MHB Inequality related to number of p-Sylow subgroups

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

I want to show that if $G$ is finite and $f:G\rightarrow H$ is a group epimorphism then $|\text{Syl}_p(G)|\geq |\text{Syl}_p(H)|$. I have done the following:

Since $f:G\rightarrow H$ is a group epimorphism, from the first isomorphism theorem we have that $H$ is isomorphism to $G/\ker f$.

So, $|H|=|G/\ker f|=\frac{|G|}{|\ker f|}$, so $|H| |\ker f|=|G|$.

That means that $|H|\mid |G|$.

From the prime factorizations of $|H|$ and $|G|$, all power of primes of $|H|$ must be smaller than or equal to the corresponding of $|G|$.
Let $|H|=p^ma$ and $|G|=p^nb$, where $p\not\mid a$ and $p\not\mid b$.
Then it must hold that $m\leq n$. How is this related to the number of $p$-Sylow subgroups? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
Hey! :o

I want to show that if $G$ is finite and $f:G\rightarrow H$ is a group epimorphism then $|\text{Syl}_p(G)|\geq |\text{Syl}_p(H)|$. I have done the following:

Since $f:G\rightarrow H$ is a group epimorphism, from the first isomorphism theorem we have that $H$ is isomorphism to $G/\ker f$.

So, $|H|=|G/\ker f|=\frac{|G|}{|\ker f|}$, so $|H| |\ker f|=|G|$.

That means that $|H|\mid |G|$.

From the prime factorizations of $|H|$ and $|G|$, all power of primes of $|H|$ must be smaller than or equal to the corresponding of $|G|$.
Let $|H|=p^ma$ and $|G|=p^nb$, where $p\not\mid a$ and $p\not\mid b$.
Then it must hold that $m\leq n$. How is this related to the number of $p$-Sylow subgroups? (Wondering)

Let $G$ be a finite group and $N$ be a normal subgroup of $G$. We will show that the number of Sylow $p$-subgroups of $G$ is at least the number of Sylow $p$-subgroups of $G/N$. From here the problem you have posted can be easily solved.
Let $|G|=p^am$, and $|N|=p^bn$, where $m$ and $n$ are relatively prime to $p$. Let $B$ be a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G/N$. Then there is a subgroup $Q$ of $G$ such that $QN/N=B$. It is easy to see that $|QN|=p^{a}n$. Therefore $QN$ contains a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$.

Claim.
Let $Q$ be a subgroup of $G$ such that $QN/N$ is a Sylow $p$-subgorup of $G$. Let $P$ be a Sylow $p$-subgorup of $G$ contained in $QN$. Then $PN=QN$.
Proof. Note that $|PN/N|= |P|/|P\cap N|$. Thus $|PN/N|\geq p^{a}/p^{b}$. This inequality cannot be strict and thus we must have $|PN|=p^a n = |QN|$. Since $PN\leq QN$, we conclude that $PN=QN$.

Now suppose $Q_1N/N, \ldots, Q_kN/N$ be all the Sylow $p$-subgroups of $G/N$, where $Q_1, \ldots, Q_k$'s are some subgroups of $G$. For each $i$, let $P_i$ be a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$ contained in $Q_iN$. We claim that $P_1, \ldots, P_k$ are pairwise distinct. To see this, suppose $P_i=P_j$. Then $P_iN=P_jN$, which by the above claim gives $Q_iN=Q_jN$. This means $Q_iN/N=Q_jN/N$, forcing $i=j$.

This completes the proof.
 
You can also (in a non-rigorous way) think of it like this: an epimorphism $f:G \to H$ might "shrink" some of the Sylow $p$-subgroups of $G$ to a subgroup that is no longer "big enough" to be a Sylow $p$-subgroup of $H$ (this depends on the size of $P \cap \text{ker }f$, for $P \in \text{Syl}_p(G)$), but you're never going to get "more" since every subgroup of $H$ comes from a subgroup of $G$ "over $\text{ker }f$".

In other words, just by preserving the multiplicative property, homomorphisms also preserve certain containment relationships between subgroups of $G$ reflected in $H$, this is often expressed by saying we have a "lattice homomorphism" (most texts on group theory don't discuss lattices as algebraic structures, so they express this other ways).

(maybe someone else can draw a picture).
 
Thread 'How to define a 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 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
970
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
748
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K