Conjugacy class with two elements in G implies that G is not simple

  • Thread starter Thread starter 3029298
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Class Elements
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
5 replies · 3K views
3029298
Messages
56
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


If some conjugacy class of an element in a group G contains precisely two elements, show that G cannot be a simple group.

The Attempt at a Solution


This question was longer, with two questions before this one which I could answer and which probably lead to the answer on this question.

I showed that for an element x in G the elements of G which commute with x, form a subgroup C(x) of G, called the centralizer. I also proved that the size of the conjugacy class of x is equal to the number of left cosets of C(x) in G. But now for the last question, I need a hint.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What can you say about a subgroup of index 2?
 
rochfor1 said:
What can you say about a subgroup of index 2?
A subgroup H<G of index two is normal, since if you take x in G, H and xH partition G and H and Hx partition G, which gives Hx=xH, and H is normal. If I have a normal subgroup of index 2, that means that the order of this subgroup is half of the order of G, which cannot be {e} or G, unless G={e}. This is not the case, since a conjugacy class of G contains two distinct elements. Therefore H is a normal subgroup which is not {e} or all of G, hence G is not simple.

Is this correct? Thanks for helping me out in your free time!
 
But how do you know you have a subgroup of index two? Otherwise you are correct.
 
rochfor1 said:
But how do you know you have a subgroup of index two? Otherwise you are correct.
Because I proved earlier that the index of the centralizer C(x) is the same as the order of the conjugacy class of x, and C(x) is a subgroup.
Thanks thanks :)
 
Exactly, I figured you knew why, you just hadn't explicitly stated it. Don't thank me too much; I just gave a nudge in the right direction.