A detail in a proof about isomorphism classes of groups of order 21

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of groups of order 21 in the context of abstract algebra, specifically focusing on the normality of a Sylow 7-subgroup as derived from the Third Sylow Theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are exploring the reasoning behind the normality of the Sylow 7-subgroup, questioning the implications of having a unique subgroup of that order.

Discussion Status

Some participants express uncertainty about why the existence of a single Sylow 7-subgroup implies it must be normal. Others are attempting to clarify definitions and properties related to normal subgroups and conjugation.

Contextual Notes

There is a reference to the Third Sylow Theorem and its implications for the number of Sylow subgroups, which is central to the discussion. Participants are also considering the appropriateness of the thread's placement within the forum.

Whovian
Messages
651
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement



While reading through my textbook on abstract algebra while studying for a test, I ran across the following statement:

There are two isomorphism classes of groups of order 21: the class of ##C_{21}##, and the class of a group ##G## generated by two elements ##x## and ##y## that satisfy the relations ##x^7=1##, ##y^3=1##, ##yx=x^2y##

along with a proof of this statement. The proof looks fairly reasonable, only there's a bit I don't quite understand:

"The Third Sylow Theorem shows us that the Sylow 7-subgroup ##K## [existence and uniqueness guaranteed by the Third Sylow Theorem] must be normal ..."

Specifically, why must ##K\trianglelefteq G##?

Homework Equations



Third Sylow Theorem: If ##G## is a group of order ##n<\aleph_0##, where ##n=p^e\cdot m## for some ##e>0## and ##\lnot\left(p|m\right)##, for some prime ##p##, and ##s## is the number of Sylow ##p##-subgroups of ##G##, then ##s|m## and ##s\equiv1\pmod p##.

The Attempt at a Solution



Fairly nonexistent; I can't think of any reason this subgroup must be normal.

(If this post would be more appropriate in the linear & abstract algebra section, feel free to move it there.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Whovian said:

Homework Statement



While reading through my textbook on abstract algebra while studying for a test, I ran across the following statement:

There are two isomorphism classes of groups of order 21: the class of ##C_{21}##, and the class of a group ##G## generated by two elements ##x## and ##y## that satisfy the relations ##x^7=1##, ##y^3=1##, ##yx=x^2y##

along with a proof of this statement. The proof looks fairly reasonable, only there's a bit I don't quite understand:

"The Third Sylow Theorem shows us that the Sylow 7-subgroup ##K## [existence and uniqueness guaranteed by the Third Sylow Theorem] must be normal ..."

Specifically, why must ##K\trianglelefteq G##?

Homework Equations



Third Sylow Theorem: If ##G## is a group of order ##n<\aleph_0##, where ##n=p^e\cdot m## for some ##e>0## and ##\lnot\left(p|m\right)##, for some prime ##p##, and ##s## is the number of Sylow ##p##-subgroups of ##G##, then ##s|m## and ##s\equiv1\pmod p##.

The Attempt at a Solution



Fairly nonexistent; I can't think of any reason this subgroup must be normal.

(If this post would be more appropriate in the linear & abstract algebra section, feel free to move it there.)

Use what they are saying about ##s## to show there must be only one 7-subgroup. So?
 
There must be a 7-subgroup; I just don't see why it must be a normal subgroup.
 
Whovian said:
There must be a 7-subgroup; I just don't see why it must be a normal subgroup.

Use the definition of normal. There is only ONE 7-subgroup.
 
I'm used to normal being defined as "closed under conjugation by elements of G." Is there a different or equivalent definition I'm missing or something else obvious which makes clear that only one 7-subgroup existing means said subgroup is normal? (Knowing me, most likely.)
 
If you conjugate a subgroup, the result is another subgroup of the same size. So if there's only one subgroup of order 7...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K