Prove Finite Simple Group has no Subgroup of Index 5

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bham10246
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Finite Group
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a finite simple group of order greater than 5, which contains no elements of order 2, cannot have a subgroup of index 5. The scope includes theoretical exploration and mathematical reasoning related to group theory and Sylow's theorems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if G has a subgroup H of index 5, then the order of H must be odd, leading to contradictions based on the order of G.
  • Others argue that Lagrange's Theorem applies, stating that the index of a subgroup is defined as [G:H]=|G|/|H|, which is a point of clarification.
  • A participant mentions that a finite simple group cannot have a proper subgroup of index equal to a prime, referencing a theorem that states |G| divides [G:H]!.
  • Another participant suggests that if G has a subgroup of index 5, there exists a non-trivial homomorphism from G to S(5), leading to implications about the order of G.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of Sylow's theorems, particularly regarding the number of Sylow 5-subgroups and their properties.
  • There are mentions of contradictions arising from the assumption of the existence of such a subgroup, including references to elements of order 2 and the structure of G.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints and approaches, with no consensus reached on the proof. Multiple competing ideas and interpretations of theorems are presented, indicating an unresolved discussion.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the assumptions about the order of G and the properties of its subgroups, as well as the unresolved nature of some mathematical steps in the arguments presented.

bham10246
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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:
The index of s subgroup is indeed just the number of cosets - there is no requirement for the subgroup to be normal at all.
 
Kummer said:
A finite simple group is a finite group which has not non-trivial proper normal subgroup. So how it is possible for [tex](G<img src="/styles/physicsforums/xenforo/smilies/arghh.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":H" title="Gah! :H" data-shortname=":H" />)=5[/tex] if that expression is only defined for groups [tex]H[/tex] so that [tex]H\triangleleft G[/tex] unless [tex]H=\{ e \}[/tex]. But then that is trivial. So perhaps you mean to ask the group is a finite group.
What?

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.
 
bham10246 said:
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.
@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.
 
Kummer said:
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.
What if b=0 (which it must be, by Sylow)?
 
morphism said:
What if b=0 (which it must be, by Sylow)?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
  • #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:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K