Is the 11-Sylow subgroup of G in the center of G?

  • Thread starter Thread starter e(ho0n3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Subgroup
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of the 11-Sylow subgroup of a group G of order 231, specifically whether this subgroup is contained in the center of G. Participants explore the implications of group orders and automorphisms in relation to the structure of G.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants examine the number of 11-Sylow subgroups and their implications for normality and cyclic properties. They discuss the action of G on H by conjugation and the order of related automorphisms. Questions arise regarding the implications of subgroup orders and the nature of conjugation.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active with various approaches being explored. Some participants have offered hints and guidance regarding the automorphism's order and its implications for subgroup centrality. There is an ongoing examination of the relationships between different subgroup orders and their actions on H.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential confusion regarding terminology and notation, particularly concerning the distinction between elements in G and those in H. There is also a recognition of the need to clarify assumptions about subgroup orders and their implications for the centralizer of H.

e(ho0n3
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
0
Homework Statement
If G is a group of order 231, prove that the 11-Sylow subgroup is in the center of G.

The attempt at a solution
The number of 11-Sylow subgroups is 1 + 11k and this number must be either 1, 3, 7, 21, 33, 77 or 231. Upon inspection, the only possibility is 1.

Let H be the 11-Sylow subgroup of G. Note that 3 * 7 * 11 = 231, so o(H) = 11 and H is cyclic. Furthermore, this is the only subgroup of order 11, so it must be normal. With these facts in mind, let a be a nonidentity element of H. For any g in G, we must have g-1ag = aj for some j in {1, 2, ..., 11}. Thus ag = gaj.

I don't know what to do next. Any tips?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What can you say about the order of the automorphism g -> g-1ag? (Hint: it's enough to consider those g's coming out of the 3- and 7-Sylows.)
 
If the order of g is 3 or 7, then the order of the automorphism must be 21. But now what?
 
Why do you say that?

By the way, there was a typo and an unfortunate choice of letters in my previous post. But I hope the idea got through though - we want to let G act on H by conjugation. That is, consider the automorphism f_g of H defined by f_g(x) = g-1xg. What is its order? (Hint: the map g->f_g is a homomorphism.)
 
I said 21 because because it is the least common multiple of 3 and 7. Thus, applying f_g 21 times to x will surely result in just x.
 
Sure, but does that mean the order of f_g is 21?

Here's another hint. If the order of g is 3, then the map g->f_g is an embedding from Z_3 into Aut(H)=~Z_10.
 
Sure, but does that mean the order of f_g is 21?

No. Let n be the order of fg. Then g-nagn = a or agn = gna. If g in H, then n must be 1. If g is in a 3-Sylow subgroup, then n must be 3 unless g commutes with elements from H. Is this possible?

Here's another hint. If the order of g is 3, then the map g->f_g is an embedding from Z_3 into Aut(H)=~Z_10.

Wait. Where did you get that Aut(H) =~ Z10? I thought Aut(H) =~ U11.
 
If U_11 is the group of invertibles of Z_11, then it's isomorphic to Z_10 (it's cyclic and has order phi(11)=10).
 
Oh yeah. Still, I don't see where you're going with this.
 
  • #10
Well, a subgroup is central iff conjugating it is a trivial action. Since H itself is abelian, we only need to worry about conjugation with elements outside of H. By Lagrange, the non-identity elements in G\H will lie in either the 3-Sylow or 7-Sylow.

Let's consider the 3-Sylow, call it P. The map g -> f_g is a homomorphism from P into Aut(H)=Z_11. An order argument will yield that f_g=1. Do the same for the 7-Sylow.
 
  • #11
morphism said:
By Lagrange, the non-identity elements in G\H will lie in either the 3-Sylow or 7-Sylow.
But the elements of G/H are cosets. I don't get.

Let's consider the 3-Sylow, call it P. The map g -> f_g is a homomorphism from P into Aut(H)=Z_11. An order argument will yield that f_g=1. Do the same for the 7-Sylow
You meant to write Z_10. I understand know. I did not suspect the order of f_g to be 1. I'll have to think about that.
 
  • #12
e(ho0n3 said:
morphism said:
By Lagrange, the non-identity elements in G\H will lie in either the 3-Sylow or 7-Sylow.

But the elements of G/H are cosets. I don't get.
I just realized you meant G - H when you wrote G\H. Sorry about that. Still, I don't see how Lagrange implies that though.
 
  • #13
Since Aut(H) is isomorphic to Z10, it has 10 elements, whence the order of fg must be either 1, 2, 5 or 10. And since we know that (fg)3 is the identity map (assuming g is an element of a 3-Sylow subgroup), we can rule out 2, 5, and 10, so its order must be 1.
 
  • #14
Yup.

You can disregard this bit:
By Lagrange, the non-identity elements in G\H will lie in either the 3-Sylow or 7-Sylow.
It's obviously nonsense. I don't know why I wrote it.

Anyway, to finish the argument, notice that f_g=1 for every g in P means that P is a subset of the centralizer of H. So...
 
  • #15
morphism said:
Anyway, to finish the argument, notice that f_g=1 for every g in P means that P is a subset of the centralizer of H. So...
I understand the rest. Thank you. However, we still have to show that every non-identity element in G - H has order 3 or order 7.
 
  • #16
e(ho0n3 said:
However, we still have to show that every non-identity element in G - H has order 3 or order 7.
No we don't. It's actually not true (think of an abelian counterexample). Initially I 'broke up' the group into elements of order 3, 7 and 11 to guide my intuition, but then I took it too far.

The point is, we can embed subgroups of order 3, 7 and 11 into the centralizer of H. So the centralizer must be the entire group. That's all there is to it.
 
  • #17
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "embed" or how that proves that C(H) = G. We have shown that if g has order 3 or 7, then it belongs to C(H). Does the same argument we used to show that the order of fg is 1 work for those g that have order 21, 33, or 77? This seems to be the case.
 
  • #18
morphism said:
That is, consider the automorphism f_g of H defined by f_g(x) = g-1xg.
I've been thinking, if f_g is an automorphism of H, then g must be in H and we can't really use it if g is not in H, which destroys the whole argument we've developed.
 
  • #19
Oh wait. I forgot that H is normal so g-1xg is in H for all x in H and g in G.
 
  • #20
OK. I've written down a solution which I'm content with. Thanks for the help morphism.
 
  • #21
No problem.

Just to clarify, by embed I basically meant "we can find an injective homomorphism." This is equivalent to 'embedding' a copy of one group into another.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K