MHB Abstract Algebra Sylow Subgroup

DavidL
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I have a question about abstract algebra so if someone could help me answering this question please ...

Suppose P,P' are 3-Sylow subgroup, and let Q be their intersection and N the normalizer of Q. Problem: Explain why is the order of N divisible by 9 ?

Thanks for your help.

Regards,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: Abstrat Algebra Sylow Subgroup

Well, in general, that's not TRUE: for example, if $P$ is normal with $|P| = 3$ in the group $G$, then $P = P' = Q$ and $N_G(P) = G$, and $9 \not\mid |G|$ (or else $P$ would have larger order).

Are you leaving part of the problem out?
 
Re: Abstrat Algebra Sylow Subgroup

Thanks for your answer but what is NG(P)=G please ?
 
Re: Abstrat Algebra Sylow Subgroup

$N_G(P)$ means the normalizer of $P$ in $G$. If $P$ is a normal subgroup, then all of $G$ normalizes $P$.
 
Re: Abstrat Algebra Sylow Subgroup

Ok but in the case of the order of G is 180.
Suppose that P,P' are 3 Sylow subgroup and let Q be there intersection and N the normalizer of Q.

Explain why is the order of N divisible by 9 ?Thanks :-)
 
Re: Abstrat Algebra Sylow Subgroup

That's a different story, now we have some more information to go on.

First, we factor 180 into primes:

$180 = 2^2\cdot 3^2\cdot 5$

This tells us that the sylow 3-subgroups have order 9.

You're probably trying to show that $G$ has a nontrivial proper normal subgroup (that is: that $G$ is not simple), so let's assume the sylow 3-subgroups are not normal in $G$.

Now, here, we can use a "trick": any group of order 9 is abelian, which means that $Q$ is normal in $P$, which means in particular, that $P$ normalizes $Q$ so that $P \subseteq N(Q)$.

Hence, by Lagrange, $9 = |P|$ divides $|N(Q)|$.
 
Thread 'How to define vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
356
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
709
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
785
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
725
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K