Proving a Finite Group is Not Simple

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter tom.young84
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Finite Group
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that a finite group G is not simple under specific conditions. It establishes that if G acts on a finite set X with m elements, and the order of G does not divide m!, then G cannot be simple. The key approach involves examining the permutation representation of G, denoted as φ: G → S_X, and analyzing the kernel of this representation. If the kernel is not equal to G, it indicates that G has a non-trivial normal subgroup, confirming that G is not simple.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of finite group theory
  • Familiarity with group actions on sets
  • Knowledge of permutation representations
  • Concept of normal subgroups and kernels in group homomorphisms
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of permutation representations in group theory
  • Learn about normal subgroups and their significance in group structure
  • Explore the relationship between group order and the order of symmetric groups
  • Investigate the implications of the First Isomorphism Theorem in finite groups
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for mathematicians, particularly those specializing in abstract algebra, group theorists, and students studying finite group properties and their applications.

tom.young84
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
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:
Physics news on Phys.org
tom.young84 said:
Would it suffice to show that an isomorphism "f" exists from G to X?
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K