Question regarding sylow subgroups

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter geor
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion revolves around proving that the intersection of a Sylow p-subgroup P and a normal subgroup N of a group G, denoted as P ∩ N, is itself a Sylow p-subgroup of N. The participants reference the "conjugacy part" of Sylow's theorem as outlined in 'Algebra' by Dummit and Foote, which states that p-subgroups of G are subgroups of a conjugate of a Sylow p-subgroup in G. The conversation also touches on the implications of normality in relation to the second isomorphism theorem and concludes with a related exercise about showing that PN/N is a Sylow p-subgroup of G/N.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Sylow's theorems, specifically the conjugacy part.
  • Familiarity with normal subgroups and their properties.
  • Knowledge of the second isomorphism theorem in group theory.
  • Basic concepts of group theory, including p-subgroups and cardinality arguments.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the "conjugacy part" of Sylow's theorem in detail.
  • Explore the second isomorphism theorem and its applications in group theory.
  • Investigate examples of Sylow p-subgroups in various groups.
  • Practice exercises involving intersections of subgroups and their properties.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for graduate students in algebra, particularly those studying group theory, as well as educators and researchers looking to deepen their understanding of Sylow subgroups and normal subgroups.

geor
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Hello everybody,

I I have an exercise here that I'm really stuck with..

Let P be in Syl_p(G) and assume N is a normal subgroup of G. Use the conjugacy part of Sylow's theorem to prove that P intesect N is a Sylow p-subgroup of N.

The "conjugacy part" in this book ('Algebra' by Dummit, Foote) is about
p-subgroups of G being subgroups of a conjugate of a Sylow p-subgroup
in G.

I tried some different approaches but can't get nowhere..
Using the "conjugacy part of the thm" for P intersect N has no
use since already P intersect N is a subgroup of P itself, so
we have to use it for another subgroup.

I also considered Q a sylow p-subgroup of N. Eventually I would
like to show that Q and (P intersect N) have the same cardinality.
Well, (P intersect N) is a p-subgroup of N and Q is a sylow p-subgrp of N
so that from "the conjugacy part of Sylow's thm" we have that
(P intersect N) is a subgroup of a conjugate of Q in G, that is,
(P intersect N) <= gQg^-1, some g in G.
That seems to be something but can't go more far..


Finally, the fact that N is normal smells like 2nd iso theorem..
From this, we deduce that (P intersect N) is normal sbgrp of P
and N is a normal sbgrp of NP.. Also
P / (P intersect N) is isomorphic to NP / N.
So we can play with the cardinalities.
But can't think of anything else :(

Any ideas or hints highly appreciated!
Thanks in advance!

PS. I wasn't sure if I should post this in the 'homework' section. This is an exercise
given in a first year graduate course in Algebra and I think that it shouldn't be put
with "calculus and beyond" questions..


EDIT: Actually the exercise has another part: "Deduce that PN/N is a sylow p-sbgrp of G/N".
Well, there is a chance that we don't need the normality of N to show the first part of the question (the thing that I asked)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
im a little sleepy but it seems kind of obvious. take any p subgroup of N and enlarge it to a sylow subgroup of G which is conjugate to your sylow subgroup, so your p group is conjugate to a subgroup of your p group intersected with N, so that bthing is maximal, hence sylow. ?
 
Oh well..
'm sleepy too, maybe that's why I didn't understand... :(

Could you please use some letters?

Let's take an p-subgroup H<N.
When you say 'enlarge it' you mean 'see it as' right (forgive my english)?
So, H<K where K = g P g^-1.

So H is conjugate to a subgroup of H intersected with N?
I don't understand that..

Sorry for the lack of understanding, maybe it will be more clear
tomorrow when I wake up :)
 

Similar threads

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