Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Group actions

  1. Dec 9, 2009 #1
    I found this problem, and I was wondering if I'm on the right approach.

    Let G be a finite group on a finiste set X with m elelements. Suppose there exist a g[tex]\in[/tex]G and x[tex]\in[/tex]X such that gx not equal to x. Suppose the order of G does not divide m!. Prove that G is not simple.

    Would it suffice to show that an isomorphism "f" exists from G to X? Then we just need to prove two cases about the Ker(f). We need to show that Ker(f) can't just be the identity because then it would be an infinite group being isomorphic to a finite group. If the Ker(f)=G, then some stuff. Sorry for the informality, I'm not actually sure what happens if Ker(f)=G.
    Last edited: Dec 9, 2009
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 10, 2009 #2
    What would that mean? X isn't necessarily a group, just a set.

    Instead try to consider the permutation representation,
    [tex]\varphi : G \to S_X[/tex]
    afforded by the group action. We are told that for some g, [itex]\varphi(g)\not= 1[/itex] which tells you [itex]\ker \varphi \not= G[/itex]. If [itex]\ker\varphi=1[/itex], then [itex]\varphi[/itex] is an embedding so what is the order of [itex]\varphi(G)[/itex] and how does it relate to [itex]|S_X|[/itex]? Use this to show |G| divides [itex]|S_X| = m![/itex] which is a contradiction.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Threads - Group actions Date
I Wording of a group action Mar 30, 2017
I Representation of group actions Mar 8, 2017
Definition of regular Lie group action Feb 3, 2016
Klein Four Group's action Oct 16, 2014
Question about invariant w.r.t. a group action Sep 23, 2014