1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Finite Simple Group

  1. Aug 6, 2007 #1
    Question: Suppose that [itex]G[/itex] is a finite simple group of order greater than [itex]5[/itex] that contains no elements of order [itex]2[/itex]. Prove that [itex]G[/itex] contains no subgroup of index [itex]5[/itex].

    Attempt: Suppose G has a subgroup H of index 5, i.e., [G:H]=5. Since 2 doesn't divide |G|, 2 doesn't divide |H|. So the order of H (and the order of G) is odd.

    If |H|=1, then |G|=5 x |H|= 5. This is a contradiction because |G|>5. So |H|> 2.

    Now if [itex]|G|=(5^a) m [/itex] where [itex]5 \not | m[/itex], then for [itex]n_5 = \#(Sylow\: 5\: subgroups)[/itex], [itex]n_5 | m [/itex] implies that [itex]n_5[/itex] is odd. If [itex]n_5 =1 [/itex], this contradicts that G is simple. So [itex]n_5 \geq 3[/itex].

    From Sylow's theorem, we also know that [itex]n_5 \equiv 1 \mod 5[/itex]. So the last digit of [itex]n_5[/itex] must be 1.

    Okay, I think this is the correct approach but I don't see any contradiction. Please help...

    Thank you.
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 6, 2007 #2
    I thought that given a finite group G and any subgroup H of G, we have [G:H]=|G|/|H| according to Lagrange's Theorem. Maybe it's my mistake?

    I just looked up Lagrange's Theorem and I think for any subgroup H, the index of H in G is defined as [G:H]=|G|/|H|.
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2007
  4. Aug 6, 2007 #3

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    The index of s subgroup is indeed just the number of cosets - there is no requirement for the subgroup to be normal at all.
  5. Aug 6, 2007 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper


    As for the original question, there is a theorem that states: If G is a finite simple group and H is a proper subgroup of G, then |G| divides [G:H]! (factorial).

    This should help you out.

    Another result that could be used is: If G is a finite group and p is the smallest prime divisor of |G|, then any subgroup of index p in G is normal.

    Both results can be proved using group actions.
  6. Aug 6, 2007 #5
    @matt_grime. A mistake I made.

    You got it. The last digit must be one. Now [tex]G=5^am[/tex] since [tex]n_5|G[/tex] it means [tex]n_5=5^bc[/tex] where [tex]c|m[/tex] and [tex]b\leq a[/tex]. But [tex]5^bc[/tex] never ends in 1.
  7. Aug 6, 2007 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    What if b=0 (which it must be, by Sylow)?
  8. Aug 6, 2007 #7
    Then we have,
    [tex]c\equiv 1 (\bmod 5)[/tex] by Sylow's third theorem.
    But [tex]c[/tex] is odd because "G has no element of order 2".

    It seems I am missing something, very tired right now. But it makes sense to me now.

    EDIT: Yes, a mistake. Because c=11, is not a contradiction.
  9. Aug 7, 2007 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    duhhh, now i remember a main point of the course i taught last year.:

    if a group G has a sub group H of index n, then there is a non trivial map G-->S(n) given by the action of G on by translation, on the cosets of H.

    hence if G has a subgroup of index 5, there is a non trivial homomorphism G-->S(5).

    But if G is simple it is injective, then G has order less than 60, i.e. G is isomorphic to A(5), which has an element of order 2, contradiction to hypothesis.
  10. Aug 7, 2007 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Yeah, that's basically the proof of the |G| divides [G:H]! thing.

    Once you embed G in S(5), you can finish it off differently by concluding that |G|=15, and then:
    1) S_5 doesn't have a subgroup of order 15. Contradiction.
    2) G =~ C_15, which is not simple (because the only simple abelian groups are the prime cyclic ones), or
    3) G has an element of order 5 by Cauchy, and thus a subgroup of index 3 which must be normal (by the second result I posted). So again G cannot be simple.
  11. Aug 10, 2007 #10
    Thanks for all your help! I was traveling for a few days but I'm back into the studying mode. Yes, you guys are right. You're absolutely right! :cool:
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Finite Simple Group
  1. Finite Group (Replies: 2)

  2. Finite group (Replies: 3)

  3. Finite groups (Replies: 2)