Can a nonabelian group of order p^3 be constructed for any prime p?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter joeblow
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the construction of a nonabelian group of order p^3 for any prime p. Participants explore theoretical aspects of group theory, particularly focusing on the properties of p-groups, their centers, and the implications of these properties on the structure of the groups.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that the center of a p-group G must be of order p, leading to the conclusion that G cannot be abelian if |Z(G)|=p.
  • Others argue that if |G/Z(G)|=p^2, then G must be abelian, which raises questions about the existence of nonabelian groups under these conditions.
  • One participant suggests that to construct G, it should contain a subgroup isomorphic to Z_p such that G/Z_p is isomorphic to Z_p × Z_p, which is the only noncyclic group of order p^2.
  • Another participant challenges the use of semidirect products in the construction, noting that they are not covered in the referenced algebra book.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of the correspondence theorem regarding normal subgroups and their relationship to the nonabelian nature of G.
  • There is a mention of the unit group of integral quaternions as a potential example of a nonabelian group.
  • Several participants express uncertainty about the validity of their arguments and the implications of their reasoning regarding the nonabelian nature of G.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the implications of the order of G/Z(G) and its relationship to the abelian nature of G. There is no consensus on how to construct a nonabelian group of order p^3 without invoking semidirect products, and multiple competing views remain on the topic.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their approaches due to the absence of semidirect products in their current study materials, which may restrict their ability to fully explore the construction of nonabelian groups.

joeblow
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
For any prime p how do I show that there is a nonabelian group of order p^3?

Since we are dealing with a p-group (call it G), its center is nontrivial (i.e., of order p,p^2, or p^3). Obviously, the center cannot have order p^3 (otherwise it's abelian). Also, if its center has order p^2, then |G/Z(G)|=p implying that G is cyclic and thus abelian. Another no-go.

Thus, |Z(G)|=p and Z(G) \cong \mathbb{Z}_p.

Now, I want G to be nonabelian, so I want a G containing Z_p such that G/\mathbb{Z}_p \cong \mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}_p (which would be the only noncyclic group of order p^2).

From here, I have no idea how to recover the original G. Also, semidirect products are off-limits for this problem. (I'm going through an old algebra book and the semidirect product is not introduced till after the section from which this problem comes.)

Any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First off, you seem to be misquoting the result that states "G/Z(G) cyclic ##\implies## G abelian". I guess you're using this to conclude that ##G/Z(G) = Z_p \times Z_p## in your fourth paragraph.

Anyway, if all you need to know is that a nonabelian group of order p^3 exists, then you can do this: choose x and y in G that generate G/Z(G). Show that they in fact generate G. Since x and y necessarily don't commute (why?), G must be nonabelian.

(In fact, if you go one step further and study the product xy, then you can probably write down G as a semidirect product.)
 
Last edited:
joeblow said:
For any prime p how do I show that there is a nonabelian group of order p^3?

Since we are dealing with a p-group (call it G), its center is nontrivial (i.e., of order p,p^2, or p^3). Obviously, the center cannot have order p^3 (otherwise it's abelian). Also, if its center has order p^2, then |G/Z(G)|=p implying that G is cyclic and thus abelian. Another no-go.

Thus, |Z(G)|=p and Z(G) \cong \mathbb{Z}_p.

Now, I want G to be nonabelian, so I want a G containing Z_p such that G/\mathbb{Z}_p \cong \mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}_p (which would be the only noncyclic group of order p^2).

From here, I have no idea how to recover the original G. Also, semidirect products are off-limits for this problem. (I'm going through an old algebra book and the semidirect product is not introduced till after the section from which this problem comes.)

Any ideas?



First of all, I have no idea how to help you without using semidirect products. Even writing down the specific Cayley Table would be, at

least for me, equivalent to use the semidirect product without mentioning it, or writing the group as generators and relations...all the same.

Here you have some intent at this, but eventually it comes down to semidirect products: http://www.math.chalmers.se/Math/Grundutb/GU/MMA200/A09/group3.pdf

The next paper also gives it a shot, though it begins by stating and proving that there are 5 non-isomorphic groups of order p^3, which is hardly "first principles". He also uses the Heisenberg groups:

http://www.math.uconn.edu/~kconrad/blurbs/grouptheory/groupsp3.pdf

Anyway, what old book are you using and where in it is this problem?

DonAntonio
 
joeblow said:
Also, semidirect products are off-limits for this problem. (I'm going through an old algebra book and the semidirect product is not introduced till after the section from which this problem comes.)
I can understand not invoking that machinery in your proof, but I see no reason why you wouldn't use the basic idea.
 
@morphism- In the fourth paragraph, since |G/Z(G)|=p^2, it must be abelian. That leaves two possibilities: either G/Z(G) \cong \mathbb{Z}_{p^2} or G/Z(G) \cong \mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}_p. Since \mathbb{Z}_{p^2} is cyclic, G/Z can only be isomorphic to it if G is abelian, right?

If this is so, and G/Z is abelian, how can I ever find generators of G/Z that don't commute?

@DonAntonio- It's from _Abstract Algebra_ by John Beachy and William Blair. Upon further inspection, semidirect products are not covered in the book at all. (!) I took the class from Prof. Beachy who did cover them during the course, but he must have given us supplemental notes.

@Hurkyl- This problem came from a section on conjugacy and the class equation. I figure there must be something easier since developing direct products would not have much to do with the topic in the section.
 
joeblow said:
@morphism- In the fourth paragraph, since |G/Z(G)|=p^2, it must be abelian. That leaves two possibilities: either G/Z(G) \cong \mathbb{Z}_{p^2} or G/Z(G) \cong \mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}_p. Since \mathbb{Z}_{p^2} is cyclic, G/Z can only be isomorphic to it if G is abelian, right?
Yep, that's right. I made that comment because you said "|G/Z(G)|=p implying that G is cyclic and thus abelian" in the second paragraph (what you should have said is "implying that G/Z is cyclic and thus G must be abelian"), so I wanted to make sure you understood the argument.

If this is so, and G/Z is abelian, how can I ever find generators of G/Z that don't commute?
True - the images of x and y in G/Z will commute. But that doesn't mean x and y (which are elements of G) must commute - and in fact, I'm claiming that they cannot.
 
By the correspondence theorem, I can show that the normal subgroups of G/Z(G) (\mathbb{Z}_p \times 0 and 0 \times \mathbb{Z}_p) correspond to the normal subgroups of G containing Z(G). Since there are two normal subgroups of G/Z(G), there are two distinct normal subgroups of G containing Z(G). The mere existence of these two normal subgroups implies that there are elements in G that are not also in Z(G). Thus, G is nonabelian.

Does this sound like a valid argument? Somehow I doubt it.

Edit: Nope. Totally begged the question. Maybe I can show that the normal subgroups mentioned are such that the intersection is 0 and the sum of the two groups has p^3 elements.
 
Last edited:
have you played with the unit group of integral quaternions? {±1, ±i, ±j, ±k}.
 
If you want to continue along the lines of my hint, then try to mimic the proof of the fact that G/Z cyclic => G abelian.
 
  • #10
We can assume that the center is nontrivial and thus if G has any hope of being nonabelian at all, then G/Z(G)\cong \mathbb{Z}_p\times \mathbb{Z}_p. However, taking inverse images of the generators of \mathbb{Z}_p\times\mathbb{Z}_p assumes that G is nonabelian to begin with, doesn't it? So, I must not quite understand what you're telling me.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K