1}$, so we get
        $$|mathcal{X}| equiv S equiv 1 bmod p,$$
        which concludes our proof.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        I suspect that this is something well-known, but I am not aware
        of any specific references. Anyway, here is a proof.



        Theorem. Let $H$ be a $p$-subgroup of a group $G$, and suppose $p^t geq |H|$. Then the
        number of subgroups $X leq G$ such that $H leq X$ and $|X|=p^t$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$.



        Lemma 1. The theorem is true in the case where $p^t$ is the order of a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$.



        Proof. Let $H leq P in operatorname{Syl}_p(G)$ and induct on $|P:H|$.
        The result is trivial if $H=P$, so we can assume that $H < P$ and we let $N = N_P(H)$.
        Conjugation by $N$ permutes the Sylow $p$-subgroups that contain $H$.
        If $S$ is one of these and $N nleq S$, then $N$ does not normalise $S$,
        and so the $N$-orbit of $S$ has size divisible by $p$.
        Also, all members of this orbit fail to contain $N$,
        so we need only count the Sylow $p$-subgroups of $G$ that contain $N$,
        and since $N > H$, this number is congruent to $1 bmod p$ by the inductive hypothesis.



        Lemma 2. The theorem is true in the case where $G$ is a $p$-group.



        Proof. Induct on $|G:H|$. The result is trivial if $H=G$ so we can assume that $H<G$.
        We can also assume that $p^t < |G|$.
        Let $mathcal{X}$ and $mathcal{M}$, respectively, be the set of subgroups of order $p^t$ that contain $H$ and
        the set of maximal subgroups that contain $H$.
        We count in two ways the number $N$ of ordered pairs $(X,M)$ with
        $X in mathcal{X}$, $M in mathcal{M}$ and $X leq M$.



        First, $N$ is the sum over $X in mathcal{X}$ of the number of maximal subgroups that contain $X$.
        Also, $N$ is the sum over $M in mathcal{M}$ of the number of members of $mathcal{X}$ that are contained in $M$.
        It is easy to see that the number of maximal subgroups of $G$ that contain any given proper subgroup of $G$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$.
        The first formula for $N$ gives $N equiv |mathcal{X}| bmod p$ because the number of $M in mathcal{M}$
        containing any given member of $mathcal{X}$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$.
        By the inductive hypothesis, the number of members of $mathcal{X}$ contained in any given member of $mathcal{M}$ is congruent to $1$, so the second formula for $N$ gives $$N equiv |mathcal{M}| equiv 1 bmod p.$$
        Thus $$|mathcal{X}| equiv N equiv 1 bmod p,$$ as wanted.



        Proof of Theorem. Let $mathcal{X}$ be the set of subgroups of order $p^t$ that contain $H$ and let $mathcal{P}$ be the set of $P in operatorname{Syl}_p(G)$ that contain $H$. We count the number $S$ of pairs $(X,P)$, where $X in mathcal{X}$, $P in mathcal{P}$ and $X leq P$.



        First, $S$ is the sum over $X in mathcal{X}$ of the number of $P in mathcal{P}$ such that $X leq P$. Also, $S$ is the sum over $P in mathcal{P}$ of the number of $X in mathcal{X}$ such that $X leq P$. Since the number of $P$ containing a given $X$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$ by Lemma $mathbf{1}$, the first formula for $S$ yields $S equiv |mathcal{X}| bmod p$. The number of $X$ contained in a given $P$ is congruent to $1 bmod p$ by Lemma $mathbf{2}$, so the second formula for $S$ yields $S equiv |mathcal{P}| bmod p$.



        Also, $$|mathcal{P}| equiv 1 bmod p$$ by Lemma $mathbf{1}$, so we get
        $$|mathcal{X}| equiv S equiv 1 bmod p,$$
        which concludes our proof.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Nov 22 at 12:00

























        answered Nov 22 at 11:54









        the_fox

        2,3191430




        2,3191430






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • 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.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2988760%2fnumber-of-p-subgroups-of-finite-group%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Ellipse (mathématiques)

            Quarter-circle Tiles

            Mont Emei